Thread: Purgatory: Homophobia: the meaning and use of the word Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001055
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on
:
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 ]
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
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
Posted by Off-centre view (# 4254) on
:
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
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
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.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
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.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
(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.)
Posted by Off-centre view (# 4254) on
:
Josephine, thank you for your excellent comments, of course in English words do not always mean what they are logically supposed to mean!
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
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?
Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on
:
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.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
"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
Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on
:
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.)
Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on
:
I cross-posted with Rossweisse and completely agree with her post.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
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!
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
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.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
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
Posted by Captain Eubend (# 4874) on
:
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.
Posted by cms (# 3818) on
:
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.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
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.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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.
Posted by Jengie (# 273) on
:
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
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on
:
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
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
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.
Posted by musician (# 4873) on
:
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.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
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.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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!
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
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.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
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.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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)
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on
:
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
Posted by Captain Eubend (# 4874) on
:
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.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
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.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
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.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
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.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
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.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
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.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
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?
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
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.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
p.s.
Off to church right now to grab that pew...
Posted by Captain Eubend (# 4874) on
:
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!
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on
:
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
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
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.
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on
:
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
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
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.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
[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]
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
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.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
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.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
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.
Posted by Captain Eubend (# 4874) on
:
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.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
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.
Self righreous is not a fair accusation - it both assumes I am alluding to my own standards (where as I am alluding to the Bible's standards), and that I am not prepared to apply the same standards to my own life. That's a big assumption!
Posted by Timothy (# 292) on
:
As a psychologist, I don't like the word homophobia because "phobia" has a very specific meaning that doesn't really encompass the range of attitudes implied by homophobia.
On the other hand, there are some people who seem to have something like a true phobic response to the presence of homosexual people, and there is empirical evidence that at least some "homophobes" are driven by fear of their own homosexual responses.
All in all, I'd prefer a word that sounded political rather than clinical. I've got no candidates to propose, though.
Timothy
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy:
On the other hand, there are some people who seem to have something like a true phobic response to the presence of homosexual people, and there is empirical evidence that at least some "homophobes" are driven by fear of their own homosexual responses.
Homophobia may possibly be a shortening of an earlier word "homoerotophobia" that dates from the 1960's. Was this longer word ever used in a clinical fashion by psychologists?
Neil
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
...“High five” is not a phrase used on this side of the “pond”. Please can someone explain it to me. ...
Sorry, old chap. I believe it grew up among basketball players, who bopped their hands together (the ones that faced each other, so right to left hand) upon making a particularly good play. (I may be wrong -- my ignorance of sports is nearly boundless.) At any rate, the phrase represents gleeful agreement.
Rossweisse // who knows more about quidditch than bucketball
Posted by Timothy (# 292) on
:
Faithful Sheepdog wrote:
quote:
Homophobia may possibly be a shortening of an earlier word "homoerotophobia" that dates from the 1960's. Was this longer word ever used in a clinical fashion by psychologists?
Not that I know of, but I wasn't a psychologist then and I admit I've never run across that word in the literature--in the 1960s most psychologists still assumed the homosexuals were the ones with the problem. There is a psychoanalytic term, "homosexual panic," which refers to acute anxiety about one's own repressed homosexual feelings. "Homoerotophobia" might have been a synonym (perhaps somebody thought it would sound more serious in Greek).
Timothy
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
No, that was homephoneophobia from the, now famous, Spielberg studies conducted in the 80's. I'm surprised you aren't familiar with the term. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
Not to be confused with homehomeontherangeophobia which is something completely different.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Antelope give me hives
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Ms Winterbottom asked: quote:
what word may I use for people who use the bible as their reasoning for condemning me?
How about 'vicious queerbashing b*stards' (or perhaps VQB's for short)?
You see, I think Capt. Eubend made the key point on Bible-based queerbashing (I'm avoiding the word homophobia. Personally, I've always felt I was a victim of theresnoplacelikehomephobia). It's the selectivity of their biblical 'exegesis', as has been pointed out many times but rarely taken on, and never satisfactorily explained, by the VQB's themselves. It's their selectivity that makes me think this isn't a Bible issue at all, but that there's something - possibly unconscious - going on behind their apparent biblicism. What that is, can only be hatred, fear, or ignorant prejudice. I certainly can't think of anything else it might be.
It is also, in my opinion, a gravely wrong way to use the Bible - or should I say, abuse it.
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on
:
Time for a tongue in cheek tangent...
<cheeky>
how true is it to say that a straight man who becomes aware of homosexual leanings in himself, would describe himself as homophobic......but a woman in the same position calls herself bi-curious? </cheeky>
This may be completely way off the mark, but its how it sometimes seems to me - women seem more accepting.
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on
:
Here are a few literary examples of the use of the word homophobia, taken from the press releases on the UK Gay and Lesbian Christian Organisation website.
This is from a press release of 16th November publicising a report on Christian Homophobia.
quote:
”homophobic abuse”
Here the word “abuse” is qualified by homophobic. Abuse has very negative overtones, and there is no such thing as good abuse. In behavioural psychology, the standard categories of abuse are “verbal”, “emotional”, “psychological”, “physical” and even “spiritual”.
These adjectives are not automatically pejorative, and it is possible to conceive of a verbal blessing, or an emotional blessing, or a psychological blessing, or a physical blessing, or a spiritual blessing.
However, the word homophobic has such pejorative overtones that it is quite impossible to talk meaningfully about a homophobic blessing – that would sound utterly bizarre. Homophobic can only be used in a negative way.
Here’s another example from a press release of July 2000 against an “Anti-gay Crusade”:
quote:
”unjust, homophobic and discriminatory practices”
Here the word homophobic is a bedfellow with the negative words “unjust” and “discriminatory”. Is it simply saying the same thing twice (a tautology), or is it adding a fresh dimension, and if so, what?
Is it describing (negatively) the psychological values that lead to unjust and discriminatory behaviour, with a possible reference to irrationality? Or is it simply pejorative verbal filling?
Neil
Posted by Herminator (# 5250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's the selectivity of their biblical 'exegesis', as has been pointed out many times but rarely taken on, and never satisfactorily explained, by the VQB's themselves. It's their selectivity that makes me think this isn't a Bible issue at all, but that there's something - possibly unconscious - going on behind their apparent biblicism.
Yes, I think the bible condemns homosexuality, but I also have an issue with greed, injustice, hatred, libel... and as thes are much more common and widespread I usually refrain from bashing homosexuals, I simply do not have the time!
But then it would be much easier, I could feel quite safe, I wouldn´t have to examine my own life, I would make less! enemies!
[Edited for quote UBB.]
[ 26. January 2004, 10:47: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
How about 'vicious queerbashing b*stards' (or perhaps VQB's for short)?
You see, I think Capt. Eubend made the key point on Bible-based queerbashing (I'm avoiding the word homophobia. Personally, I've always felt I was a victim of theresnoplacelikehomephobia). It's the selectivity of their biblical 'exegesis', as has been pointed out many times but rarely taken on, and never satisfactorily explained, by the VQB's themselves. It's their selectivity that makes me think this isn't a Bible issue at all, but that there's something - possibly unconscious - going on behind their apparent biblicism. What that is, can only be hatred, fear, or ignorant prejudice. I certainly can't think of anything else it might be.
So what exactly are you saying, Adeodatus? You are apparently saying that everyone who takes a different view from you on the Biblical material is a 'vicious queerbashing bastard'. Or that we are all guilty of 'hatred, fear or ignorant prejudice. Please explain.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Explanation coming up, Spawn.
The New Testament tells us to do many things, some of them rather odd. Generally speaking, we ignore the ones that don't make sense in our time and culture. So, for instance, in Acts we are told to abstain from blood. Do you eat black pudding, or meat that isn't either halal or kosher? Then you stand condemned by Acts.
Paul, bless him, makes a big deal about liturgical headwear in 1Corinthians. Do you stand at your church door handing out hats to the women as they come in? I think not.
The two 'biggies' of course, are women preaching/teaching in church (strictly verboten IIRC), and the marriage of divorcees which Jesus himself tells us is 'adultery'.
Many of those who have accomodated all of the above still preach against homosexuality. Ergo, by simple logic, sola scriptura cannot be their sole motivation (though they may wriggle and squirm and adduce all sorts of scriptural-casuistic 'excuses' for accepting all of the above). Ergo, by simple next logical step, something else must be at least partly their motivation. What is that other motivation? - something in their own minds that sets them 'against' homosexuality, and which they are prepared to bring forward scripture to support.
This is the only possible logical conclusion.
If on the other hand you are a black-pudding-avoiding anti-women's-ministry hander-out of hats, then I apologise for my rash assumptions, and your scriptural integrity does you credit. See you at the next chapter meeting of the Snake Handlers.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Explanation coming up, Spawn...
...If on the other hand you are a black-pudding-avoiding anti-women's-ministry hander-out of hats, then I apologise for my rash assumptions, and your scriptural integrity does you credit. See you at the next chapter meeting of the Snake Handlers.
Just as I thought. To rebut your simplistic points would take the discussion further into the Dead Horses territory of your post. A simple 'yes', that those who differ from your own take on scripture are 'vicious queerbashing bastards', would have sufficed.
