Why do you think that taking note of homophobia in _one_ passage from _Minima Moralia_ is the same as rendering _the entirety of Adorno's thought_ homophobic? Why so much shock & horror at my taking notice of homophobia, orientalism, or whatnot in this or that passage of Adorno? Take a look at Marx & Engels's private correspondences, and you'll see much more of homophobia, etc.:
***** New Statesman, Book Reviews Tariq Ali Monday 20th September 1999
Karl Marx Francis Wheen Fourth Estate, 432pp, £20
ISBN 1857026373
...Marx and Engels often berated the German Social Democratic Party for its lack of militancy, but where a layer of the SDP was genuinely advanced was in the realm of sexuality. In 1895 Eduard Bernstein defended Oscar Wilde in the party newspaper. In January 1898, August Bebel became the first member of the Reichstag to introduce a resolution in favour of homosexual law reform. Others, such as Hirschfeld and Ulrich, had earlier produced numerous pamphlets in defence of homosexuality.
One of these was sent by Engels to Marx, who responded thus: "Here are the most unnatural revelations. The pederasts are beginning to count themselves and find that they make up a power in the state. Only the organisation is lacking, but according to this it already exists in secret. And since they count such significant men, in all the old and even the new parties, from Rosing to Schweitzer, they cannot fail to succeed. Guerre aux cons, paix aux trous-de-cul will be the call now. It is only luck that we are personally too old to have to fear that on the victory of this party we'll have to pay the victors bodily tribute. But the young generation! Moreover, only in Germany is it possible for such a fellow to appear, transform filthiness into a theory, and solicit."... *****
On Lou's marxism list, some are busy 'historicizing' the above. I, for one, see no reason to go through mental contortions and come up with a 'proper historical and/or textual context' defence of every bit of Marx & Engels's writings in order to make use of their works. For the same reason, I see no need to adopt a reverential attitude to Adorno and to try always to come up with the most charitable reading of every fragment of his works as seems recommended by some here.
I do think that Adorno is left-Hegelian and for this reason he's much less interesting to me than to you, and in fact I also think (and have argued) that left-Hegelianism doesn't have a good critique of 'identity' or whatever you might call it. That's a larger issue to which only Jim H responded.
Yoshie