|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Homophobia: the meaning and use of the word
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
People loudly complain about the hosts not allowing them to make comparisons between homosexuality and paedophilia and at the same time protest that people might use a word like 'homophobic' to describe their views? Ummm... right.
Comparing discrimination against black people with discrimination against gay people is wrong but it's OK to compare gay people and their consensual adult relationships to people who want to or do sexually abuse children?
I often ask myself what it must be like to be a gay person and to have to live with numbers of your fellow Christians coming out with stuff like this. And then if people dare to answer back and to say stuff like "You're treating us the way black people used to be treated!" they get the finger pointed at them again, and told "How dare you compare us to racists!". It's like people get punished twice for being gay: once for being gay and the second time for standing up for themselves.
I wouldn't use a strong word like 'homophobic' in regard to someone who thinks gay sex is sinful but who doesn't on the basis of that act or talk in hateful ways against gay people (Hello Mousethief! Hello Mark the Punk!). I might still debate with those persons over that position - but I think that's fair play. If I wanted to exclude another group from some post or office or benefit or say that their practices were sinful, then I would expect to be challenged on my reasons.
Sigh.
Louise
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
But ES wasn't comparing homosexuality to paedophilia. He was using paedophilia as a counter-example to a proposed general principle.
I nobody capable of reading this thread objectively?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
But ES wasn't comparing homosexuality to paedophilia. He was using paedophilia as a counter-example to a proposed general principle.
I nobody capable of reading this thread objectively?
I think as soon as the words "paedophilia" or "paedophile" appear in a posting, people's eyes glaze over or become clouded with an angry red haze and context just doesn't matter anymore.
But since you insist--*goes back and reads ES's post*--I think that to make any such analogy as he wants to make, someone would have to demonstrate that a paedophile really longs for a lifelong monogamous relationship with a single young child, and that that is what we are denying him/her.
Now whether that's true or not, do we really want to delve into such a matter just for the sake of making a point here?
The thought makes me ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
What the anti-gay lot are completely missing is that a lot of their language usage is offensive to LGBT people. Remember, guys, it's not what you say that matters, it's what I hear....
Some of the offence comes from the historic, recent, and current oppression of LGBT people in many parts of the world. It should be obvious that while such oppression takes place (anywhere, to anyone), our use of language (anywhere, by anyone) needs to be extra-sensitive. That includes language used to say anything you think is true.
There is a parallel, more tragic, and more obvious case in talking about Jewish people. Given their recent history - and the attempted genocide against them - we (rightly) aren't allowed to ask questions like 'so what were the Jews doing to the German economy in the 1920s and 30s then?' It is simply an unaskable question - at least unaskable by anyone with an ounce of human fellow-feeling in their hearts.
Back to our current case. While gay man are being buried alive under toppled walls (Afghanistan), murdered (most places), and knifed (a street in Manchester last week), are you allowed to say the things you say and ask the things you ask that look to us like you're 'against' us (to whatever degree)?
I don't think so.
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liam
Shipmate
# 4961
|
Posted
I think the key problem with using paedophilia as an analogy is not just the offence caused, it's the scientific and sociological inappropriateness of it.
Paedophiles, as I understand it, are not 'born that way'. The vast majority of paedophiles behave that way because of abuse they've suffered themselves, mental and emotional disorders, or just possibly because they're extremely nasty individuals. As has already been pointed out, it's really about power, not sex.
However, there's a lot of evidence, both anecdotal and scientific, that sexuality and gender preference, in many cases, is a natural inborn tendency at least as much as a learned or chosen behaviour. I'm sure there are peopple here who know their stuff (either from research or personal experience) and could back me up on this.
So you're comparing something that people choose to do with something that people just are. This is the reason that anti-gay opinions are likened to racism.
I'd repeat the suggestion from several people here that it's best to actually learn something about the psychology of sexuality before you go around comparing a patholoigical state with a natural sexual orientation.
Posts: 138 | From: Birmingham, UK | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
As one of the people who's contributed to this storm, I want assert again that in now way was I trying to equate homosexuals with paedophiles. But, because I can see that the equation is being made in many minds, then the way the question was stated has failed, and is offensive, and so I'm really sorry for the offence with that I've caused. I hope you'll forgive me.
I would still like to question how we make decisions about morality. Is it right to make my human reasoning the authority by which moral standards are set. For If I do, then can I be offended when other people decide to make moral decisions, based on their reasoning, which I find abhorrant? That's the issue I was trying to get an answer to. Perhaps there's a need for another thead to answer that one - but I don't know how to set one up!
