|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Homophobia: the meaning and use of the word
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
In my recent discussions with Louise and Rex Monday on the Dead Horses thread “Homosexuality and Christianity”, we debated briefly the precise meaning and use of the word homophobia. I described it there, in something of a knee-jerk reaction, as a “meaningless boo word”.
I have now had an opportunity to reflect further on what I understand by the word homophobia. This question has also cropped up recently between other people on other threads. I have therefore started this thread specifically to discuss the precise meaning and usage of the term homophobia.
Rather than a huge OP, here is a link to a long discussion document that examines dictionary and encyclopaedia definitions. Here are the conclusions in my document:
quote:
There is considerable blurring of the definition of the word homophobia in current usage, with a more precise meaning coexisting alongside a much looser meaning. This blurring explains my unfavourable reaction to Louise’s description of the Admiral Duncan pub bomber David Copland as a homophobe.
Louise was using the word in its tighter definition, describing behaviour towards homosexual people motivated by irrational fear, evident hatred and unjust discrimination. The thought sequence is: you are opposing homosexuality; I have independently established that you are irrational, hateful or unjust; therefore you are homophobic. Thus Louise made a fair comment about David Copland.
I understood the word in its looser definition, “any opposition to homosexuality”, applied without any independent substantiation of irrational fear, evident hatred, or unjust discrimination. At its loosest, the thought sequence is: you are opposing homosexuality; that is homophobia; therefore you can only be irrational, hateful or unjust. The clinical overtones are insinuated regardless of the evidence.
This is precisely the thought sequence used in the bad old days of Soviet Communism, when “enemies of the State” were routinely diagnosed as mentally ill and locked up in State hospitals. The consequences here may be less extreme, but the underlying logic is precisely the same.
On the Dead Horses thread Louise used the word racist to illustrate her understanding:
quote:
Homophobe is the word which has developed in the English language to mean someone who is prejudiced against gay people, in the way that racist is the word for people prejudiced on grounds of race.
and on another thread Karl – Liberal Backslider linked it to intolerance:
quote:
When people are intolerant and show hatred of homosexual people, I am willing to call them intolerant homophobes, because that's what it means.
Suggestions for discussion on this thread:
- The contents of my discussion document on the word homophobia.
- The comments by Louise and Karl above.
- What do you understand by the word homophobia?
- If you use it, what do you mean by the word homophobia?
- Examples of the use of the word homophobia in relevant literature, especially ones that illustrate its meaning.
- Real-life situations that have been described by the word homophobia.
- Any other relevant linguistic points about homophobia.
Please note - on this thread I would like to focus on language usage and semantics, not on Dead Horses. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Neil
[ 24. February 2004, 22:46: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
well mirriam webster on-lin has this to say, which kind of covers all bases:
quote:
Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
- ho·mo·pho·bic /-'fO-bik/ adjective
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Off Centre View
Shipmate
# 4254
|
Posted
I was wondering, if someone considers Homosexuality to be a sin does this mean they are a Homophobe? Even if they do not hate homosexuals? I also don't want to go into Dead horses territory but was just wondering of the implications of the word
As far as the word itself goes I can be really pedantic and put a new spin on it. "Homo" comes from Greek*, I think, and means "the same", i.e. 'homogenous'. While "phobia" is Greek* for "fear", I think. Therefore from a purely linguistic route "Homophobia" means "Fear of sameness", weird huh?
*Either Greek or Latin, it's all Greek to me!
Off-centre view
--------------------
Looking for Authenticity in the Corporate Abyss? Change Your Self, Change Your Workplace, Change Your World: www.corporateabyss.com
Posts: 1685 | From: wherever I may wander | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Off-centre view:
Therefore from a purely linguistic route "Homophobia" means "Fear of sameness", weird huh?
It's only weird if you expect etymology to govern meaning. As I keep reminding my overly literal sons, in English, it rarely does.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Can't do Greek characters I'm afraid, but a quick check has shown me that phobeo means not only "to fear" but "to cause fear, to terrify", which seems appropriate. Therefore a homophobe would be one who induces fear in homosexuals. Alternatively miseo is "to hate", so maybe we should be talking about homomisia instead of homophobia, as I'm not sure how many homophobes are afraid of homosexuals (although I think some are).
Overall, it seems to me that homophobia is strictly speaking the wrong word to use in these sorts of discussions. However it has come to mean hatred of homosexuals, and it probably best to go with the widely held meaning.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
(And now that Josephine has slipped in an intelligent and apposite comment - again! - I look a complete fool. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) I don't know what they feed Orthodox women on, but it sure increases their brain power. Maybe it's all that fish on Fridays.)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Off Centre View
Shipmate
# 4254
|
Posted
Josephine, thank you for your excellent comments, of course in English words do not always mean what they are logically supposed to mean!