So Faithful Sheepdog, the agenda has moved on to discussing the meaning of 'vicious queerbashing bastards'.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
As any deconstructionist will tell you, Spawn, texts are only ever interpreted subjectively. Therefore you have to be either a thorough-going literalist, with all that implies (i.e. you don't 'interpret' at all!), or you admit that your criteria for scriptural interpretation are less than absolutely objective. What you then have to do - assuming you're doing this conscientiously - is to examine your subjective motives for interpreting the text in the way you do.
It's my assertion - based on all the above - that anti-gay Christians (still avoiding the word homophobe here) are what they are not because scripture tells them so, but because they tell themselves so (usually unconsciously), and adduce scripture to justify themselves. I honestly think that anyone who disputes this would benefit from a foundation course in self-awareness.
To come back onto the OP's territory, it takes a pretty long stretch of credibility to attribute this attitude to 'fear', let alone to the kind of fear that normally constitutes a 'phobia'. So I'll stick with my 'VQB' terminology till someone convinces me otherwise - by sound logical reasoning.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
So I'll stick with my 'VQB' terminology till someone convinces me otherwise
OK, that's enough. Stating that people bring a subjective element to Scriptural interpretation is one thing. Calling people who exhibit such a subjectivity that you disapprove of as 'vicious queerbashing bastards' is another matter entirely. You will desist from doing so in Purgatory.
Alan
Purgatory host
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
As any deconstructionist will tell you, Spawn, texts are only ever interpreted subjectively. Therefore you have to be either a thorough-going literalist, with all that implies (i.e. you don't 'interpret' at all!), or you admit that your criteria for scriptural interpretation are less than absolutely objective. What you then have to do - assuming you're doing this conscientiously - is to examine your subjective motives for interpreting the text in the way you do.
It's my assertion - based on all the above - that anti-gay Christians (still avoiding the word homophobe here) are what they are not because scripture tells them so, but because they tell themselves so (usually unconsciously), and adduce scripture to justify themselves. I honestly think that anyone who disputes this would benefit from a foundation course in self-awareness.
I'm not a deconstructionist but my reading of your previous post suggests that you are a literalist. An intelligent engagement with the text is needed, including an awareness that interpretations are subjective. Nevertheless I think we are right to approach the text with the assumption that there is a correct interpretation and quarry away till we have it. It will never do then to just concentrate on part of the text to come to a conclusion but try to look at the part within the context of the whole. There are a number of other tools for establishing the meaning of the text but I take it we can agree on that.
Until about 10 years ago I took a liberal view on homosexuality feeling that although the Bible couldn't be interpreted as supporting same-sex relationships, it had to be understood in a context in which little was known about homosexuality. I began to feel in the light of further reading that I was wrong. Now I certainly didn't want to change my view to a more conservative one because that felt like a betrayal of lesbian and gay friends. Your explanation therefore that I am using scripture to justify my views does not chime with my experience. And all your arguments do not appear to take into account the fact that God speaks to us through scripture.
[ 26. January 2004, 13:25: Message edited by: Spawn ]
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Eubend:
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!
I know the discussion has moved on, but I have repeatedly seen comments like this.
If it helps, I first heard the "hate the sin, love the sinner" maxim from my grandmother about 50 years ago, when I was about 7, and certainly not in the context of homosexuality. She wouldn't have had a clue as to what homosexuality was, not the slightest idea -- totally out of her world view. Out of her Calvinist background she was trying, quite genuinely, to make the point that no-one, no matter what they may have done, is not to be loved. I take it, as she was not well educated, that this was a fairly common point of view she had learned at church.
The viewpoint, it seems to me, is perfectly valid.
If, in the decades since, gay people have experienced it used as a weapon against them, I'm sorry. But what else is a person to do who believes homosexual acts to be sinful, but who still wants to be faithful to the call to love? I don't call the faithful to love my (insert favorite sin here) as a test of whether they love me.
John
[Edited for UBB.]
[ 26. January 2004, 15:37: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
BTW, in that previous post, I was not trying to say that I believe some or all homosexual acts to be sinful. I am carefully avoiding offering any person opinion on that one. I just don't want any comments to hare off in that direction.
John
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's my assertion - based on all the above - that anti-gay Christians (still avoiding the word homophobe here) are what they are not because scripture tells them so, but because they tell themselves so (usually unconsciously), and adduce scripture to justify themselves. I honestly think that anyone who disputes this would benefit from a foundation course in self-awareness.
This might be fair were it not for the fact that there are significant numbers of Christians who are gay, but have concluded that the Bible teaches that sexual activity outside marriage is sinful. Are they vicious queerbashing bastards?! Logic would prove otherwise.
Since conservatives teach that ALL sex outside marriage is sinful, we are not picking (bashing) one group of people, but being totally consistant with all single people. So, as a single person, I am celebate - my sexual orientation actually is irrelevant!!!
So I would assert I am neither a homophobe, nor a vicious queerbashing bastard.
Posted by La Sal (# 4195) on
:
Adeodatus, maybe an alternate term to use here in purgatory is heterosexist.
I found it here: click here
[fixed URL code]
[ 26. January 2004, 14:50: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by La Sal:
Adeodatus, maybe an alternate term to use here in purgatory is heterosexist.
I found it here: click here
What a joke, you're trying to suggest a term to replace 'vicious queerbashing bastard' - but we would all know what Adeodatus means. Wouldn't an end to this kind of name-calling be better?
[fixed link - scroll lock issue]
[ 26. January 2004, 16:24: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posted by La Sal (# 4195) on
:
Fish Fish, you said: quote:
Since conservatives teach that ALL sex outside marriage is sinful, we are not picking (bashing)one group of people, but being consistent with all single people. So as a single person, I am celebate - my sexual orientation actually is irrelevant!!!
However, you have the ability to marry where as I and my partner of 30yrs. do not.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Wouldn't an end to this kind of name-calling be better?
Ah but a language without names, i.e. nouns, would be very difficult to use, if not impossible. Some things need names. I don't see why homophobia isn't one of them.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by La Sal:
Fish Fish, you said: quote:
Since conservatives teach that ALL sex outside marriage is sinful, we are not picking (bashing)one group of people, but being consistent with all single people. So as a single person, I am celebate - my sexual orientation actually is irrelevant!!!
However, you have the ability to marry where as I and my partner of 30yrs. do not.
You assume I'm straight.
In any case, I'm afraid that's a bit of a red herring because until (or if) I found someone foolish enough to want to marry me, my sexuality is irrelevent as I must remain celebate. My morality must match my current state - not my ideal state. So, until I actually marry, I must abstain. So we are still in the same boat. (Though you may be tempted to attach me to the anchor..!)
However, that was not the point I was making. The point was that conservatives are consistent in their teaching to ALL single people, and so are not queer bashers / homophobes.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
'Heterosexist' is an excellent alternative, and suitably Purgatorial. Bear in mind that I introduced VQB terminology in response to the specific question 'what should I call people who use the Bible as their reason for condemning me?'
An end to the name-calling would be a great idea. Tell you what, put up with half a lifetime of it like I have and I'll give it serious thought.
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on
:
quote:
Adeodatus said:
Paul, bless him, makes a big deal about liturgical headwear in 1Corinthians. Do you stand at your church door handing out hats to the women as they come in? I think not.
If you’d like to start a serious thread in Kerygmania to back up your rhetoric here (and on the other passages too), I’ll be happy to contribute something sensible in good faith and with an eirenic spirit.
There are some perfectly reasonable interpretations of the “head coverings” passage that bear no relation to “hats” as we understand them. One possible suggestion from Cambridge scholar Morna Hooker is some mark of liturgical office on the head. There are several other possibilities, but I digress.
quote:
Spawn said:
So Faithful Sheepdog, the agenda has moved on to discussing the meaning of 'vicious queerbashing bastards'.
On literary grounds I must commend this phrase as language that is clear, direct and vigorous: everything that the word homophobia is not. However, I am grateful for the hostly ruling that this phrase is not appropriate for a thread in purgatory.
Now, please can we return to the subject of this thread. I am interested if anyone else has examples of the word homophobia in literary texts of any kind. Full linguistic and semantic analysis guaranteed.
Neil
Posted by La Sal (# 4195) on
:
Now now Fish Fish, you seem perfectly lovable to me and I apologize for assuming anything about you....I hate that.
Please explain: quote:
(Though you may be tempted to attach me to the anchor...!)
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Ah but a language without names, i.e. nouns, would be very difficult to use, if not impossible. Some things need names. I don't see why homophobia isn't one of them.
I meant of course, Adeodatus' version of name-calling to describe anyone who disagrees with him. I can see grounds for using the term homophobia in its current usage under certain circumstances. I'm not sure that it is a term terribly useful in most of the Church's discourse on the subject.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by La Sal:
Now now Fish Fish, you seem perfectly lovable to me and I apologize for assuming anything about you....I hate that.
Thank you for not assuming! I think its a really important point - if celebacy is expected for all singles, then sexual orientation does not change that expectation.
quote:
Originally posted by La Sal:
Please explain: quote:
(Though you may be tempted to attach me to the anchor...!)
Cos I'm "conservative", and seen to be a queerbasher, so some people would perhaps like to conservative-bash me by tying me to the anchor and chucking me overboard...
:-)
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
My morality must match my current state - not my ideal state.
Not sure what you mean by this -- can you expand?
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
My morality must match my current state - not my ideal state.
Not sure what you mean by this -- can you expand?