[ 29. January 2004, 08:39: Message edited by: Fish Fish ]
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
but I don't know how to set one up!
Oh, I see now...!
--------------------
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
But the current American government and the Nazis were both elected governments. So you're talking about a matter of degree, right? Apples and apples?
Which would then say that homesexuality and paedophillia are both about sex? I didn't realize that, but then I don't know a lot about paedophillia.
Oh God, why do I feel an abyss opening under my feet.
Liberals like me think right wing governments are wrong. Traditionalists like ES think that sexual acts outside marriage are wrong. My point is that lumping Republicans and Nazis together is wholly inappropriate because whilst persons of goodwill can differ over whether Dubya is a good thing, clearly the Nazis are beyond the pale. Similarly persons of goodwill can differ over the licitness of homosexuality, whereas paedophilia is beyond the pale. Hence either comparison is unhelpful and inflammatory.
Incidentally paedophillia like other forms of rape must be about sex on some level, being a form of sexual abuse. (but that's a whole n'other thread). Homosexuality isn't a form of sexual abuse, hence my original point about crap analogies.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alaric the Goth
Shipmate
# 511
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Some of the offence comes from the historic, recent, and current oppression of LGBT people in many parts of the world. It should be obvious that while such oppression takes place (anywhere, to anyone), our use of language (anywhere, by anyone) needs to be extra-sensitive. That includes language used to say anything you think is true....
Back to our current case. While gay man are being buried alive under toppled walls (Afghanistan), murdered (most places), and knifed (a street in Manchester last week), are you allowed to say the things you say and ask the things you ask that look to us like you're 'against' us (to whatever degree)?
I don't think so.
Oh come on, 'you' are quite happy to post things on here that make it look like you are 'against' evangelical Christians to at least some degree.
Evangelical Christians are being falsely imprisoned (e.g. Pakistan, Turkey, Colombia), sent to labour camps (China), rejected and threatened by their families (Bradford, India, Sudan), murdered (lots of places inc. Indonesia, Colombia, southern Mexico) etc, etc. How DARE anyone say anything against them!
But I am fine with you arguing 'against us' on here: it's what I expect, and I'll argue back. I'll try not to insult you or treat you as less than a human being, of course, and I expect the same courtesy back. But if I believe something that you DO is sinful, I want to be able to say so. You can try and persuade me different, but it is the sort of thing I'd expect to be able to discuss on such a website as SoF.
I know I am not allowed to say that what you ARE is sinful: your 'orientation', and if anyone does that, they should apologise.
Posts: 3322 | From: West Thriding | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
Time to bring this thread firmly back on track, I think. Here are a few more citations of the word homophobia in relevant literature.
First from the press releases at the UK Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement website:
quote:
“…full of hate-filled homophobia…”
Is it possible to have any other kind of homophobia? No, so the terms hate and homophobia are simply reinforcing each other, possibly giving the meaning “fear expressing itself openly as hate”.
quote:
“Homophobia is a scandal and offence to the gospel…”
This one has caused me much head-scratching. Quite how you offend the gospel I don’t know. Perhaps LGCM mean something clearly at odds with the thought of Christ in the gospels, or perhaps they are referring to the intellectual and theological side of homophobia. If they had said, “homophobic attitudes and behaviour in the church is a scandal and offence to other people, both within and without the church”, it would have made much more sense.
quote:
“to work for the redemption of the churches from the sin of homophobia”
Earlier we saw how some people use homophobia in a pseudo-clinical sense, to imply some form of psychological deficiency: homophobia the illness, requiring to be cured. Here it has now become a theological offence: homophobia the sin, requiring repentance and redemption on a church-wide level.
From the opposite point of view theologically to the LCGM, we have a long article from Jonathan Sorum, an American Lutheran professor at a European seminary. He says more on the perceived sin of homophobia:
quote:
Sin is not primarily refusing to accept a new identity granted in baptism; it is refusing to accept and affirm one’s own and others’ identities as they find these identities in themselves. Refusing to accept a person’s homosexual identity is the sin of homophobia. The sin of homophobia resides primarily in the heterosexual majority, and only derivatively in homosexuals insofar as they internalize rejection by the heterosexual majority. In this view the slogan “love the sinner and hate the sin” is a particularly odious manifestation of homophobia.
Here homophobia is associated with the refusal to accept someone’s self-found identity. It can be found in homosexual people in the form of “internalized rejection”. It is also linked with words and phrases considered hateful.