--------------------
Looking for Authenticity in the Corporate Abyss? Change Your Self, Change Your Workplace, Change Your World: www.corporateabyss.com
Posts: 1685 | From: wherever I may wander | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
Hi - new to this, but interested in the subject.
So - If I believe homosexual sex is wrong, but still love my homosexual brother, amd I still homophobic?
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Welcome to the Ship Fish Fish. I doubt that anyone who can't condone homosexuality as an act, but can and does show love and tolerance to homosexuals could be called homophobic. I have a fairly relaxed attitude to the subject. I have a gay relative who I would never treat any differently, because, looking back on it, it was obvious from the age of five that he would be gay. It isn't a matter of choice.
But I am with Fish-Fish. I can't condone the act. The church shouldn't condone the act, though it should show love, tolerance and acceptance of the people involved. Homosexuality, like divorce, is against the teaching of Scripture. It is not homophobic to adhere to that teaching provided we pastorally care for those who can't live up to it.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
"Homophobe" is now used as an argument-stopper, much as "racist" and "anti-Semite" are used as argument-stoppers. If one has any questions about the choice of +Robinson as a bishop; if one is so foolhardy as to point out that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr had faults; if one criticizes any policy of the government of Israel -- the use of the appropriate argument-stopper puts one on the defensive, and removes the responsibility of the user to respond responsibly to the critic's concerns.
As such, I find it intellectually dishonest. We need a better word for those who love their gay brothers and sisters but don't necessarily agree with the worldview of organizations like Claiming the Blessing.
[True Confession] I once had the unpleasant habit of using the word "misogynist" as an argument-stopper in discussions about women's ordination. But I repented. [/True Confession]
Rossweisse // weary of seeing sincere people bashed
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
I agree with PaulT.
I think "homophobia," like "racism" has become a boo word often used against those with which the user disagrees. And that's a shame because American culture, at least, is marked by homophobia, with negative effects on most Americans. For example, I'm sometimes afraid to be physically close to good friends because I'm afraid it will be misinterpreted. Americans are rather quick to associate close same sex friendships with homosexuality.
To accuse those who, say, don't agree with Robertson's consecration as bishop of homophobia doesn't do anybody any good and distracts from real homophobia.
(Sorry if I'm not real coherent. I'm a bit tired.)
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
I cross-posted with Rossweisse and completely agree with her post.
Virtual high five, MtP.
Rossweisse // love your new (to me, anyway) avatar, Mark!
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
The trouble with the word homophobia is that every other phobia we know of is a fear of something; homophobia is the only one where phobia supposedly means "irrational hatred for" rather than "fear of."
This shows why the word is so popular: those using it still have the "fear of" meaning in mind, and are using the term for condescension, not classification.
If all those with arguments against homosexual behavior are dismissed as homophobes, i.e. as people who oppose it because of their fear (a) of homosexuals themselves, or (b) that they might themselves be homosexuals, then one doesn't have to go to the trouble of actually listening to their arguments and trying to understand them.
[ 25. January 2004, 02:05: Message edited by: Kyralessa ]
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
As someone against whom the allegation homophobe has been used as an attempted argument stopper - even on the ship, I'm really pleased at this attempt to sharpen the meaning....
We had an African Anglican priest preach at church a few weeks ago. His rant against homosexual behaviour - fortunately shrouded by his accent - was a classic example of what the gay community rightly labels as 'homophobia' - showing a gross failure to begin to understand the pain and struggle of being gay; his comment 'would you want your daughter to marry another woman' plumbed new depths of obnoxiousness in my experience (ok - so it's pretty limited ) - I now am better understanding the pain of gay Christians when faced with this sort of barbarity.
But that still doesn't justify their - and others - attempts to dismiss my position, opposing gay relationships for Christians but otherwise opposing discrimination, as automatically homophobic. At worst it is a determined effort to smear a valid viewpoint by pointing out the allies you have on your side; a form of intellectual dishonesty that we should all condemn.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
I guess I am thinking about Phelps and Chick and about a million other Christians who make my being a Christian very hard work. I loath what they stand for but they are still Christian and in some sense belong to the same club as me. It is vexing. Especially as on board it is not allowed to question anyone’s right to be called Christian.
I know many people who I really like, even love who are very anti-gay, racist, sexist every other ‘ist. But I still love them.