This came from an assumption that, if I am straight I can get married, and thus it is OK to expect me to be celebate as one day I might no longer have to be.
quote:
My morality must match my current state - not my ideal state.
means that I must live within the moral boundaries of a single person as I am currently a single person. I may wish to be married, but I may not assume the married morality (i.e. having sex) until I am married. So, my morality must match my current state (being single) - not my ideal state (being married).
Is that clear? probably not! The point I was really making was, just cos a straight person may get married one day, and a gay person probably won't, that is not a logical reason to make gay sex outside marriage acceptable.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
The point I was really making was, just cos a straight person may get married one day, and a gay person probably won't, that is not a logical reason to make gay sex outside marriage acceptable.
But gay sex inside marriage would be okay?
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
The point I was really making was, just cos a straight person may get married one day, and a gay person probably won't, that is not a logical reason to make gay sex outside marriage acceptable.
But gay sex inside marriage would be okay?
I guess if there was such a thing as gay marriage that might be so. But since the Bible's teaching is that marriage is a heterosexual affair (!), then I'm afraid that there is no relationship within which gay sex is not sinful.
This is for the dead donkey thread I think. And anyway, the point I was making is that "conservatives" are consistent in their teaching to ALL single people, and so are not queer bashers / homophobes as alleged above. I am not condeming gay people - simply saying I (and I would argue the Bible) disaproves of any extra-marital sex.
Posted by Adrian1 (# 3994) on
:
To have a 'phobia' is surely to be afraid of something. If we turn to our Latin textbooks and translate the word 'homo' as man we could conclude that a person who was homophobic was afraid of men and, by definition, could not be a man. However if we turn to the modern, politically correct use of the term, we see that it is often used in derogation of those who don't particularly approve of homosexuality - not those who necessarily fear it. It is a sad comment on the nature of our society that the term 'homophobic' is used in a loaded way against those who cannot, for reasons of conscience and upbringing, give homosexual practice their unqualified endorsement.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
If we turn to our Latin textbooks and translate the word 'homo' as man we...
... would be revealing our complete ignorance. The word "homo" as used here is Greek, not Latin, and meands in English "the same". Just as "hetero" in "heterosexual" means "different".
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
If we turn to our Latin textbooks and translate the word 'homo' as man we...
... would be revealing our complete ignorance. The word "homo" as used here is Greek, not Latin, and meands in English "the same". Just as "hetero" in "heterosexual" means "different".
Perhaps the proper way to deal with the troublesome word homophobia would be to come up with an equal but opposite pejorative term to use in these oh-so-productive discussions of homosexuality.
How about: orthophobia
(From the Greek ortho- "straight" and phobia "fear")
Definition: "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against heterosexuality or straight people"
Given the global reach of the Ship, I'm sure we could make this term current by next year. What do you say?
(Anybody against it is obviously an orthophobe. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
I've just read this whole thread. At points there were contributions I, as an obsessive use-the-damned-language-correctly- sort-of-person, thought about making, but now I've lost my will to live. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Thanks, everyone. It's been nice knowing you all.
Posted by Lioba (# 42) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
[QUOTE] <snip>I guess if there was such a thing as gay marriage that might be so. But since the Bible's teaching is that marriage is a heterosexual affair (!), then I'm afraid that there is no relationship within which gay sex is not sinful.
<snip>
What does THE BIBLE - and I mean all of scripture - teach about marriage? Is it OK to have several wives plus some slave mistresses? If not, why then - Abraham, David and Salomon did so with God's approval. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I've just read this whole thread. At points there were contributions I, as an obsessive use-the-damned-language-correctly- sort-of-person, thought about making, but now I've lost my will to live.
Thanks, everyone. It's been nice knowing you all.
Wow. We turned a pedant into a glossophobe.
Posted by La Sal (# 4195) on
:
Kyralessa wrote:
quote:
How about: orthophobia
Definition: "irrational fear of, aversion to, or [bold]discrimination against heterosexuality or straight people"[/bold]
Kyralessa, I think you can exclude the part about "discrimination against heterosexuality or straight people because I don't think that exists in society.
Were you being facetious? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lioba:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
[QUOTE] <snip>I guess if there was such a thing as gay marriage that might be so. But since the Bible's teaching is that marriage is a heterosexual affair (!), then I'm afraid that there is no relationship within which gay sex is not sinful.
<snip>
What does THE BIBLE - and I mean all of scripture - teach about marriage? Is it OK to have several wives plus some slave mistresses? If not, why then - Abraham, David and Salomon did so with God's approval.
True, a number of people had numerous wives in the Bible. but nowhere do they get God's aproval for these actions, and oftern God expressly forbids these actions. (Just as with homosexual acts).
Isn't God's use of these flawed, sinful men to be great leaders an implicit acceptance of their affairs, and thus God's blessing on the relationships? No. God graciously uses sinful men like them and a sinful man like me. If he had to use perfect people , he'd wait a long time. But that's no licence to sin - we should root out any sin in our life when we discover it. That's why God led David to became repentant of his affair (Psalm 51).
But this is off the topic! Sorry everyone - I was just responding to a question asked of me.
Now - no one has answered my question way above - if a Gay person accepts the Bible teaches gay sex is wrong, and says so, are they being homophobic? If not, then why are "conservatives" called homophobic for saying the same things?
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by La Sal:
Kyralessa wrote:
quote:
How about: orthophobia
Definition: "irrational fear of, aversion to, or [bold]discrimination against heterosexuality or straight people"[/bold]
Kyralessa, I think you can exclude the part about "discrimination against heterosexuality or straight people because I don't think that exists in society.
Were you being facetious?
There is increasing hostility, and even discrimination, to anyone who dares to say that they believe homosexual acts are sinful.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
Fish Fish said: quote:
There is increasing hostility, and even discrimination, to anyone who dares to say that they believe homosexual acts are sinful.
You may well be right when you say this. However, I would guess that:
a) This only takes place in a small section of society
b) No one has been beaten up, let alone killed, for believing homosexual acts are sinful.
Therefore, if this hostilkity exists I do not think it can be compared to the discrimiation that many homosexuals have had to endure for years now.
Posted by La Sal (# 4195) on
:
Fish Fish wrote: quote:
Now - no one has answered my question way above - if a Gay person accepts the Bible teaches gay sex is wrong, and says so, are they being homophobic?
I guess it depends on the situation. Why do you feel a need to SAY SO ?
Posted by La Sal (# 4195) on
:
OOOOPS, I did it again Fish Fish. I did not mean that you personally feel a need to SAY SO . But why do you think some Gay people would feel a need to denounce gay sex?
Posted by PataRite (# 5452) on
:
I don't know if I'm going back on topic, or off topic...
But what happens when someone seems to have an irrational fear of homosexuals, but is okay with non-celebate gay christians? Are they homophobic??
Because I know someone who has sent me both messages, and I know they weren't lying either time... ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Therefore, if this hostilkity exists I do not think it can be compared to the discrimiation that many homosexuals have had to endure for years now.
2 wrongs don't make a right...
I think this hostility is increasing - anti discrimination laws may soon mean that if a church decides not to employ someone because of their sexual morality, then thier leaders could be prosecuted and imprissioned. Crazy.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by La Sal:
OOOOPS, I did it again Fish Fish. I did not mean that you personally feel a need to SAY SO . But why do you think some Gay people would feel a need to denounce gay sex?
If they have concluded that the Bible teaches that Gay sex is sinful, then its quite understandable that they would want to tell others there is an alternative way to live. There is a commonly held assumption in society today (and, sadly, by some Christians) that one cannot possibly be fulfilled if you abstain from sex, and indeed that absitnance leads to insanity! If some gay christians have actually discovered that abstiance leads to freedom, then why would they not want to share that?! And I think thats one of the reasons behind www.truefreedomtrust.co.uk
Posted by La Sal (# 4195) on
:
quote:
If they have concluded that the Bible teaches that Gay sex is sinful, then its quite understandable that they would want to tell others there is an alternative way to live.
Fish Fish in this situation I would not consider it as homophobic. I think we should continue this discussion in Dead Horses though.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by La Sal:
quote:
If they have concluded that the Bible teaches that Gay sex is sinful, then its quite understandable that they would want to tell others there is an alternative way to live.
Fish Fish in this situation I would not consider it as homophobic. I think we should continue this discussion in Dead Horses though.
Oh, OK. I just think it is relevant to the discussions about homophobia, becuase one of the main definitions of homophobia that has been banded around is that "conservatives" are homophobic cos they say gay sex is sinful. I've been trying to show this is illogical if some gay people take the smae view. So its in subject isn't it?!
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
OK in my much ignored earlier post I hinted that if you act in a certain way you can not be surprised if you are described as a person who acts in that way. Whatever label you choose to lick and stick.
In short I was saying if you seem to act in a homophobic manner then do not be surprised when people call you it. Now this thread is full of people being both surprised AND upset at being called homophobic.
Did it ever cross you mind that it is a fine and dandy word, that your dislike of it is that it strikes to close to home. That your very denial of their being an unassailable gulf between the commandment to love and the bitterness that runs through your churchmanship is a accurate indicator of your fear.
That perfectly capable biblical scholars (on this thread) hold forth an interpretation of scripture that is perfectly feasible but you will not give one inch, except when it come to discussing exactly what was meant by “head covering” and then all sorts of mental gymnastics are involved.
That society which has looked to the church for guidance on so many justice issues now considers us a joke. And is busy writing laws that will put some members of the church in court.