The above extract comes from a long and serious article reflecting a well-informed conservative point of view. It is well worth reading for its study of the parallel between the political fight in the 1960’s for racial civil rights and the current fight for homosexual rights. Many posters on this thread have linked their understanding of homophobia to racism.
Finally, at the red-hot end of the scale, we find this passage from Allan Turner in a hard-hitting and provocative article, which also mentions the illness of homophobia and the sin of homophobia:
quote:
All that has been said positively about “gay” is repeated in a negative way about “homophobia.” If being “gay” is the condition of accepting and affirming joyfully the fact that one is a homosexual, “homophobia” means rejecting such a condition. To those who promote the value of homosexuality, “homophobia” is a most loathsome malady which must be cured. Incidentally, when they speak of “homophobia” in social terms as a form of discrimination, it is something to be eliminated from society; and when they speak of it in religious terms as a sin, it is something that must be repented of.
Here homophobia means almost the opposite of gay pride: it is the joyless, negative and sinful refusal to affirm the value of homosexuality. It is a “loathsome malady” to be cured.
By acquiring these inferences, that homophobia is both a sin and an illness, the word acquires a particular potency. By scattering these inferences over the discussion indiscriminately and imprecisely, pundits attempt to destroy the credibility of any opposition a priori. This approach is essentially illiberal: it restricts my freedom to make my own choices.
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
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
However, there's a lot of evidence, both anecdotal and scientific, that sexuality and gender preference, in many cases, is a natural inborn tendency at least as much as a learned or chosen behaviour. I'm sure there are peopple here who know their stuff (either from research or personal experience) and could back me up on this.
I see this statement all the time. I never see any such evidence cited though. Curious, that.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Kyralessa: try
here
here (could be referring to the same research)
and here
Is that enough to make a start?
Not quite. The first is just a vague news story with plenty of "could show" and "may indicate". The second I can't get to (requires registration).
As for the third, an article by those who did the study cited can be found here, and following it you can see a response by researchers who did a similar study but didn't come up with positive results.
Quite honestly it doesn't seem a very substantial study; it doesn't even make sense to select a group of families with at least two homosexual brothers and then look for common genes. Where's the control group? There are also issues with the selection criteria which the response to the article addresses, quoting the original study:
quote:
"First, the family should have exactly two gay brothers. If there were only one gay man there'd be no enrichment for the gene, and if there were more than two, we ran the risk of selecting rare and unusual genes. Second, there should be at most one lesbian in the family. This is because the family studies showed that male and female homosexuality were not commonly found together and we wanted to use typical (sic) families. Finally, we did not want families with gay fathers and gay sons, because this pattern would not be consistent with X-chromosome linkage." (italics added)
After reading that I'm inclined to note that you can find anything if you look hard enough. But at any rate the authors of the response found, even excluding all but those meeting the above criteria from their study, that the positive results were not statistically significant.
All of which is to say that for people to say that the "gay gene" has been found, or that it's been proven that homosexuality is genetically based, goes far beyond present research.
--------------------
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
|
|
Liam
Shipmate
# 4961
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Kyralessa: try
here
here (could be referring to the same research)
and here
Is that enough to make a start?
Not quite. The first is just a vague news story with plenty of "could show" and "may indicate". The second I can't get to (requires registration).
As for the third, an article by those who did the study cited can be found here, and following it you can see a response by researchers who did a similar study but didn't come up with positive results.
...
All of which is to say that for people to say that the "gay gene" has been found, or that it's been proven that homosexuality is genetically based, goes far beyond present research.
However, the evidence for the counter-claims alluded to by some people on this thread, that homosexuality is a mental illness or due to childhood traumas or other developmental problems, is, of course, very strong indeed ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posts: 138 | From: Birmingham, UK | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
And also...
This appears to be the abstract of the article referenced in the Ananova article. Its suggestion is that if these genes determine what sex the brain thinks one is, independently of what genitalia one has, then that could explain a whole host of differing sexual orientations. However, it's not a conclusion; it's merely an identification of genes worth studying further.
I won't say the article isn't newsworthy; by the same token a potential cure for cancer that seems to work in lab rats is worth reporting even if there's as yet no evidence it works on humans. But just as the latter shouldn't be misread to claim that cancer has been cured, the former shouldn't be misread to claim that the "gay gene" has been found.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
However, the evidence for the counter-claims alluded to by some people on this thread, that homosexuality is a mental illness or due to childhood traumas or other developmental problems, is, of course, very strong indeed
I don't know if it is, not having read up on that. But they certainly ought to be under the same burden of proof. If someone in this thread suggested what you say they did, why not call them by name, link to their posts, and tell them to put up or shut up?