The problem with any label (that describes a large group) is that is will not accurately describe all members of that group. Nor do many people care that they have so much hatred in their hearts, it just does not bother them.
So as with the label Christianity the label Homophobe can not sit comfortably with all. My difficulty is not distancing myself from Christians who do not seem to preach the same gospel as me but acknowledging that we are of the same root. It makes me work harder at countering the pernicious nonsense they preach.
For those who get labelled with the term “Homophobe” I can only encourage them to note how their position can be seen as phobic (note I do not say “is phobic) and work hard to counter such allegations, a course which seems straight forward and simple to me.
P
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubifex Maximus
Shipmate
# 4874
|
Posted
Faithful sheepdog writes:
quote:
Louise was using the word in its tighter definition, describing behaviour towards homosexual people motivated by irrational fear, evident hatred and unjust discrimination. The thought sequence is: you are opposing homosexuality; I have independently established that you are irrational, hateful or unjust; therefore you are homophobic. Thus Louise made a fair comment about David Copland.
The tighter the definition the better, I think, but I suspect we aren't going to achieve absolute consensus. Perhaps it would set limits for irrational fear, Evident hatred and unjust descrimination if we could find some common ground on where rational fear, concealed hatred and just descrimination lies?
My thoughts are below.
I'm not convinced that it is rational to fear a homosexual person any more than any other person. We all of us contain potential dangers and menaces. Therefore I would suggest that any fear of Homosexual people per se is irrational.
Concealed hatred; I would include as a homophobe someone who attempts to conceal or deny their hatred but who expresses it all the same. As an analogy, I would say that the "I'm not a racist but..." tendency still shows racism.
Just discrimination; I would not, for example, allow a pyromaniac to work on an oil rig and therefore I approve of discrimination in the negative sense when a person would obviously be dangerous in a particular role. I would also, when interviewing candidates for a job, try to find the person who would most fit the skills profile and who would best fit with the team. In this sense I approve of discrimination in the positive sense. I'm finding it hard to think of a case where a homosexual person would be dangerous enough in a particular role to justify discriminating against them. I'm also finding it hard to think of a case where a gay person would be less suitable than a straight one because they lacked particular skills.
I suspect this is going to be the real stumbling block of this arguement. I suspect that some Christians will probably regard arguements against ordaining a gay bishop as irrational no matter how sincerely proposed and relentlessly proof texted (perhaps because they are proof texted).
I would therefore suggest an amendment to faithful sheepdog's initial thesis. A homophobe is a person who expresses fear and hatred of homosexuals and who seeks to discriminate against them. I would remove the qualifying adverbs.
--------------------
Sit down, Oh sit down, sit down next to me.
Posts: 400 | From: Manchester | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceesharp
Shipmate
# 3818
|
Posted
The precise meaning of the word "homophobia" has been troubling me for some time, prompted by two separate incidences: our local Quaker meeting house displayed a large poster anouncing "No Homophobia"; and the abuse my 18 year old daughter suffered at college when she dared to suggest that the Bible can be interpreted as being against homosexual acts. I personally think that this is a correct interpretation, but this does not mean that I fear or depise homosexuals. I respect their right to live their lives according to their conscience; God is the only one who can judge.
I hope I don't sound too priggish or pious - really I'm not - I merely wish to register my objection to being labelled as homophobic, with its implications that I'm bigoted and hateful.
Posts: 629 | From: West Midlands, UK | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Homophobic is a loaded word. It carries with it quite a lot of baggage and judgment. If you use it loosely to attack those with whom you might disagree, and who are not homophobic, you are doing two bad things.
First, you are losing whatever moral high ground you might have had. By flinging allegations not grounded in actual behavior you are acting out of prejudice.
Second, you are blunting the word itself. If homophobic is leveled only against people who exhibit an irrational fear of homosexuals the word carries a stigma, as well it should. If it is used against anyone who believes homosexuality is wrong, it simply becomes a pap word, with no special stigma attached.
While I happen to believe that homosexuality is not a sin in the eyes of God I am just a person and have no corner on ultimate knowledge. Other people are entitled to sincerely held beliefs about homosexuality wether I agree with them or not.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
What an excellent topic for discussion. Here's my contribution, as one who describes himself as queer as a nine-quid note.
I don't like to word 'homophobe' (-ic, -ia, etc). It tries to excuse, as an illness, what is usually hatred, loudmouthed ignorance, or prejudice. When I come across those things, I call them what they are, and I don't pretend that the poor little wussums who's shooting their filthy mouth off is suffering from an unfortunate mental disorder.