And still the word that strikes to the core is “fear”/ “phobe.” This much blindness, denial and intransigence must be based in something. It is not love, it must be fear.
As St Forrest would say Homophobic is as Homophobic does. If you don’t like being called homophobic stop complaining about it and act in a way that will not attract such an epitaph.
I have decided I like the word, this thread has persuaded me.
P
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Now - no one has answered my question way above - if a Gay person accepts the Bible teaches gay sex is wrong, and says so, are they being homophobic?
No, they are being deluded and self-loathing. And I've met plenty of people that the church and society have damaged in that way.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
Pyx_e, I am lost in admiration for your last post. It may be overused, but all I can say is ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Did it ever cross you mind that it is a fine and dandy word, that your dislike of it is that it strikes to close to home. That your very denial of their being an unassailable gulf between the commandment to love and the bitterness that runs through your churchmanship is a accurate indicator of your fear...
...If you don’t like being called homophobic stop complaining about it and act in a way that will not attract such an epitaph.
I have decided I like the word, this thread has persuaded me.
P
I'm trying desperately to avoid being hellish in reply to this. My objections to much of the usage of homophobia does not arise from the fact that it strikes close to home, but that it is a term that forecloses discussion, and it contains the same bigotry that those using it claim to deplore. Furthermore, it does nothing to persuade me that I am wrong, it merely confirms for me my view that there is little or no rationality behind the case for change in the church's teaching. I think it has the same effect on most other people. In fact, I suspect you will find that if people change their views on this subject it is not as a result of being called homophobic but as a result of meeting a lesbian or gay man or a couple who impressed them with graciousness.
But if you believe that name-calling of this kind helps you or gets something out of your system, you can call me whatever you like.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
I find it mmmm invigorating to be told it (use of the word) forecloses any discussion. Especially when so often any discussions I am involved in are summarily foreclosed by “The bible says……
I like the word but rarely use it because I avoid discussing the issue.
My point was and still is a raised eyebrow at a cap that fits so well but will not be worn. Read my first post.
P
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I suspect you will find that if people change their views on this subject it is not as a result of being called homophobic but as a result of meeting a lesbian or gay man or a couple who impressed them with graciousness.
Yassir! Take your coat? Rest your feet? Have a julep, Massa Spawn?
Merseymike would have wanted me to.
Actually I agree. It's hard to hate or fear people you know and like.
Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on
:
Did someone say, "The Bible says"? ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Oh sorry. Anyway, I agree with Pyxe that homophobic is a perfectly good word. Racist is a perfectly good word, too. But both words are often misused by applying them to people who are not homophobic or racist. Then, they unfortunately get devalued to "boo words" that foreclose intelligent discussion.
Posted by Kishi (# 4534) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I suspect you will find that if people change their views on this subject it is not as a result of being called homophobic but as a result of meeting a lesbian or gay man or a couple who impressed them with graciousness.
Yassir! Take your coat? Rest your feet? Have a julep, Massa Spawn?
Merseymike would have wanted me to.
Actually I agree. It's hard to hate or fear people you know and like.
As loath as I am to agree with Spawn on anything, I think that's exactly how prejudice gets dissolved. Nevertheless, I think the term homophobic describes exactly how I was prior to my friends coming out to me. Here's how I wrote in 1991 about my being a theologically liberal homophobe (in The Sign of Jonah, the monthly, uncopyrighted literary magazine of St. Luke's Presbyterian in Rolling Hills, CA):
quote:
...
The following Christmas break, I went down south for a visit. I was staying at John's parent's place, and Carl had invited John to a party in Westwood that Sunday night. John invited me to go. I could tell that John really wanted to go. Back then, he had not been out very long, and it was important for him to meet other gay men. I can't say I was entirely comfortable with the idea of going to an overtly gay party. Comfortable? I was filled to the ears with the screaming heebie-jeebies at the idea. What vile and unspeakable acts must occur at a gay party? Nevertheless, I trusted John, I trusted Carl, and so, swallowing a lump of anxieties, I said I'd go.
On our way to Westwood, I had ample time to worry. I felt awkward and vulnerable. It was like high school all over again. I didn’t know what to say to any of them. I had known Carl and John before I knew they were gay. The thought that some guy might want to meet me, that they might be interested in me, you know, sexually, scared me. Some ill-defined prospect for trouble loomed within me as we approached Westwood. Inevitably, though, we arrived, and, nervously, I followed John and Carl up the stairs to the apartment. And went in.
A few of the guys wore shirts which were more daring than “normal,” and some of the women had very short hair. In the corners of the rooms were groups of people conniving. Bent and sweaty, side by side they groaned and laughed in wild abandon as they … built gingerbread houses.
I’m not making this up.
There were twinkle lights, a creche, and a Christmas tree. Someone was playing TV theme songs on the stereo. Despite all these things, I was certain that at any moment some guy was going to hit on me. John and Carl sensed my nervousness, but John wanted to mix, so Carl asked if I’d like to make a gingerbread house with him.
Of course, Carl and I have never been enamored of conventionality. Given the materials, we just had to do something, anything other than build a house. After we had brain-stormed for a couple of minutes, Carl hit on the idea of building a gingerbread Greek temple. Our allocation of gingerbread formed the foundation, the roof including two triangular facades and the stairs leading to the sanctum. The pillars were inverted sugar cones. Candy tiled the courtyard and crenalated the eaves.
Immersed in the security of the project, I did not have to meet the eyes of the guys there. As it turned out, someone did want to meet me. The person sidled up next to me and sweetly asked if I wanted any help building the temple. I did not raise my eyes from the table and politely stated that we were doing quite well on our own, thank you. Carl tells me that she was really quite an attractive woman. After me reaction to her, she probably thought I was gay.
By the time we had finished making our little temple, my paranoia had subsided somewhat. I still felt as skitterish as a jack rabbit at a coyote farm, but at least I could meet people’s eyes and act something like a human being. But, more important by far, I began to see the other party goers as something like human beings. A group came to carol beneath our balcony, and we caroled right back at them. It was strange and perhaps of no significance at all, but the homosexuals knew more Christmas carols than the group on the street below.
I have been mugged by wonder. I have been robbed by love. Angels have grabbed me by the arm, taken me where I have not wanted to go, and shown me truths have not wanted to see. They have forced me to see the hatred and fear that had burdened me. I did not wish to let go, but the angels pried my fingers loose , one by one, and took from me this one precious prejudice. I love my gay and lesbian friends now. Unconditionally. They are my brothers and sisters in Christ, no matter what they do in bed. I love them because I have seen the people behind the labels, and I have seen that they really do love and care about each other. Oh, there are good ones and bad ones and loud ones and smelly ones and ones you just can’t stand, but - this is the thing - they’re all God’s creation, individual and quirky, and the capacity He has given them for nurturing and for caring make them precious to me.
Certainly, I cannot extrapolate my experience and feelings to those who strive continually to marginalize and anathematize gay Christians. Perhaps, they perform their hateful acts out of love with no fear or loathing driving those acts. Occam’s razor suggests to me otherwise, however. And I do understand the argument that the word homophobe can be used to censor and as an excuse not to listen. That saddens me. But I have been incredibly lucky: I have gotten to know many wonderful and deeply spiritual gays and lesbians and Christ is well served by them. We are fortunate to have them with us.
Oh, and, Pyx_e. that was a brilliant post.
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on
:
You really made me smile, Kishi. I wish I could have been invited to that party.
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
In short I was saying if you seem to act in a homophobic manner then do not be surprised when people call you it.
The point of this thread is "the meaning and use of the word", Pyx_e. Posting tautologies is not terribly enlightening.
But that's OK because I get the impression from your post that you're an orthophobe anyway.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Orthophobe is an e zine.
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
Damn. Well, with a little effort we could still make it go the way of kleenex and yo-yo.
[Leave it to a lawyer to check out the term's current usage. ]
[ 27. January 2004, 03:02: Message edited by: Kyralessa ]
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
pyx_e
quote:
That society which has looked to the church for guidance on so many justice issues now considers us a joke.
Is society really the barometer of our moral self-understanding?
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
While further investigating the meaning of "orthophobe" (looks like that magazine is now defunct, so the word may still be a go), I found a site that makes a very interesting point. A phobia is not merely a fear of something. A phobia is an irrational fear of something.
The example the site gave is that you can have a fear of heights but still go to visit a friend who lives at the top of a twenty-story apartment building. But if even in such an enclosed setting you couldn't go visit that person, your fear would be irrational and crippling and would be a phobia.
I think this sheds even more light on the popularity of the term homophobia; it connotes not only a fear of homosexuals (bad enough in itself), but an irrational fear of the sort that is usually treated psychologically and/or medically. One's opponents are thus stigmatized as not only fearful and irrational, but actually suffering from an illness.
I begin to think that as a disingenuous argument-stopper, this word is a work of genius.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Now - no one has answered my question way above - if a Gay person accepts the Bible teaches gay sex is wrong, and says so, are they being homophobic?
No, they are being deluded and self-loathing. And I've met plenty of people that the church and society have damaged in that way.
On the contrary, they realise God loves them, and desires the best for them. They realise he hates sin. So they come to that joyful place of peace with God, when you stopp rebbelling, and live as he wants you to live. And often this means they are freed from a self destructive lifestyle of promiscuity or pornography (as indeed heterosexuals who take the same Godly path - for my point all along is not homophobia, its disaprove-of-sex-outside-marriage-cos-God-does-ia). It also can help them come to terms with some of the issues which contribute to homosexual feelings, such as dissfunctional and unloving relationships in childhood etc.