--------------------
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
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
...However, the evidence for the counter-claims alluded to by some people on this thread, that homosexuality is a mental illness or due to childhood traumas or other developmental problems, is, of course, very strong indeed
I would never call homosexuality a mental illness. However, the evidence I have read, and from personal observation, would suggest (and I can only speak of male homosexuality), that very very often there is a connection between an emotionall absent / unloving / or even abusive father during formative years, and homosexual feelings. I am sure this statement will cause a storm of protest - but in my observation, its remarkable how often gay men describe their father's in these terms.
Now there may be genetic causes as well. I don't think anyone knows yet. The liklihood seems to be a combination of causes. But even if the whole cause is genetic, that in itself is not a reason to change Christian teaching on morality. We are more than genetically determined creatures. (Animals!) We are also moral creatures with choice.
--------------------
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
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
...the evidence I have read, and from personal observation, would suggest (and I can only speak of male homosexuality), that very very often there is a connection between an emotionall absent / unloving / or even abusive father during formative years, and homosexual feelings.
Callan,
I think the abyss of which you spoke has reopened under me.
Fish, I recommend that you a) not use anecdotal evidence to support your statement on the causality of homosexuality and b) if you cite "evidence" as above, you give some of it here, so that we can see it. I have seen no credible evidence, in all my years of reading articles about such things, that homosexuality is caused by indifferent or absent fathering. If this were so, large sections of the inner-cities in my country would be overrun with all the gay boys who have no fathers at all, and are being raised in many cases, by extended female-only families. The bad effects of absent poor fathers have been widely observed and commented upon, crime and teenage pregnancy, but an increase in homosexuality has not been one of the observed sequela.
In fact, oddly enough, the only place I've read of this alleged correlation is in conservative religious literature; never supported by any clinical evidence. And as we all know, correlation is not causation. Many people straight and gay, have had absent fathers and overprotective mothers. So it cannot be surprising that a certain number of gays will report this.
And, such stories would presumably not account for lesbianism, which nobody seems to care very much about anyway. It's really thinking of men engaged in anal sex that sends everyone up a tree for some reason.
Vis-a-vis pedophilia, the reason it cannot be compared in any way is that it is by definition, non-consensual, and so it is rape, which is completely unacceptable. Adult gay people are capable of consent, whatever you think of their choices.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
ES further to our recent posts:
OK, please correct me if I am wrong. This quote seems to be the crux of your argument:
quote:
To dismiss the possibility of expecting a group to remain celibate is a thus a dangerous basis on which to argue that gay sex should be seen as legitimate.
In short you seem to be saying that celibacy is the only option for those who are not married? Right? Further you are saying that
quote:
“….. where society deems it wrong for sex in that context to occur, this group is banned from sexual union.”
Which does sort of beg the question is society wrong to ban all the forms of sexuality that the bible dose not even mention?
It seems to me that you are saying “You can not argue for homosexuals to be allowed to enjoy sexual union without encompassing within argument that paedophiles.” In what way am I missing the point, please (and I am sorry but I am being a bit thick and not getting it yet) explain a little further.
Bear in mind, in response to some of the points you have made so far I would add :
The church was not only against homosexual sex until recently, it was against all sex that did not lead to procreation. This attitude was born of a patriarchal, ascetic, political spirituality and encomppassed many other injustices which we are still getting rid of. Not least and in fact by a far greater degree the role of women. The church has been wrong before. You seem to be hinting that what you percieve as the loosing of the teaching of teh churhc will lead to it encompassing all forms of sexual behaviour. deviant or not. This argument (if it is what you are saying) is a very cheap shot.
That I do not equate fornication with “sex outside marriage” but with indiscriminate, unfaithful, uncaring sex. And that culturally the institution of marriage did not (as little as two hundred years ago) bear any resemblance to what we call marriage today.
That whereas I see no sin in consensual, affirming faithful sexual unions of any type, they being a aspect of God’s design. I do recognise that many sexual unions are beyond mere fornication and may stray into deeply damaging and violent. I would always include paedophiliac sexual unions in this later category.
That paedophiliac sexual unions can not be “Lifelong” as the paedophile will lose all interest in the child once it reaches a certain age, that age depending upon the nature of the perversion.
