Well, one has to frame it correctly. Homophobia is considered two-fold. One being that of self loathing within the homosexual themselves, or those exploring their homoerotic thoughts and feelings, and the other being what we commonly associate with the term. In certain circles, as CT mentions, it is true that people that met otherwise normally functioning homosexuals in casual meetings tend to lose their contempt of homosexuality, however, contempt is only one part of the equation. The first understanding of homophobia is a fairly easy case to make for the innate, built-in mechanism for an aversion to homosexual behavior, and it seems logical from many standpoints. The second however, isn't as easy to explain away. I think, even in these circles, the homophobic person, losing their homophobia after meeting with, and relating to the homosexual, is only ever ceasing their fear, or contempt. Their disgust, or ancillary reaction to homosexual sex is still very present, and it is this aspect, that closely relates to the inborn mechanism to veer from homosexuality in general.
The question often raised is, would there ever be homosexuals, if there were no frame of reference? Conversely, would there ever be homophobia? If one accepts that homoeroticism is manifestly a human expression, much the same way one touches themselves for the first time, and homosexuality is an off-shoot (For lack of a better term) of self exploration, then it bolds well, at least logically that, homophobia is the mechanism that determines our sexual identity as we mature. For those that express homophobia strongly, the mature outcome of the individual is probably heterosexual, for those that do not, the outcome is likely homosexual. Or, even if we possess a strong homophobic trait, we can still be homosexual, but confined to it. This is the self loathing homosexual, or closet variety perhaps?
Touching ourselves is a natural explorative process in human sexuality, and we do it very early. It, along with the whole concept of innate homosexuality, is difficult to nail down because of the environmental influences. Chicken or the egg comes to mind. Would, homosexuality ever manifest without any knowledge of homosexuality? Would homophobia likewise, ever manifest if there were never any reason to find disgust, or contempt for it in society? Either way, they are closely bound together in every meaningful way that I can see, and if not environmentally expressed, then they (Homosexuality/homophobia) both are innate, and if not innate, then they are both environmentally conditioned.
I will say though that it is my opinion that homophobia appears more environmentally staged, but that could simply be a manifestation of the predominance of those that would naturally express the trait in society. As a result, the prevalence of homophobic individuals expressing the trait past (and to some the extreme) that of a natural aversion to one's own self identified homoerotic inclination, is amplified by those in society that are outspoken, and setting the terms and conditions by which people feel they should themselves feel about homosexuality. Band wagon perhaps? However, the fundamental understanding of the close relationship between homosexuality, and homophobia should not be diminished by the tendency for society to collectively misinterpret a natural expression, and the purpose of that natural expression to homophobia.
Tim-