So, its not self loathing, its God honouring and slef respecting.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Did it ever cross you mind that it is a fine and dandy word, that your dislike of it is that it strikes to close to home. That your very denial of their being an unassailable gulf between the commandment to love and the bitterness that runs through your churchmanship is a accurate indicator of your fear.
I agree, some of my fellow "conservatives", there is a lack of tact and knowledge. I wince sometimes when I see them on TV. I appologise for them.
However, you cannot dismiss this theological possition as homophobia (fear, whether rational or irrational) when large numbers of homosexuals take exactly this stance.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
If you don’t like being called homophobic stop complaining about it and act in a way that will not attract such an epitaph.
If, after lots of study etc, can see nowhere in the Bible that condones sex outside marriage, and masses that condem it (for everyone, no matter who or what with!), and yet also follow the command to love my brother, how can I hold those beliefs without being accused of hatred?
Posted by Godfather Avatar (# 4513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
If, after lots of study etc, can see nowhere in the Bible that condones sex outside marriage, and masses that condem it (for everyone, no matter who or what with!), and yet also follow the command to love my brother, how can I hold those beliefs without being accused of hatred?
I'd say campaigning for gay marriage would be a good start.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
If, after lots of study etc, can see nowhere in the Bible that condones sex outside marriage, and masses that condem it (for everyone, no matter who or what with!), and yet also follow the command to love my brother, how can I hold those beliefs without being accused of hatred?
I'd say campaigning for gay marriage would be a good start.
lol. But as that goes completely against my Bible based beliefs...
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
Fish person, you have gone way into Dead Horse territory.
Your words are very offensive as well. I would hazard a guess you know not a single self-accepting gay or lesbian Christian except for those of us right here on these boards.
If you wish to parade your pet theories about lesbians and gay men, trot over to Dead Horses. You are talking a load of rubbish about how we grow up and our supposed interest in pornography. But I'm guessing you're not interested in learning differently.
Sorry hosts, that was Hellish, but could someone redirect this person where he belongs.
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
Sorry to double post, but fish person, do you have any other interests? So far your 23 posts have all been on this one thread - seems like a wee crusade thing going on, and that's against the board rules.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Posted by Fish Fish: quote:
how can I hold those beliefs without being accused of hatred?
You can't. As Pyx_e so succinctly put it, homophobic is as homophobic does.
In the same way, you can't believe that the children of Ham/Canaan are destined to be slaves (Gen. 9.25), and not be accused of hatred. You can't believe the Jews cursed themselves on account of the death of Christ (Matt 27.25) and not be accused of hatred.
Call me bitter, but the only advice I can give you is the same that was given me by uncaring Christians when, many years ago, I was trying to come to terms with being gay: get over it.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
You can't. As Pyx_e so succinctly put it, homophobic is as homophobic does...
...Call me bitter, but the only advice I can give you is the same that was given me by uncaring Christians when, many years ago, I was trying to come to terms with being gay: get over it.
The best approach Fish in the face of this brick wall is to care for Adeodatus but not care a damn what he thinks about you.
Posted by Talitha (# 5085) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
If you’d like to start a serious thread in Kerygmania to back up your rhetoric here (and on the other passages too), I’ll be happy to contribute something sensible in good faith and with an eirenic spirit.
There are some perfectly reasonable interpretations of the “head coverings” passage that bear no relation to “hats” as we understand them. One possible suggestion from Cambridge scholar Morna Hooker is some mark of liturgical office on the head. There are several other possibilities, but I digress.
I second the call for a Keryg thread. I want to see the justification for taking the bits about homosexuality absolutely at face value while plumbing new depths of intellectual contortionism vis-a-vis head-coverings.
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
If you don’t like being called homophobic stop complaining about it and act in a way that will not attract such an epitaph.
I think you mean epithet...
Then again it sounds as though some people might be more in need of an epitaph after Pyx_e has finished with them.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
[HOST MODE]
Fish Fish, you are (as others have noted) straying into territory better discussed on the Dead Horses threads, either the general homosexuality and Christianity thread or more specific Gay Marriage thread.
More seriously some of your statements show a distinct lack of understanding of homosexuality (despite, ironically, apologising for how some other "conservatives" lack tact and knowledge). To imply that homosexuality is a "self destructive lifestyle of promiscuity or pornography" and that homosexuals need to "come to terms with some of the issues which contribute to homosexual feelings, such as dissfunctional and unloving relationships in childhood etc." is highly offensive to the many homosexuals to which these do not apply.
I strongly suggest that you first of all apologise for these offensive comments. And, second go and read the Dead Horse threads, you will find them very informative. Hopefully then you will be able to contribute to debates on this subject with a whole lot more tact and knowledge.
Alan
Purgatory host
[/HOST MODE]
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I would hazard a guess you know not a single self-accepting gay or lesbian Christian except for those of us right here on these boards.
Absolutely wrong. I know a number of people involved with www.truefreedomtrust.co.uk - and read some of the testimonies there to hear that often silent or shouted down voice.
Besides, what I am arguing for affects me as much as anyone, since I am single, and so I am applying exactly the same standards to myself as anyone, irrespective of sexual orientation. So if I'm hating anyone, I'm hating myself as much. Rather, I am trying to be honouring to God and what he wants of us.
As for pushing me into dead horses - actually, I'm trying to keep this on the issue by showing that the foundations for calling "conservatives" homophobic are illogical when so many gay people hold those views. But even if I am straying, why is it that I'm the only one booted away?! Whenever anyone (Pyx_e) makes symilar statements from a different view, no one pushes him/her to another place!!
As for being on a single issue crusade - nope. Just got sucked into this debate, and am enjoying it. I shouldn't really be wasting my time doing this, and so don't really want to waste more time on other debates!!! Sorry if thats breaking rules! (But, if we're being consistantly liberal here, I find those rules oppresive and hateful to my own self expression - so can't we be consistently liberal and ignore them?!! )
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[HOST MODE] More seriously some of your statements show a distinct lack of understanding of homosexuality (despite, ironically, apologising for how some other "conservatives" lack tact and knowledge). To imply that homosexuality is a "self destructive lifestyle of promiscuity or pornography" and that homosexuals need to "come to terms with some of the issues which contribute to homosexual feelings, such as dissfunctional and unloving relationships in childhood etc." is highly offensive to the many homosexuals to which these do not apply. [/HOST MODE]
I know some Gay Christians (as well as straight!) testify to that being their experiences.
But I am am genuinely sorry that I made my statement a generalisation of every gay Christian's experience. Sorry! I can see that was crass and insensative.
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on
:
quote:
That perfectly capable biblical scholars (on this thread) hold forth an interpretation of scripture that is perfectly feasible but you will not give one inch, except when it come to discussing exactly what was meant by “head covering” and then all sorts of mental gymnastics are involved.
Dear pyx-e
Many comments in your post are very questionable, and some are borderline hellish. However, since the comment above is clearly addressed to me, I will reply briefly.
As a matter of fact you are quite wrong. The metaphorical “inch” that I give to other people, both as human beings and Christians, is the right to make their own choices in life, and to settle their own consciences regarding disputed issues of theology and morality.
However, I expect them to extend the same courtesy to me. You can argue your case, and you can settle your own conscience, but you can’t decide mine, especially when it follows from a lot of biblical research and study on both the subject of homosexuality in the Bible and also Pauline attitudes to women. This is not the “mental gymnastics” that you so disparagingly cite.
I learnt NT Greek (from a woman, actually) precisely so I could get behind evangelical shibboleths about “headship” and liberal shibboleths about “the misogyny of St. Paul”. I look forward to seeing you in Kerygmania.
quote:
kyralessa said:
I think this sheds even more light on the popularity of the term homophobia; it connotes not only a fear of homosexuals (bad enough in itself), but an irrational fear of the sort that is usually treated psychologically and/or medically. One's opponents are thus stigmatized as not only fearful and irrational, but actually suffering from an illness.
I begin to think that as a disingenuous argument-stopper, this word is a work of genius.
Kyralessa, I’ve agreed with many of your comments on this thread. I reached the same conclusions as you above in my web-based discussion document referenced in the OP. There I describe homophobia as the ultimate ad-hominem, which right at the start ascribes a psychological pathology to intellectual opponents, sabotaging in advance any meaningful discussion.
Neil
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
I love it, you are all saying homophobia means, in my book, XYZ and I do not believe or think XYZ therefore I am not homophobic. You are cracking me up.
Did it cross your mind that it means something else to the people using it? Did it cross your minds that in the way in which they are using it is accurate?
Did it cross your minds that there is no word ever invented that will describe your position and that maybe homophobic is the closest?
All I am hearing is the strenuous blasts of denial. Nelson like, in putting the glass to an empty socket and seeing no ships. Funnily I am the only one actually discussing the use and meaning of the word. Go figure. And in saying stuff you do not like I am told I am hellish. Maybe it is just you don’t like it?
Call me to Hell find out what I really think.
P
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I love it, you are all saying homophobia means, in my book, XYZ and I do not believe or think XYZ therefore I am not homophobic. You are cracking me up.
Did it cross your mind that it means something else to the people using it? Did it cross your minds that in the way in which they are using it is accurate?