That paedophiles may (and often do) function sexually with other adults and as such are not called to be celibate.
In short, if I am reading you anything like correctly I find you analogy almost too weak to bear scrutiny. It only seems to make any sense if it is read from your conservative perspective. Knowing that many will not read it that way I am forced to ask why you posted it, knowing it was at bit difficult to understand and at worst dreadfully weak.
P
[ 29. January 2004, 15:13: Message edited by: Pyx_e ]
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Fish, I recommend that you a) not use anecdotal evidence to support your statement on the causality of homosexuality and b) if you cite "evidence" as above, you give some of it here, so that we can see it. I have seen no credible evidence, in all my years of reading articles about such things, that homosexuality is caused by indifferent or absent fathering. If this were so, large sections of the inner-cities in my country would be overrun with all the gay boys who have no fathers at all, and are being raised in many cases, by extended female-only families. The bad effects of absent poor fathers have been widely observed and commented upon, crime and teenage pregnancy, but an increase in homosexuality has not been one of the observed sequela.
In fact, oddly enough, the only place I've read of this alleged correlation is in conservative religious literature; never supported by any clinical evidence. And as we all know, correlation is not causation. Many people straight and gay, have had absent fathers and overprotective mothers. So it cannot be surprising that a certain number of gays will report this.
Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic is one book I have read which is a thorough phsycholical study of the phenomia I have described. We hear little of this sort of work as some in the gay lobby has made discussion of the causes of homosexuality (other than genetic) a taboo subject.
quote:
...which is completely unacceptable.
Who determines that any action is "completely unacceptable"? Society today says Rape and Paedophilia are completely unacceptable - but other societies don't. I've started a new thread to discuss this: How do we set our morality?
[Edited in UBB links. Fish Fish please try out the URL button at the bottom of the "Input post" or the "Edit post" screen.]
[ 31. January 2004, 00:57: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
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
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
Fish Fish said:
quote:
We hear little of this sort of work as some in the gay lobby has made discussion of the causes of homosexuality (other than genetic) a taboo subject.
Hoo boy ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Formerly Molly Brown
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
The research on the causes of homosexuality (or heterosexuality, for that matter) is still very much in its early stages. I don't think any serious scientist would claim to have the complete answer, and most would say it's probably a complex interaction of biological, cultural, and psychosocial factors. There is some evidence from animal studies of genetic factors, but animal studies can only be suggestive for humans, whose sexuality is much more complex. There are cases of identical twins with differing sexual orientations, so it can't be a simple genetic on/off switch. And gender identity is a different thing altogether--the mouse study cited was more relevant to that than to sexual object choice (consider the phenomenon of transexual lesbians--people born biologically male who identify as female and are attracted to women--there are enough of them that they have recently become a bit controversial in the lesbian community).
I don't like medicalizing moral issues, which is why I don't care for the word "homophobia." It doesn't make the moral questions go away, it just pushes them into the background. (A bit of tit for tat, of course--gay people having been labeled both mentally ill and immoral for so long, how could they resist turning the tables?)
The DSM-IV (not my favorite book, but...) defines "phobia" as "a marked, persistent, and excessive or unreasonable fear when in the presence of, or when anticipating an encounter with, a specific object or situation." It also notes that "adults with this disorder recognize that the phobia is excessive or unreasonable" (otherwise it may be a delusional disorder). Some people with strong anti-gay attitudes do have that--for example, being unable to enter a gay bar to use the rest room or pay phone because of their fear--but certainly not all. I don't think most people who believe homosexual relationships are inherently immoral are mentally ill--I just think they're wrong.
I'd kind of like to distinguish between the belief that homosexual acts are sinful and the belief that homosexuals should not be protected from discrimination in housing, employment, and domestic law (marriage/civil unions). The former is just an opinion--the latter involves active discrimination and so is a moral problem in itself. After all, there are people who believe that oral sex between heterosexual spouses is immoral, but they aren't saying my wife and I should be treated differently from other couples because we engage in it--or that our marriage shouldn't count as a marriage if that were the only kind of sex we ever had.
That said, "homophobia" is the most recognizable word we have, and I do use it (even if I wince as I do). I like "heterosexism" better, but don't use it as much.
Timothy
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by La Sal:
Fish Fish said:
quote:
We hear little of this sort of work as some in the gay lobby has made discussion of the causes of homosexuality (other than genetic) a taboo subject.
Hoo boy
I see your "Hoo boy " and raise you an "Oh, geez ".