Hatred, of course, we can't do much about. There are some people whose hearts are so undeveloped, and minds so closed - people over whose eyes the red mist so frequently descends - that we can only really recognise them for what they are and ignore them. Into this I would put Phred Felps and his dirty little gang.
Ignorance and prejudice are a different matter, and this is where I often get angry. There is no need for someone to be ignorant of any important issue: go and get an education. Prejudice - in the sense of wilful clinging to an uninformed or factually incorrect opinion - is even worse.
Where I part company with many conservative Christians is that I see the cure for ignorance and prejudice lying in the exercise of reason: if you can't tolerate homosexuals or homosexual acts, why not? And I can't accept arguments that boil down to 'because the Bible says so', because I know the Bible is used as a cover for prejudice far more often that it's used as a basis for a reasoned argument. My belief - founded on reason - is that the Bible says nothing about homosexuality, because the idea of homosexuality hadn't been invented back then. For the same reason, when the Bible talks about 'every nation under heaven', it doesn't include America or Australia, because the writers didn't know they existed!
I believe that clinging to Scripture in this way is a sign of prejudice or inadequacy - like holding on to mummy's apron-strings. Good, solid reason will inevitably lead to acceptance of homosexuals.
My conclusion is that homophobia doesn't exist; and that the hatred, ignorance and prejudice that hide behind its name are inexcusable.
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I am wary of the word homophobe. The problem is I need two words where English has only one. Let me explain, I fully accept that there are people who due to reasons of culture, faith, maybe fear of the unknown, or even interpretation would tend to make decisions that discriminate against people who are attracted to people of the same sex. I do not condone this however I really do not want to label it homophobe which I see as far more irrational.
The first time I came across the other, I was sharing with a flat with a conservative Roman Catholic and a very liberal Roman Catholic. The liberal Roman Catholic would in most items be so liberal that he would be at the liberal end of the Ship of Fools spectrum. So sex before marriage (Fine!), intercommunion (fine!), Birth control (Fine!). I could go on.
The conservative Roman Catholic and I once suggested that you might have a homosexual priest and that Roman Catholicism celibacy rule had one advantage in that it did not distinguish between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Well you should have seen the Liberal Catholic go through the roof. It was spectacular to say the least. There was no way he would countenance a homosexual priest over him (how would he know unless the priest made a pass which would be against the priest vow of celibacy).
Intriguingly I know of at least one situation where the two groups behave oppositely. The first is against homosexuals in principle but welcomes them in practise, the second welcomes them in principle but not in practise.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
josephine said:
It's only weird if you expect etymology to govern meaning. As I keep reminding my overly literal sons, in English, it rarely does.
This is a good point. Although many English words come from Latin and Greek, their meaning in modern English is not always what they were in the ancient languages. Knowledge of these languages can be misleading.
For example, the modern English word “sinister” comes from the Latin word sinistra, meaning left-handed or left side, but in everyday English the word “sinister” does not mean that at all. Only in the specialised and rarefied world of heraldry does sinister mean “on the left side” in English. Most people are probably quite unaware of that special meaning, and only know the everyday one.
One of the problems with the word homophobia as presently used in English, is that its meaning, whether in its tighter sense or its looser sense, is not clear from its Greek etymology.
quote:
Rossweisse said:
”Homophobe" is now used as an argument-stopper, much as "racist" and "anti-Semite" are used as argument-stoppers.
This is also a good point. Anti-Semite is sometimes used to mean anyone who criticises the political and military policies of Israel. On that basis some of the most anti-Semitic writing around would be the Hebrew prophets of the OT. This usage inhibits any real discussion, as well as besmirching the memory of those who did indeed genuinely suffer in the Holocaust.
“High five” is not a phrase used on this side of the “pond”. Please can someone explain it to me.
quote:
Captain Eubend said:
I'm not convinced that it is rational to fear a homosexual person any more than any other person. We all of us contain potential dangers and menaces. Therefore I would suggest that any fear of Homosexual people per se is irrational.
A rational fear needs to give a reason for the fear.
A married man may have always been conscious of some homosexual desires alongside his heterosexual ones. His midlife crisis temptation may be to explore his homosexual desires in a physical relationship, despite the evident danger to his otherwise happy marriage, family and home.
Fear of openly homosexual men in this context – the fear of succumbing to temptation and losing his marriage, family and home due to homosexual desires and behaviour- would seem quite rational to me. Would this fear still count as homophobia?
quote:
Adeodatus said:
My conclusion is that homophobia doesn't exist; and that the hatred, ignorance and prejudice that hide behind its name are inexcusable.
