"You know, the problem is this," Mr. Brooks explained: "I could not even think of having a partner. I mean, it would have destroyed everything. I can literally see how I would have changed in their eyes and they would have taken him away from me.

Mr. Brooks, a successful business man who contributed greatly to charity, had volunteered several years earlier to work for the Red Cross in a Bosnian displaced persons' camp. There he met Ronnie who had been separated from his family during the war and had managed to survive on his own. From the very first day they met, Ronnie seemed to be comfortable around Mr. Brooks who had the impression that the young boy sought his closeness. Mr. Brooks allowed Ronnie to accompany him on his different duties and Ronnie took pride in being his translator whenever Mr. Brooks spoke with people who spoke Ronnie's dialect.

When Mr. Brooks returned to Germany, he asked whether he could take Ronnie with him to Munich under the auspices of the Red Cross. He planned to find Ronnie a home until the war ended and the fate of his family could be established. Everybody supported this plan, including the German Family Services who organized a place for Ronnie in the local orphanage. As a boy who had been able to flee from terrible conditions by relying on himself, Ronnie had not only developed a sense of autonomy that clashed with the rules of an orphanage, he also wanted "a real home."

Mr. Brooks was asked by one of the official agencies whether he would become Ronnie's foster parent. "It may be only for a few years - and the way he behaves around you proves how good a relationship the two of you have. We feel he would greatly benefit from living with you." When his company agreed that he could do much of his work from an office established in his house, Mr. Brooks said yes to the request. To make the legal conditions less complicated the social worker explained to Mr. Brooks that he might consider adopting Ronnie. "He would be more like your son, you know." Mr. Brooks felt duty-bound to do whatever he could to secure Ronnie's existence and agreed to the adoption. The local newspaper wanted to interview him and praise him for his brave willingness to adopt a boy and become a single parent, but Mr. Brooks felt it was not wise to be so very public about it all.

Things really did seem easier once they carried the same name. They enjoyed the irony of people's comments about how much Ronnie resembled his father and Mr. Brooks felt he had accomplished what he had hoped for, namely that Ronnie have a new home, a real home, safe and final.

It had taken more than 2 years to establish contact to Ronnie's family. They were very relieved to hear that their son was alive and that he had been "rescued" and raised by a "new father" in Germany. They could not wait to meet the man towards whom they felt such great gratitude. Ronnie was 18 when he and Mr. Brooks took their first trip to his former home where they both were embraced and bathed in tears by Ronnie's parents.

"Can you imagine what would have happened had the community service found out that I was gay? Child abuse! That's what they would have thought. The newspaper headline 'Businessman with great heart adopts boy who lost his family' would have turned into 'Pervert goes to Bosnia to find himself a toy'. Or can you imagine that his mother and father embrace this pervert when he brings back their child?"

To what degree does his homosexuality "define" Mr. Brooks' abilities to be a good father?

I dare say that being homosexual does not define who one is, but it does define whom one is taken for. What makes this situation even more complicated is the fact that homosexuality does not exist. The whole concept is based on false assumptions which have born terrible consequences for many individuals.

Let me explain what I mean. The term "homo-sexuality" obviously contains the two terms: 'homo', which is the Greek word for 'same' - and 'sexuality.' In a psychoanalytic context, sexuality is understood to mean "object choice," but it frequently implies the biological concept of mating and propagation. Homosexuality is therefore defined within this context as an object choice based upon the congruence of the gender of the chosen object with the gender of the choosing subject. To be more specific, the concept holds that the other is not chosen for who he or she is, but only in relation to whether s-he is "same" or "different" in relation to one's own sex. This misunderstanding and misrepresentation eased the way for the equally false assumptive claim that the homosexual object choice is "Narciss-istic"[1] in nature. Is it true though that as a gay man I look at my own genitals and then go out to find a mate whose genitals are "the same?" Or is it so that Andrew falls in love with Daniel because Daniel is a man? I love a man because he is a man, not because I am a man.

I believe we would benefit from a terminology that does the process of object choice justice. For example, let us call a woman who loves a man "androphile" because her love is directed towards a man. And let us equally call a man who loves a man "androphile." Let us call a man who loves a woman "gynaecophile" and a woman who loves a woman "gynaecophile."

Doing so would primarily mean that we define object choice from the perspective of who is chosen. We would not call a painter who collects Picasso a narcissistic homo. We would call him a connoisseur and Picasso-lover.

Secondly, the division between the heterosexual world and the homosexual world fall to the way side. Calling gynaecophile women and androphile men "homosexuals" carries with it the notion that they have something very central in common, their process of object choice. Above, we established that this is not the case. The new terminology of calling a person who loves a man a "man-lover" and he/she who loves a woman a "woman-lover," independent of his/her own sex, may be more representative of the process of object choice and it may open up new areas of curiosity, research and psychoanalytic understanding of men and women, androphile as well as gynaecophile.

Rectifying the terminology this way might be useful but it raises many important questions and answers very few. For instance, what do we know about Mr. Brooks when we know that he is "androphile?" How does it affect his work life, how does it affect his volunteer work for the Red Cross, how does it affect his abilities to be a good father to Ronnie? It doesn't affect these in any way. How much are his values and ideals, his talents and his goals in life determined by his ability to love a man? Zero. It will require more space than I have here to unpack this zero influence. Let me just briefly state, however, that Mr. Brooks' Protestant upbringing in a family where the 2 sons had to be raised by their grandmother because their mother had to work to make ends meet had a much greater influence on Mr. Brooks' personality development and important life decisions than anything else.

If homosexuality does not exist and if "androphile" or "gynaecophile" don't mean much at all - why give it names in the first place? For one thing, the name makes some social interactions easier. When I am approached by a woman who wants to set up a date with me, I do not have to say, "You know, you are really not my type." I can simply say. "I am androphile." That makes it easier for her. Is that enough of a reason to call gay men gay, as if that was of any informative value?

If we cannot call a gay man "a flaming homosexual" or "gay" or "queer" or "faggot" anymore, but can only call all men "men," that will have major consequences. We cannot yell "gay queer faggot" at them anymore in the streets. And that might be a real loss.