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
<ewwwww>
<holds nose tight>
There is a big sbelly rottig corpse with hooves subwhere roud here!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
http://hawebpage.truepath.com/book/more/Moberly.html is one book I have read which is a thorough phsycholical study of the phenomia I have described. We hear little of this sort of work as some in the gay lobby has made discussion of the causes of homosexuality (other than genetic) a taboo subject.
The "gay lobby". I work quite near Capitol Hill and I've never seen the gay lobby headquarters! Where is it? Is it salmon-colored, with little throw-cushions everywhere?
And I'm sure that book is a thorough (and I'm certain, totally unslanted) "phsycholical" study of these "phenomia", whatever the hell these words mean. It would really help the anti-gay lobby if more of them could spell.
When I said "evidence," I meant "evidence", not self-serving twaddle from a psychologist peddling as "new" a very old theory about the origins of homosexuality, in service of a conservative Christian ethic. You actually read this thing?
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
The "gay lobby". I work quite near Capitol Hill and I've never seen the gay lobby headquarters! Where is it? Is it salmon-colored, with little throw-cushions everywhere?
Sorry - gay lobby was perhaps a rather crass shorthand. But the agenda is real enough.
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
It would really help the anti-gay lobby if more of them could spell.
Thank you for being dislexaphobic!
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
When I said "evidence," I meant "evidence", not self-serving twaddle from a psychologist peddling as "new" a very old theory about the origins of homosexuality, in service of a conservative Christian ethic. You actually read this thing?
As I said, this debate has become taboo!
--------------------
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
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
Sorry - gay lobby was perhaps a rather crass shorthand. But the agenda is real enough.
why of course it is! and here it is:
gay agenda.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
Just thought I'd check my new sig down here rather than in the Styx.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
quote:
Sorry - gay lobby was perhaps a rather crass shorthand. But the agenda is real enough.
why of course it is! and here it is:
gay agenda.
Brilliant!
--------------------
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
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
When I said "evidence," I meant "evidence", not self-serving twaddle from a psychologist peddling as "new" a very old theory about the origins of homosexuality, in service of a conservative Christian ethic. You actually read this thing?
As I said, this debate has become taboo!
Aha! You're not dyslexic, you just can't read! I asked you to support your point with non-biased evidence, and you read that as "this debate is taboo". It isn't. It may be a bit boring, but it isn't taboo. In fact, there has been a great deal of research by all sorts of people over the last century regarding the origins of homosexuality. You just don't appear interested in the parts of it that might contradict your viewpoint. And that's how we get bad science!
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Sine: good sig.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Aha! You're not dyslexic, you just can't read!
Blast! Been found out as a non-dyselxic. How did you do it Holmes?
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
In fact, there has been a great deal of research by all sorts of people over the last century regarding the origins of homosexuality. You just don't appear interested in the parts of it that might contradict your viewpoint. And that's how we get bad science!
Actually, I am interested in all the causes. And I agree, there are probably many. Thats why I said origionally...
"I would never call homosexuality a mental illness. However, the evidence I have read, and from personal observation, would suggest (and I can only speak of male homosexuality), that very very often there is a connection between an emotionall absent / unloving / or even abusive father during formative years, and homosexual feelings. I am sure this statement will cause a storm of protest - but in my observation, its remarkable how often gay men describe their father's in these terms.
Now there may be genetic causes as well. I don't think anyone knows yet. The liklihood seems to be a combination of causes. But even if the whole cause is genetic, that in itself is not a reason to change Christian teaching on morality. We are more than genetically determined creatures. (Animals!) We are also moral creatures with choice. "
So I am genuinely interested in all the causes - but I was just raising attention to one view, which I find convincing.
--------------------
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
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
FishFish: quote:
Society today says Rape and Paedophilia are completely unacceptable - but other societies don't.
Offhand I can't think of any socities that condone Rape or Paedophilia. Could you give some examples?
--------------------
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
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
FishFish: quote:
Society today says Rape and Paedophilia are completely unacceptable - but other societies don't.
Offhand I can't think of any socities that condone Rape or Paedophilia. Could you give some examples?
Historically...
With regards rape, (and I'm not certain here, so up front appologies for error!), but wasn't rape within marriage not rape until recently?
My stronger case is for Paedaphila which I believe was vertaully enshrined in Roman civilisation - each "society" man was encouraged or expected to have his "boy". (I'm no expert on ancient Rome, so no doubt someone will know more details).