These terms are much more concrete and precise than homophobia. They are also clearly sins if the ignorance proves to be folly and the prejudice is unjust. We are agreed in principle.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
Just as an aside, why is it that some straight men think that all gay men are just dying to get into their pants? That their straightness gives them some irresistable allure or something.
I find this particularly funny because those straight men are often dog-ugly, overweight, and have hair sticking out of their nostrils.
Trust me, most of you guys are more than safe from any unwanted advances. So you can just get over your "phobia".
That said, some of my best friends are straight. Really.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
musician
Ship's grin without a cat
# 4873
|
Posted
Faithful Sheepdog;
quote:
For example, the modern English word “sinister” comes from the Latin word sinistra, meaning left-handed or left side, but in everyday English the word “sinister” does not mean that at all. Only in the specialised and rarefied world of heraldry does sinister mean “on the left side” in English. Most people are probably quite unaware of that special meaning, and only know the everyday one.
You're a bit off target here FS.
"Sinister" has been used to describe evil, suspicious doings, malfeasance in general AND left-handedness in the West. The left handed bit unti lvery recently.
The use of "right" was always held to be "good" with the opposite also held to be true.
That bunkum caused untold grief to left handers, so the word is in no way incomprehensible.
Unlike;
quote:
“High five” is not a phrase used on this side of the “pond”. Please can someone explain it to me.
I'll send my kids and all their friends and their parents and their friends round to explain it to you.
Unless you've moved to the other side of the pond, but I think they invented it, so that wouldn't really help.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
My belief - founded on reason - is that the Bible says nothing about homosexuality, because the idea of homosexuality hadn't been invented back then. For the same reason, when the Bible talks about 'every nation under heaven', it doesn't include America or Australia, because the writers didn't know they existed!
Thanks for your point, Adeodatus. Unfortunately, your reasoning is flawed at this point! The New Testament letters were written by people in Greek and Roman culture, where homosexual acts were legal and encouraged. So the writers definately knew what they were talking about when writing condemning sexual imorality including homsexual acts.
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I believe that clinging to Scripture in this way is a sign of prejudice or inadequacy - like holding on to mummy's apron-strings. Good, solid reason will inevitably lead to acceptance of homosexuals.
Reason may lead to acceptance of homosexual acts. But that doesn't mean Christians should. Is "reason" the best way to determine morality? Whose reason is correct? Hitler's reasoning was that homosexuals should be gassed. Who is to say, if we rely on simple reason, that his reasoning is superior to your reasoning?! Or if someone reasons that paedaphilia is OK (as the Romans did!), then who is to reason otherwise? Reasoning is not a great way to determine morality - especially for Christians. Our reasoning is flawed because we are far from perfect creatures.
God gives us a better way - revelation. That's the value of the Bible in determining morality, and in this discussion, sexual morality. That is why as a Christian I would argue homosexual acts are sinful.
However, God loves all people, and loves people who have homosexual attraction as much as anyone. It would be wrong to be homophobic, or hateful of such people. But it is not homophobic to say their sexual actions are wrong. Otherwise it would be "hetero-phobic" (?!) to argue against sex before marriage.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Fish Fish, you make the classic categorical error of saying that sexual acts committed between people of the same gender make it an issue of 'homosexuality'. Many casual same-sex acts occur between people who would assert absolutely that they are heterosexuals. The writers of Scripture made the same categorical error (or should I say, they wrote about it and we read the error into it!) - they assumed that same-sex acts were invariably a perverse choice against a natural sexual inclination. The natural inclination of homosexual persons was unknown to them.
I'm already in Dead Horse territory, and unwilling to go further. Welcome to the Ship!
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Hitler's reasoning was that homosexuals should be gassed. Who is to say, if we rely on simple reason, that his reasoning is superior to your reasoning?! Or if someone reasons that paedaphilia is OK (as the Romans did!), then who is to reason otherwise?
Hitler and paedaphilia in the same post. My, that's impressive.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The natural inclination of homosexual persons was unknown to them.
How do you know that?!! What evidence have you that that is the case? As i said, the writers knew very well homosexuality as we know it today, as their society was just as "liberal" as ours is becoming. To asert they don't know this is, dare I say, arrogant?!
Besides, what the writers condemn is all sexual immorality - all sex outside marriage - so any sexual acts, by whoever, with whoever outside marriage are called sinful.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Fish Fish: please flick through the appropriate thread in 'Dead Horses' - we're digressing.