Did it cross your minds that there is no word ever invented that will describe your position and that maybe homophobic is the closest?
All I am hearing is the strenuous blasts of denial. Nelson like, in putting the glass to an empty socket and seeing no ships. Funnily I am the only one actually discussing the use and meaning of the word. Go figure. And in saying stuff you do not like I am told I am hellish. Maybe it is just you don’t like it?
Call me to Hell find out what I really think.
P
If hatred you feel is not felt by some other gay people, and indeed they hold the oppinions which you term as hatred, then perhaps its not hatred?
Perhaps we need to distinguish between two groups of "conservative" Christians. There are some who clash around with the sensativity of elephants (of which I am Dumbo no 1 sometimes), exorcising the gay demons etc. But there are others who genuinely and gently hold that homosexual sex (and indeed all extra-marital sex) is sinful, and this leads them to abstain from said activities. (the people at www.truefreedomtrust.co.uk , or any single celebate Christian, of whatever orientation). There are two groups of people.
Is it possible that the anger you rightly feel at the first one group is perhaps unfairly spilling over to the second group? The first is homophobic - but the second can hardly be called homophobic, can they?
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
Can I withdraw my 1syt sentance above?! The 2nd and 3rd express more clearly what I was saying. If anyone can delete the 1st sentace, then please do. If not, just ignore it!!!
Cheers
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
If, after lots of study etc, can see nowhere in the Bible that condones sex outside marriage, and masses that condem it (for everyone, no matter who or what with!), and yet also follow the command to love my brother, how can I hold those beliefs without being accused of hatred?
How not to be accused of hatred while holding those beliefs in four words: Keep yer gob shut.
If you want people to respect your position, you have to respect theirs as well. That doesn't mean agreeing with it, it means not commanding them to stop and desist from what they believe is OK.
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
<snip>
Funnily I am the only one actually discussing the use and meaning of the word.
<snip>
Call me to Hell find out what I really think.
Since you seem to be "the only one actually discussing the use and meaning of the word", then perhaps you'd care to help us all out and give us a precise definition? And then you can tell us what most of the other posters on this thread have been doing?
I'm not interested in a Hellish fight, and, as I understand the Ship rules, this subject is off-limits for Hell anyway.
quote:
Talitha said:
I second the call for a Keryg thread. I want to see the justification for taking the bits about homosexuality absolutely at face value while plumbing new depths of intellectual contortionism vis-a-vis head-coverings.
Why don't you start a thread in Kerygmania and give us your understanding of the relevant passages? I'll be happy to join in. Or are you saying that only you have the correct interpretation, and that everything else is "plumbing new depths of intellectual contortionism"?
And how do you understand and use the word homophobia?
Neil
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
And often this means they are freed from a self destructive lifestyle of promiscuity or pornography
Oh dear. I do have the odd* piece of porno tucked away here and there. But I bought the Mapplethorpe book for the flower photographs, I swear.
* Not that odd really. No animals or anything.
Posted by Talitha (# 5085) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
Why don't you start a thread in Kerygmania and give us your understanding of the relevant passages? I'll be happy to join in. Or are you saying that only you have the correct interpretation, and that everything else is "plumbing new depths of intellectual contortionism"?
And how do you understand and use the word homophobia?
Neil
I certainly don't think that only I have the correct interpretation. I was just highlighting the inconsistency in being a total literalist with regard to some bits of Scripture and applying highly liberal interpretative devices to other bits. Nor was I the only one to point this out.
In my experience it's those who argue most vociferously for sola-scriptura literalism in some passages, who are the most cunning when it comes to creative alternative readings of other passages.
My take on "homophobia" is that, despite its etymological history, it is now an analogue of "racist" and describes any prejudice against homosexuals, but I am aware there are other usages and I bear this in mind when I use the word, which I don't often.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
Since you seem to be "the only one actually discussing the use and meaning of the word", then perhaps you'd care to help us all out and give us a precise definition? And then you can tell us what most of the other posters on this thread have been doing?
I'm not interested in a Hellish fight, and, as I understand the Ship rules, this subject is off-limits for Hell anyway.
Faithful Sheepdog, you crack me up. Firstly I would not care to give you “precise definition.” Why the hell should I? Just to massage your intellect a bit more so you can go rooting about to find out how wrong I am and prove that in 14 different ways. Again I ask what is the point, you do not want to see.
The simple thing I am asking is: can you see that to some people if it is big, grey, wrinkly and has a trunk it is an Elephant? Or to put it another way some people can not see the difference between your position and a conscious or sub conscious fear of homosexuals. The word in common usage for that is homophobic
Secondly by discussing the meaning and use, I thought you meant discussing not pontificating. Meaning, well it obviously means something else to a lot of people that it does to you. Use, in that it is used in a way to describe a position close to your own and the fact you simply do not like it.
Thirdly it seems to me that some posters on this thread have been doing is to say both “if you play by our rules that is a bad word that does not apply to us” and “only our rules count.”
Lastly, I was not suggesting you ask me to Hell to discuss homosexuality. I was wondering if you would like to know WHY I think you are not prepared to move outside your carefully constructed box that allows you always to be right. I was not asking for a discussion on a dead horse issue I was preparing to be mildly rude about you and your retentive, closed circle position.
P
Posted by Degs (# 2824) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Wouldn't an end to this kind of name-calling be better?
Couldn't agree more, if that works both ways! Some of your more conservative pals use much more offensive terms than 'homophobe', or even Adeodatus' "vqb"! Likening homosexuality to peadophilia or bestiality!
quote:
Adeodatus wrote:
An end to the name-calling would be a great idea. Tell you what, put up with half a lifetime of it like I have and I'll give it serious thought.
Hear,hear.
Posted by Talitha (# 5085) on
:
I have now started a Kerygmania thread.
BTW, I'm surprised at what a closet liberal this thread has revealed me to be. I thought I was on the fence. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
And, Faithful Sheepdog, I'm sorry that my annoyance with what I see as a general inconsistency came out as a personal criticism of you.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I would hazard a guess you know not a single self-accepting gay or lesbian Christian except for those of us right here on these boards.
Absolutely wrong. I know a number of people involved with www.truefreedomtrust.co.uk - and read some of the testimonies there to hear that often silent or shouted down voice.
I don't think that Arabella (or many other people here, for that matter) would consider the people in TFT "self-accepting".
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Degs:
Some of your more conservative pals use much more offensive terms than 'homophobe', or even Adeodatus' "vqb"! Likening homosexuality to peadophilia or bestiality!
Interestingly, though, it's known by all that using such terminology is not acceptable on the Ship, but for some reason use of the term "homophobia" still is. It comes across as a double standard.
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
The simple thing I am asking is: can you see that to some people if it is big, grey, wrinkly and has a trunk it is an Elephant? Or to put it another way some people can not see the difference between your position and a conscious or sub conscious fear of homosexuals. The word in common usage for that is homophobic
If anyone has missed the subtle literary allusion to a famous poem about elephants and blind men, then here it is.
Neil
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Faithful Sheepdog, you crack me up. Firstly I would not care to give you “precise definition.” Why the hell should I? Just to massage your intellect a bit more so you can go rooting about to find out how wrong I am and prove that in 14 different ways. Again I ask what is the point, you do not want to see.
No, rather because that was the whole point of this thread titled "Homophobia: the meaning and use of the word." I'll grant that no one's absolutely required on pain of death to keep to the topic of a thread, but I'd think at least you could understand why he keeps coming back to that, pyx_e.
quote:
The simple thing I am asking is: can you see that to some people if it is big, grey, wrinkly and has a trunk it is an Elephant? Or to put it another way some people can not see the difference between your position and a conscious or sub conscious fear of homosexuals. The word in common usage for that is homophobic
Are you familiar with the phrase "begging the question", pyx_e? If the point of this thread were "the meaning and use of the word elephant", then it would be stupid to assume that everyone already agrees on what an elephant is and some people are just too stubborn to accept the obvious truth. Actually, believing that people know the obvious truth but refuse to accept it is a rather fundamentalist attitude. Not that I would slur you with a "boo" word like fundamentalist, pyx_e... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
Secondly by discussing the meaning and use, I thought you meant discussing not pontificating. Meaning, well it obviously means something else to a lot of people that it does to you. Use, in that it is used in a way to describe a position close to your own and the fact you simply do not like it.
But the point a lot of people have made here is that it's become a simple slur, like calling someone a Nazi or a racist; as such it is rapidly losing any specific meaning it might have had.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
I don't have time at the moment to get into this so I will simply add:
From the Oxford English Dictionary (online edition)
quote:
Homophobic - Pertaining to, characterized by, or exhibiting homophobia; hostile towards homosexuals. Also occas. as n., a person who displays homophobia.
1971 Psychol. Rep. XXIX. 1091 The 21 highest and 21 lowest scores were designated the Homophobic Group..and Nono-homophobic Group..respectively. Ibid. 1092 Homophobics said ‘yes’ significantly more often than Non-homophobics to the following statements: [etc.]. 1975 Citizen (Ottawa) 5 Sept. 2/3 The prime concern of homosexuals..is..in curing the public's widespread disdain toward gays, dubbed homophobia... A member of Gays of Ottawa called the Christian ethic the most homophobic in history. 1981 Observer 3 May 29/5 Rat-packs of homophobic punks, white or Latino, prowled gay neighbourhoods. 1986 City Limits 15 Jan. 7 A parents' rights group..began..leafletting the area with crude, homophobic literature. 1991 Outrage (Austral.) Feb. 3/1 Remembered for his frankness about his sexuality in homophobic Hollywood, Mineo was acclaimed for his roles in Rebel Without a Cause, Giant and Exodus.