I guess the point is, whatever is abhorant today may be accepted, legal, or even promoted tomorrow. That strikes me as no way to conduct our morality.
Interestingly, I did hear that the Gay Lobby group Outrage wanted the age of consent for all people lowered to 14. This seems to be the case (Consetn at 14). Though, of course, they would not claim to be Christians at all. But, could this be and example a campaign to change our views of children's sexuality, and thus legalising what we now define as paedophilia?
(This is not meant to be a cheap shot back on the paedophilia/gay analogy. I quote this not cos its a gay article, but because its the only time I've heard of any people, of whatever sexuality, wanting to lower the age of consent to below 16. I'm quoting it to show how easily society could shift in its views on paedophilia. Disturbing!)
[Edited URL UBB. Do try that URL button...]
[ 31. January 2004, 01:02: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
I wasn't going to post on this thread again, but fish fish, what planet are you living on? 13 and 14-year-olds are having sex with their same age or slightly older partner all the time. You would prosecute them? My 13-year-old friend was caught by her mother in flagrante with her 16-year-old boyfriend. Now, I don't think it was a good idea, but she's not unusual at all.
And go back not too far into history, even in England and America, and it was not unusual for 12 year olds to be heterosexually married. Certainly in the Middle Ages through to the Victorian age marriages were consummated with very young girls (I'm assuming it was true in earlier periods - Mary was probably in her early teens). The whole notion of childhood has completely changed in the latter part of the 20th century, which is not entirely a bad thing. But you have to remember that children as young as five were down coal mines in the very near past or spinning cotton, or harvesting crops or working as domestics. You can hardly call that childhood.
Or is it only anal sex you're worried about? Well, let me tell you - I have heard horror stories from young Christians who have had what I now term "Christian" sex - it didn't involve vaginal penetration, but it went everywhere else, and so the kids still called themselves virgins. The boys thought it was great, the girls hated it. That is just plain mad, and if we are getting back to linguistics, try explaining that one.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Mary was probably in her early teens
I've heard this many times - anyone got any evidence for it?
I've nothing further to say on the parallel or otherwise between paedophilia and homosexuality. I guess it's proof that I've been on the ship too long when the same argument comes round again..... ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Moberly is one of the main theorists of the discredited theory of 'reparative therapy' which was discussed at length as cruel, damaging and having no reputable scientific basis on the Dead Horses thread which I assume Fish Fish hasn't read.
However as FF has raised it here I will add a reply here.
It might interest people to see an assessment of Elizabeth Moberly's research qualifications and methodology by Jeffry Ford the psychologist who was instrumental in introducing her to the US who was initially an enthusiastic participant in the ex-gay ministries based on her theories until he saw that they damaged people and didn't work.
This is his homepage and this is the essay on Moberly and 'Reparative Therapy'
Some highlights:
quote:
The term "reparative therapy" seems to be a catch-all phrase for therapy intended to heal or prevent homosexuality. Its roots stem back to the work of a British theologian and self proclaimed psychologist, Elizabeth Moberly. Moberly wrote a couple of books in the early 1980's that the early "ex-gay" movement found very intriguing. By far the most readable but not the easiest book was titled Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic. Her "research" involved no subjects! She simply did an extensive literature review of the outdated works of: Irving Bieber, Lawrence Hatterer, and Sigmond Freud and came up with a relatively minor reinterpretation of their findings.
quote:
I liked Elizabeth Moberly. I was instrumental in bringing her over to the US to do
conferences in Minneapolis and Seattle. She stayed with my wife and me. I learned that
my good natured teasing helped this shy, reserved woman to open up and allow her vulnerability and humanness to emerge. Very much an academic, she read her presentations word for word during an entire weekend long conference. She sounded
intellectual and made quite a convincing case for "reparative therapy". When asked how
many clients she had treated, she admitted she had seen none. When asked about her "research" she honestly reported she had done no new research. Elizabeth was a philosopher more than a psychologist. Her challenge at the time was for "ex-gay" ministries to take her unsupported theory and implement it. And implement it we did!
You can read his own story of what it did to him and those around him and what he went through
here and here
May I suggest that if people want to discuss stuff like the origins of homosexuality and the discredited notion that it can be 'cured' that we take it back off to the Dead horses thread where it belongs?