Sine: (& allowing myself a digression too) I agree with your comment about straight blokes. What is it with these people? It's bad enough that they think they're God's gift to women, without them thinking they're God's gift to us as well. Sheesh! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
Please can we keep our comments on this thread focussed on linguistic and semantic issues to do with the word homophobia. There is a perfectly good Dead Horses thread for more general discussion.
quote:
musician said:
You're a bit off target here FS.
"Sinister" has been used to describe evil, suspicious doings, malfeasance in general AND left-handedness in the West. The left handed bit until very recently.
The use of "right" was always held to be "good" with the opposite also held to be true.
That bunkum caused untold grief to left handers, so the word is in no way incomprehensible.
My 1976 edition of the OED does not give “left-handed” as a current meaning for sinister in modern English, although I am happy to accept that it once had that meaning in older English. However, the OED still gives the adjective and noun sinistral, with one meaning “a left-handed person”, as current in modern English,
I agree with your point about the grief caused historically to left-handed people. They do get their own back in Judges 3:21.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubifex Maximus
Shipmate
# 4874
|
Posted
quote:
From faithful sheepdog
A rational fear needs to give a reason for the fear.
A married man may have always been conscious of some homosexual desires alongside his heterosexual ones. His midlife crisis temptation may be to explore his homosexual desires in a physical relationship, despite the evident danger to his otherwise happy marriage, family and home.
Fear of openly homosexual men in this context – the fear of succumbing to temptation and losing his marriage, family and home due to homosexual desires and behaviour- would seem quite rational to me. Would this fear still count as homophobia?
Contrasting this with a quote from Sine Nomine
quote:
Just as an aside, why is it that some straight men think that all gay men are just dying to get into their pants? That their straightness gives them some irresistable allure or something.
Your hypothetical heterosexual man is, surely, actually afraid of his own homosexual tendencies. As Sine Nomine has pointed out, our hypothetical Straight man is probably quite safe from Gay men.
It seems wrong to me to blame another for being the object of our own unexamined desires and therefore I would consider this fear to be a rationalisation rather than rational. It's funny that you mentioned this one because I have recently had cause to examine my own feelings about Gay men and come to the conclusion that what I was afraid of was the "Gay man inside me" coming out, in much the way you described. I would call this a prejudice which I am seeking to address by owning up to my own fears and by embracing the Gay man inside me. OK, not embrace; I might shake him by the hand, if a little stiffly.
I take the point about the use of the word "homophobia" being insufficiently focussed. I will try to stick with "fear" "Hatred" and "Prejudice" in future.
--------------------
Sit down, Oh sit down, sit down next to me.
Posts: 400 | From: Manchester | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
The nub of the issue, is surely whether "homphobia" includes a conviction that homosexual sex is immoral, that comes from the Bible.
Now no matter how you come down on that issue, I think the inclusion of that conviction under the heading "homophobia" is just an easy way for people who don't come to that view to write off those who do.
The real question is whether people can be said to have an "irrational fear or prejudice" against homosexual people if they have come to their view about homosexual sex through careful study of the Bible. Certainly in Christian circles I hope that could be regarded as a rational way of making a decision about certain type of behaviour, without developing irrational hatred for the group of people.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Fish Fish, a Purgatory host will be along soon to point you in the right dirction, but they'll likely tell you that discussion of homosexuality itself belongs on the Homosexuality and Christianity thread (click here) on the Dead Horses board. There are 30 pages of discussion on that thread so far.
[ 25. January 2004, 15:45: Message edited by: Scot ]
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
A married man may have always been conscious of some homosexual desires alongside his heterosexual ones. His midlife crisis temptation may be to explore his homosexual desires in a physical relationship, despite the evident danger to his otherwise happy marriage, family and home.
A number of years ago they had to take the door off the nap room at the local YMCA due to married men exploring their desires. I was all for it. At least then I could go lie down after a workout without being bothered.
I have seen far too much in my life not to be a bit suspicious of some of these "phobias". Feel sort of sorry for them, actually.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Fish Fish, a Purgatory host will be along soon to point you in the right dirction, but they'll likely tell you that discussion of homosexuality itself belongs on the Homosexuality and Christianity thread (click here) on the Dead Horses board. There are 30 pages of discussion on that thread so far.
Appologies for going off on a tangent. (There are so many possible jokes about deviating etc which are just too easy to m ake, and I know I'd get slammed!)
I suppose I just want to make a clear distinction where many (the media, some gay people, some conservatives) fail to make a distinction - the distiction between Homosexual feelings and Homosexual activity. It seems to me that one can take the position that homosexual activity is sinful, and thus disliked by God, and to be disliked by people. However, it is wrong to go a step further and say homosexual people are to be disliked or hated.