Homophobia - Fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality.
1969 Time 31 Oct. 61/3 Such homophobia is based on understandable instincts among straight people, but it also involves innumerable misconceptions and oversimplifications. 1971 Gay (N.Y.) 30 Aug. 15/1 A colleague..who read a paper of mine on homophobia, did the first piece of research on homophobia that I [sc. Dr. George Weinberg] know of. 1975 Globe & Mail (Toronto) 4 Sept. 7/3 There is no such thing as the homosexual problem any more than there is a black problem the problems are racism and homophobia. 1980 Times Lit. Suppl. 19 Dec. 1440/5 Homosexuality does indeed pose serious problems: chief among them is widespread homophobia. 1988 P. MONETTE Borrowed Time vii. 171 It would be harder and harder to be openly gay. For once we would not internalize the homophobia.
The word, in this sense, has been around for over 30 years. It has a well-defined meaning.
It's like racist - it is a very powerful word but it is a necessary word because hatred of gay people is certainly out there.
When I'm talking about something discriminatory that falls short of truly having the hatred/fear/disgust angle then I tend to settle for anti-gay. Where someone shows obvious hatred or disgust for homosexuality though - homophobic is le mot juste.
As to whether certain beliefs are homophobic or not - that is a different question which is complicating this thread. I'll come back to that later, if I can.
L
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
simple slur, like calling someone a Nazi or a racist
'Nazi' and 'racist' are not 'simple slurs'. They have perfectly proper applications. Just because some people ignorantly misuse the words does not mean there are no such things as people to whom the terms 'Nazi' and 'racist' genuinely apply.
L
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
As to whether certain beliefs are homophobic or not - that is a different question which is complicating this thread.
On the contrary I think it's at the heart of what this thread is all about. I abhor homophobia and particularly people who would harm others based on their sexuality. I also don't see that the state has any legitimate interest in discriminating between heterosexual "marriage" and homosexual "marriage." Yet I also believe that homosexual acts are verboten by God. Should I be labelled a homophobe? That, to me, is the real question.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
It seems to me that we have got to the following impasse.
A good working definition of "homophobia" is "prejudice against homosexuals". Purists object that the provenance of the word is somewhat irregular. But language doesn't actually work like that - it has become hallowed by popular usage.
Ender's Shadow objects that it is necessary to discriminate between prejudice and principled opposition to homosexual activity in the light of scripture. I think he has a point. (I've just agreed with Ender's Shadow on a thread about homophobia - I think I need to lie down). Clearly one needs to discriminate between, say, the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the St Andrews Day statement where the authors are attempting to be fair and charitable and, say, the ravings of Mr Phelps who is evidently not.
The problem lies in the considerable grey area between these two positions. To listen to some evangelicals one would gain the entirely mistaken impression that Mr Phelps is the only homophobic Christian in existence. When Anglican Mainstream tell us that they object to Fr. John's (Aff. Cath. & SCP) teaching and not his sexuality and then welcome Fr. Cottrell (Aff. Cath. & SCP)with open arms I think we are entitled to be sceptical. When Abp. Akinola tell us that homosexuals are lower than beasts, or that ECUSA is under the control of Satan, we are entitled to see this as an expression of homophobia, despite the objections of Messrs Spawn and Sheepdog. When conservatives in ECUSA rush to the barricades over homosexuality having signally failed to do this over divorce, the ordination of women, the Virgin Birth and the Doctrine of the Incarnation we are entitled to surmise that something funny is going on. To suggest that this is somehow "Hellish" is special pleading. What we would like to hear is a reasonable argument explaing all these apparent inconsistencies. Actually I'll settle for an unreasonable argument, any argument at all.
Mark the Punk points out, correctly I think, that the term homophobia like the term racist can be over used. The problem is that racists in our society like to maintain that racism is something which is only practiced by people in white hoods or swastika armbands thus denying the kind of low level, low intensity racism that black people actually encounter. In the same way the restriction of the term "homophobia" to Phred and his ilk denies the prejudice expressed against homosexuals by the church and the world. (I am not btw accusing Mark of either of these).
Homophobia is an ugly word and often over used. But it describes an ugly thing which is too often present. As Pyx_e points out, if people don't like it there is a course of action which is open to them.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
This is not an impasse surely.
The question is, is it possible to disagree, even disaaprove of a person's behaviour without being "phobic" of the person themselves?
Of course it is. I am not "swearophobic", or "adulteraphobic". I don't run and hide, screeching when I meet a liar in the street, but I still think it is wrong to lie, and I wouldn't want a pathological liar as a bishop in my church. Does that make me "liarophobic"? Of course not.
(this is merely an example of a moral judgement not being a phobia, and is not for these purposes, supposed to imply a moral similarity between a liar and a practising homosexual - just to clear that up!)
Simply because some people who think gay sex is wrong are also homphobic does not mean everyone is who thinks that.
It seems to me that people like Pyx like to label those who think in this way with this very unpleasant word because it makes it easier to rubbish their point of view, rather than them really in fact being "phobic" of the people who behave in that way. Sorry if that strays into dead horses territory...
That's what I think anyway.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I don't think that Arabella (or many other people here, for that matter) would consider the people in TFT "self-accepting".
Can you elaborate that please?
Posted by Talitha (# 5085) on
:
But, Leprechaun, the people who are making accusations of homophobia are generally using it to mean "prejudiced", not "frightened". Maybe you don't run away screaming when you meet gay people in the street. But neither do racists/sexists run away screaming when they meet black people/women in the street.
BTW, for those who have been asking for examples of everyday usage of the word "homophobia", there are at least two on this completely unrelated thread, one by IbP and one by Hel. Both use it to suggest prejudice rather than fear.
[ 27. January 2004, 15:28: Message edited by: Talitha ]
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
But, Leprechaun, the people who are making accusations of homophobia are generally using it to mean "prejudiced", not "frightened". Maybe you don't run away screaming when you meet gay people in the street. But neither do racists/sexists run away screaming when they meet black people/women in the street.
But they do avoid them, not want to mix with them, think they are evil. As I said in my last post, while some people who take the so-called conservative position on this issue do treat gay people in this way, it does not necessarily mean that it follows that all who reach this position are homophobic, even in the prejudicial way. I know plenty, including myself, who do not.
I'm sorry for those who have been mistreated by the church, but that doesn't mean homphobic can be applied as a blanket term to people you don't like. In fact, that in itself is evidence of phobic behaviour.
[Edited for UBB.]
[ 27. January 2004, 15:43: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
Posted by Space Monkey (# 4961) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
But, Leprechaun, the people who are making accusations of homophobia are generally using it to mean "prejudiced", not "frightened". Maybe you don't run away screaming when you meet gay people in the street. But neither do racists/sexists run away screaming when they meet black people/women in the street.
But they do avoid them, not want to mix with them, think they are evil.
Sexism is just a case of thinking women are evil and avoiding them? So things like women receiving lower pay in many professions, being treated like idiots by mechanics, or expected to stay in the home, for example, are nothing to do with sexism or prejudice?
Just as all those things ARE generally acknowledged as being to do with prejudice, it seems to me that the anti-gay conservative position IS prejudiced. Anyone who argues that another class of people - who are members of that class by birth not choice - should be denied full expression of their sexuality in a loving relationship, or barred from an office, IS discriminating and practising prejudice.
'Homophobe' seems to be understood by most of the people who use it to mean 'prejudiced against gay people', so I think the label sticks.
Whatever you think the Bible says, however much you claim to 'love the sinner', if you condemn homosexual practice you are denying others the opportunity to live life in all its fullness. And that deserves a nasty word.
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
Whatever you think the Bible says, however much you claim to 'love the sinner', if you condemn homosexual practice you are denying others the opportunity to live life in all its fullness.
Yes, because everyone has to be part of my church, whether they like it or not.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
Just as all those things ARE generally acknowledged as being to do with prejudice, it seems to me that the anti-gay conservative position IS prejudiced. Anyone who argues that another class of people - who are members of that class by birth not choice - should be denied full expression of their sexuality in a loving relationship, or barred from an office, IS discriminating and practising prejudice.
But we can't take that position consistently with all people of all sexualities can we? There has to be boundaries of what is an acceptable sexual expression and what is not. I've been slated for (allegedly) equating homosexual sex with beastiality of paedaphilia. I definately was not equating them. However, what I was trying to show is that we don't treat all expressions of sexuality in an equally liberal fashion. (The reasons whyare obviously for another thread)
So,
quote:
Whatever you think the Bible says, however much you claim to 'love the sinner', if you condemn homosexual practice you are denying others the opportunity to live life in all its fullness.
I could use the same sentence but replace "homosexual" with a different, universally disliked practice - and it would become a sentance universally acceptable to this thread. And disagreeing with these practices would not be condemned as a phobia.
And, as I keep returning to, there are perhaps two groups of "conservatives". Some, who are hateful and unloving and homophobic (perhaps including this Phelps person - who I know nothing about). But there are others, including plenty of gay people ("by birth not choice") who believe gay sex is wrong. If gay people are concluding this, it must by definition be possible to take this possition and not be homophobic? No one has answered this yet!