Louise
PS The age of consent thing, at least half a dozen European countries have 14 as the age of consent including the Austrians, the Germans and the Hungarians, some have 12, presumably then that makes them all perves for agreeing with Peter Tatchell on something? Paedophilia strictly defined is wanting to have intercourse with pre-pubescent children - all these ages of consent deal with post-pubescents. There certainly have been many many societies which have allowed young adolescents to contract and consummate marriages or to have sexual relationships from about age 12, but it's rare for sex with under 12s to be sanctioned. Even if you're talking about royal child dynastic marriages these weren't expected to be consummated until the girl was 12 or over. Greek male-male erotic relationships were certainly not for under 12s. Typically the eromenos in an erastes/eromenos relationship would be aged around 16-20. The erastes would be 20 or over, but this is all completely bloody irrelevant as to whether discrimination against gay people is A-OK or not.
The basis for not discriminating against gay people is that they're harming nobody and it's none of our business. It's for much the same reason as we now no longer go around threatening people with execution or penal laws on the basis of their religion. Having seen what persecution has done and having seen that these people are not harming us, we now do not sanction discrimination against dissenters, catholics, gay people, women and lots of other people whom our ancestors were happy to maltreat, and thank God for it.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
Thank you Louise for clarifying my understanding on Elizabeth Moberly - its a number of years since I read her book, and I hadn't heard these criticisms. Nor had I realised she was associated with the "ex-gay" ministries, which I understand are damaging, and promise more than they can ever deliver. So I'm sorry for bringing her name into the fray.
(n.b. the ministry I have been mentioning on this thread, www.truefreedomtrust.co.uk , is decidely NOT an "ex-gay" ministry in that it doesn't offer or promise any change in sexual orientation - it simply offers support to people who are both convinced of the Bible's prohibition of extra-marital sex, and seek solace and friendship and support in living out the single lifestyle. They do an excellent, quiet job. God bless them in their ministry)
And I agree, the age of consent is a red herring (I appologise for chucking it in - it just seemed to follow from the question I tried to answer on paedophilia - of which I said I knew little, and that fact was so succinctly proved to be the case by you!!!) Its a red herring, for age is not a factor when you are either agreeeing or disagreeing with sex outside marriage.
So - I'm happy to admit ignorance and red-herring tendancies on a few issues tonight. So, thanks for teaching me. Its good to learn!
--------------------
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
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
/tangent
cheers Fish Fish,
BTW the big homosexuality Dead Horses thread is 30 pages long but it has some extremely interesting stuff on it - so it actually is well worth a browse - we've been grappling with these discussions on the board for quite a long time from a large variety of perspectives.
However there is also another much shorter Dead Horse thread on the subject:
Living as a Christian Homosexual which you might find interesting too - it does mention the TFT, if I recall, and similar groups.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
What I want to know is when did you lot get your own lobby? Do you think you're to good to wait in the main lobby with the rest of us?
Mark my words - no good can come of this. Next thing we know, the gays are going to have their own foyers and entryways also.
--------------------
“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
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Posted by Laura: quote:
The "gay lobby". I work quite near Capitol Hill and I've never seen the gay lobby headquarters! Where is it? Is it salmon-colored, with little throw-cushions everywhere?
That does it! I am sooo annoyed now!! Will you people realise once and for all -
throw cushions are SO late '80s!!!
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
throw cushions are SO late '80s!!!
Not if they're needlepoint and have little mottos like "Never complain. Never explain" on them. That's very Elsie de Wolfe, and as such, classic.
As dear Elsie said when she first saw the Parthenon: "It's my color! Beige."
Historical note: Elsie de Wolfe virtually invented interior decoration as a career, giving employment to many otherwise unemployable homosexuals. Which was only fair since she was a lesbian herself. In fact, when in her sixties she married Sir Charles Mendl for social reasons, society was shocked that she had abandoned her partner of many years, the literary agent (for P.G. Wodehouse, among others) Elizabeth Marbury.
She also is credited with inventing the blue rinse. So she has a lot to answer for, one way or another.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
I don't know about throw cushions, but surely a gay lobby would have a gay credenza.
Greta
[ 30. January 2004, 20:51: Message edited by: CorgiGreta ]
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
Surely you meant a console table with a girandole above it?
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
What a tacky looking mirror!
I'd prefer something more in the arts and crafts style.
Sieg
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
A homophobe is someone who would never pay $11,500 for a mirror and who wouldn't have the taste to put a few flattering candles around it.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) After I found the link, I actually looked at the price.
Hey! Antique stores in Alexandria have pretty good prices sometimes. I've got relatives there.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
I'd prefer something more in the arts and crafts style.
Well you go right ahead. That leaves more gilt for me.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