The media statements about gay bishops etc confuse the issue. I would argue that the Bible would say actively gay ministers are not acceptable, but homosexually orientated (but celebate) ministers are not sinning (in this area!).
I get frustrated cos I'm called a homophobe for disliking the sin. Homophobia is disliking the sinner. I am arguing (with that long used phrase) for loving the sinner but hating the sin. This is not homophobia.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I am arguing (with that long used phrase) for loving the sinner but hating the sin.
I never have been able to figure out just quite how that works out in practice.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I am arguing (with that long used phrase) for loving the sinner but hating the sin.
I never have been able to figure out just quite how that works out in practice.
Well, Sine Nomine, I love you. You're a creation of God. You're in the image of God. You're a wonderful, unique person. If i met you I'd love you as a Christian borther / sister.
But I don't love your tendancy to steal my favourite pew in church.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But I don't love your tendancy to steal my favourite pew in church.
So the burst of rage you would feel when you saw me sitting in your pew (which I understand perfectly, by the way) would be directed at my actions rather than me personally?
So if you muttered "Goddamn pew stealer" at me, I shouldn't be offended?
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But I don't love your tendancy to steal my favourite pew in church.
So the burst of rage you would feel when you saw me sitting in your pew (which I understand perfectly, by the way) would be directed at my actions rather than me personally?
So if you muttered "Goddamn pew stealer" at me, I shouldn't be offended?
lol
No - I'm picking the log out of my eye. But just cos I'm a sinner (who is to hate my own sin) it doesn't mean I'm to celebrate your sin, you Goddamn pew stealer.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
p.s.
Off to church right now to grab that pew...
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubifex Maximus
Shipmate
# 4874
|
Posted
Lepreachaun writes:
quote:
The nub of the issue, is surely whether "homphobia" includes a conviction that homosexual sex is immoral, that comes from the Bible.
Now no matter how you come down on that issue, I think the inclusion of that conviction under the heading "homophobia" is just an easy way for people who don't come to that view to write off those who do.
I disagree. The bible condemns many practices we find common place in our day and age. I am at this moment mixing two types of thread in my clothing, I have been to a church this morning where women talked and their heads were uncovered. Why select homosexuality for condemnation from the bible? It may be an unconscious prejudice but I believe that it is still prejudice.
I have never heard "Hate the sin but love the sinner" applied to pew stealing. In fact I have only ever heard it applied to homosexuality; I can't even recall hearing the phrase applied to murder!
--------------------
Sit down, Oh sit down, sit down next to me.
Posts: 400 | From: Manchester | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
cms said:
The precise meaning of the word "homophobia" has been troubling me for some time, prompted by two separate incidences: our local Quaker meeting house displayed a large poster announcing "No Homophobia" <snip>
cms, thank you for that example. It’s a good question: just exactly what is that poster saying? “No hatred of homosexual people”? “No violence towards homosexual people”? “No injustice for homosexual people”? I can wholeheartedly agree with all of these sentiments, but then so do most people, except the David Coplands of this world.
In which case, why do they use the word homophobia, and not some more precise language? After all, Quakers of all people should be able to say, “No violence”. I suspect it is because more precise language would not serve the interests of those behind the poster.
This may be one case where the word is being used in its much looser sense, and what the poster really means is “no opposition to homosexuality is acceptable at all, regardless of how sensitively it is expressed”.
quote:
Sine Nomine said:
A number of years ago they had to take the door off the nap room at the local YMCA due to married men exploring their desires.
Captain Eubend, Sine Nomine has demonstrated that my point was not totally hypothetical. This is an issue for a proportion of married men.
When you use the word rationalisation, do you mean in the sense of some apparently logical reason used to explain a situation, which on closer examination proves to be spurious? I think I have seen the word used that way in some pop-psychology books.
I would agree that projecting or blaming others for one’s own fear is not healthy psychology. My feelings are mine; I am responsible for them (even when Sine Nomine has stolen my pew ). But it would also be unhealthy to deny the existence of the fearful emotions, whether it is the fear of one’s own latent homosexual desires, or the consequences of acting on them.
I suspect for some men that they resolve this situation by expressing open hostility and hatred towards homosexual people – i.e. homophobia in its tighter definition. It’s the sexually confused male equivalent of “methinks the lady doth protest too much”. So perhaps we could say that irrational fear is fear that is not acknowledged psychologically and is denied in consequence?
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
You know, what gets me are people who can simultaneously take the position that homosexual sex is:
A) Sinful, disgusting, and immoral
and yet
B) Enticing and exciting, to the point that associating with such perverts could suck (if you'll pardon the expression) you into it also.
Apparently it is a disease that can be easily caught. No wonder they're afraid.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Apparently it is a disease that can be easily caught. No wonder they're afraid.
Is this your understanding of the word homophobia?
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
Is this your understanding of the word homophobia?
I was of course being flippant, but to a certain extent, yes.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
[HOST MODE]
Fish Fish, I'll start by extending an official welcome to the Ship of Fools before addressing your contribution to this discussion.
First, thank you for leaving discussion of the general question of homosexuality to the appropriate Dead Horse thread that Scot linked to. Now to a particular point you made,
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Hitler's reasoning was that homosexuals should be gassed. Who is to say, if we rely on simple reason, that his reasoning is superior to your reasoning?! Or if someone reasons that paedaphilia is OK (as the Romans did!), then who is to reason otherwise?
Here you seem to be making two comparisons that are liable to cause offense, though I'm sure that wasn't your intention and no one has expressed any offense. First, in bringing Hitler into the discussion it could be implied that you are likening those who object to homosexual practice to his "solution". Then, you make a comparison between attitudes to homosexuality and paedophilia that may be read to imply you consider these to be similar ... naturally homosexuals would consider a similarity between their lifestyle and paedophilia deeply offensive.
You will find that people will take your opinions more seriously if you don't include comparisons like these that are highly likely to result in offense.
Alan
Purgatory host
[/HOST MODE]
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
OK, so what word may I use for people who use the bible as their reasoning for condemning me? Believe you me, I don't often feel their love, whatever they say about loving the sinner. Each one of you should try getting up every morning and saying that your sex life is offensive to God (which is what I understand some of you to be saying about me) and see whether you feel loved. Actually, we could go back to Augustine and he would tell you that even if you were married that is the case!
I call myself a Christian, but there are those here who have said that I am not - because I am a lesbian. What may I call them, because they are not accepting of me at all? And if I can't call myself a Christian, what can I call myself? I definitely follow Christ and believe in God.
Language rules the world, and this discussion is ignoring the reality of my life, which is not one of pain and suffering. Just to clarify: the word "homosexuality" does not equal pain and suffering and sin. In my life it means joy in my partner and a life in which I can serve God unfettered by having to use language which tells lies about who I am.
In regard to the Quaker sign - our church has a sign welcoming all people regardless of gender, race, creed or sexual orientation. A positive statement is always better than a negative, I think.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
You ask what word you may use for those who use the Bible to condemn you, Arabella. IMO, 'self-righteous' would do nicely, though a part of me thinks you may use any word that satisfactorily expresses your hurt and anger.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[HOST MODE]
Fish Fish, I'll start by extending an official welcome to the Ship of Fools before addressing your contribution to this discussion.
[/HOST MODE]
Thanks for your welcome
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[HOST MODE]
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Hitler's reasoning was that homosexuals should be gassed. Who is to say, if we rely on simple reason, that his reasoning is superior to your reasoning?! Or if someone reasons that paedaphilia is OK (as the Romans did!), then who is to reason otherwise?
Here you seem to be making two comparisons that are liable to cause offense, though I'm sure that wasn't your intention and no one has expressed any offense. First, in bringing Hitler into the discussion it could be implied that you are likening those who object to homosexual practice to his "solution". Then, you make a comparison between attitudes to homosexuality and paedophilia that may be read to imply you consider these to be similar ... naturally homosexuals would consider a similarity between their lifestyle and paedophilia deeply offensive.
[/HOST MODE]
My point is not to compare Hitler or paedophiles to homosexual people - my point is that if we use reason to be our moral authority, then different people will use different reason - and so we'll have people such as Hitler and paedophiles asserting their reason as equaly valid. If we just use reason as our authority, who is to say they are wrong? But that is for the dead horse thing I think.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubifex Maximus
Shipmate
# 4874
|
Posted
Faithful sheepdog says:
quote:
When you use the word rationalisation, do you mean in the sense of some apparently logical reason used to explain a situation, which on closer examination proves to be spurious? I think I have seen the word used that way in some pop-psychology books.
Yes, that's pretty much what I mean.
quote:
So perhaps we could say that irrational fear is fear that is not acknowledged psychologically and is denied in consequence?
I aggree. I would argue that any fear of a gay man is part of this "irrational fear". Isn't this the sort of thing Jesus was talking about when he told us to not muck about with anyone elses specks until our planks were dealt with?
I have too many sins and shortcomings of my own.
--------------------
Sit down, Oh sit down, sit down next to me.
Posts: 400 | From: Manchester | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