[Edited quote bold UBB]
[ 27. January 2004, 22:44: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posted by Space Monkey (# 4961) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
Whatever you think the Bible says, however much you claim to 'love the sinner', if you condemn homosexual practice you are denying others the opportunity to live life in all its fullness.
Yes, because everyone has to be part of my church, whether they like it or not.
So it's OK for them to be gay somewhere else? It's either fine to be gay or it's not, surely.
To put it another way: would it be OK for you to bar black people from joining your church? No, because that would be prejudiced. So, in practical terms, how is this any different?
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I don't think that Arabella (or many other people here, for that matter) would consider the people in TFT "self-accepting".
Can you elaborate that please?
I may have grasped the wrong end of the stick, but I got the impression from the few pages I checked out that this was an organisation that helped people out of homosexual lifestyles, right?
If this is the case (and if it isn't, I'm really sorry for being an idiot), then it's the precise opposite of what those of us who don't see a prohibition against being gay being in scripture would consider as "self-accepting".
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I don't think that Arabella (or many other people here, for that matter) would consider the people in TFT "self-accepting".
Can you elaborate that please?
I may have grasped the wrong end of the stick, but I got the impression from the few pages I checked out that this was an organisation that helped people out of homosexual lifestyles, right?
If this is the case (and if it isn't, I'm really sorry for being an idiot), then it's the precise opposite of what those of us who don't see a prohibition against being gay being in scripture would consider as "self-accepting".
If they believe that there are emotional issues in their past which have contributed to their sexual identity, and wish to think through those issues, then I would say they are very "self accepting."
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
If they believe that there are emotional issues in their past which have contributed to their sexual identity, and wish to think through those issues, then I would say they are very "self accepting."
I see your point, but (and I apologise if I'm speaking out of turn, Arabella) I'd wager a great deal that it's not what Arabella meant.
[ 27. January 2004, 16:55: Message edited by: Wood ]
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on
:
quote:
Louise said:
I don't have time at the moment to get into this so I will simply add:
From the Oxford English Dictionary (online edition)
Louise, thank you for posting the online OED definitions and citations. The online OED is a subscription-only service, so I did not have access to it when doing my earlier research. Here is the promised linguistic and semantic analysis:
quote:
1969 Time 31 Oct. 61/3 Such homophobia is based on understandable instincts among straight people, but it also involves innumerable misconceptions and oversimplifications.
This citation implies that homophobia is not necessarily irrational, since its occurrence is understandable. It may arise automatically in straight people due to inadequate knowledge and a lack of understanding. It can be corrected by education.
quote:
1975 Globe & Mail (Toronto) 4 Sept. 7/3 There is no such thing as the homosexual problem any more than there is a black problem the problems are racism and homophobia.
This citation once again gives us the semantic parallel between racism and homophobia. In this regard, it is important to stress the differentiation between racism as a global prejudice based simply on race – who people are, regardless of behaviour – and a just discrimination based on what people are doing, regardless of race.
It is not racism if I protest loudly about the thief who has just stolen my car, and who happens to be from an ethnic minority. However, it may be racism if I presume automatically without evidence that the car thief is from an ethnic minority.
quote:
1980 Times Lit. Suppl. 19 Dec. 1440/5 Homosexuality does indeed pose serious problems: chief among them is widespread homophobia.
This citation tells us that homophobia is a widespread emerging phenomenon associated with homosexuality. Once again, the context is pejorative: homophobia is one of the chief problems associated with homosexuality.
quote:
1988 P. MONETTE Borrowed Time vii. 171 It would be harder and harder to be openly gay. For once we would not internalize the homophobia.
Homophobia makes it difficult for people to be openly gay. Homophobia also has two modes of operation – internal and external. This could correspond to the inward emotional reactions and the outward behaviour. Homophobia once again causes problems for gay people.
quote:
1971 Psychol. Rep. XXIX. 1091 The 21 highest and 21 lowest scores were designated the Homophobic Group...and Non-homophobic Group...respectively. Ibid. 1092 Homophobics said ‘yes’ significantly more often than Non-homophobic to the following statements: [etc.].
This citation would be more revealing if we had the questions in the survey. As it is, it implies one can be homophobic simply on the basis of opinions that can be gauged by yes/no answers, regardless of one’s actual words and behaviour. Its presence in a psychological report suggests that homophobia was once a word with a clinical usage.
quote:
1975 Citizen (Ottawa) 5 Sept. 2/3 The prime concern of homosexuals...is...in curing the public's widespread disdain toward gays, dubbed homophobia... A member of Gays of Ottawa called the Christian ethic the most homophobic in history.
So homophobia is a “disdain for gay people” – a reference to the “contempt” identified at dictionary.com. But is this disdain for who they are? Or disdain for what they do?
This citation also suggests that homophobia is also curable, which would suggest that homophobia may be some kind of illness or psychological condition.
Homophobic is also a word that can qualify the word “ethic”. I’m still thinking about the implications of that. Given the uniformly pejorative use of the word homophobic, this appears to be an oxymoron, like homophobic blessing.
quote:
1981 Observer 3 May 29/5 Rat-packs of homophobic punks, white or Latino, prowled gay neighbourhoods. 1986 City Limits 15.
Homophobia is associated with violent and predatory behaviour by groups of thugs quite independent of their ethnic origins.
quote:
Jan. 7 A parents' rights group…began...leafletting the area with crude, homophobic literature.
This would suggest that homophobia is associated with an attempt to assert civil rights, but little more about civil rights can be discerned from this citation. Maybe the reference is really to a denial of civil rights for others.
Homophobia can be expressed in a literary form, but this citation leaves it unclear whether one could have a sophisticated and well thought-out homophobia, as well as a crude one.
quote:
1991 Outrage (Austral.) Feb. 3/1 Remembered for his frankness about his sexuality in homophobic Hollywood, Mineo was acclaimed for his roles in Rebel Without a Cause, Giant and Exodus.
Homophobia does not like people to be frank about their homosexuality. Homophobia is also a quality particularly associated with Hollywood.
So the word homophobia, “Fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality”, has overtones of ignorance, misunderstanding, a lack of education, “the black problem”, racism, other emerging social problems, incorrect thinking, inter-personal disdain, a psychiatric illness, predatory gang violence, questionable assertions of civil rights, literary crudity, and opposition in Hollywood.
That’s one mightily negative and pejorative word. Used correctly, as Louise did in respect of David Copland, it is very powerful. Used in the weakened sense of “any disagreement with homosexuality at all”, the sheer overkill is such as to render the word unusable for any serious purposes.
Neil
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
Whatever you think the Bible says, however much you claim to 'love the sinner', if you condemn homosexual practice you are denying others the opportunity to live life in all its fullness.
Yes, because everyone has to be part of my church, whether they like it or not.
So it's OK for them to be gay somewhere else? It's either fine to be gay or it's not, surely.
To put it another way: would it be OK for you to bar black people from joining your church? No, because that would be prejudiced. So, in practical terms, how is this any different?
If you really want to talk about this, you're in the wrong thread. And I think you know what I'm going to say anyway, so why bother?
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
Someone please do correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong, but as I read this thread it appears that the principle difference between homophobes, strictly defined, and those who have "principled opposition to homosexual activity in the light of scripture" is that the former are glad I'm going to burn in Hell, while the latter are sorry that I will.
Somehow I find little comfort in that distinction.
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Someone please do correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong, but as I read this thread it appears that the principle difference between homophobes, strictly defined, and those who have "principled opposition to homosexual activity in the light of scripture" is that the former are glad I'm going to burn in Hell, while the latter are sorry that I will.
Nonsense. A lot of people in both groups haven't even met you, Sine. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by La Sal (# 4195) on
:
Sine Nomine:
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
Wood, you are indeed correct. I am a sexually active, self-affirming, loved by God, lesbian.
I'm signing off this thread now because what I'm hearing is people justifying their right to exclude me from eternal life. I believe that is up to God, and quite honestly, I think the rest of you should leave it up to God and try loving your neighbour in his or her wholeness, accepting us as part of God's wonderful creation.
Sine
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I'm signing off this thread now because what I'm hearing is people justifying their right to exclude me from eternal life. I believe that is up to God, and quite honestly, I think the rest of you should leave it up to God and try loving your neighbour in his or her wholeness, accepting us as part of God's wonderful creation.
I don't hear anyone excluding you from eternal life, and I agree its up to God. I wouldn't dare step on his toes.
But if he's given guidelines on how he's like us to behave then I'm going to apply them to myself, live accordingly, and happily debate with those who disagree!
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
So what have we established? Homophobia, despite its origins, is widely taken to mean: "prejudice against homosexuals". This is a strong negative word, which can be overused, but at times is entirely appropriate. Did it really take 4 pages to establish this? Didn't we all know that right at the start?
The question then arises: can you have a principled, rational/spiritual objection to homosexuality without being prejudiced? It seems to me that the answer to this question is, "Yes," in theory, but in practise this is extremely rare. Those of you who wish to take such a line should be aware that - however principled your stand is - those on whom you are passing judgement may well percieve you as being homophobic, due to the extreme prejudice they often encounter form other, less principled, people. If you find it hurtful to be perceived as homophobic stop making judgements on others, or keep those judgements to yourself. (If you want to keep clean, don't play with the other children in the mud.)
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
I have found this thread fascinating and illuminating. It's made me go back and really read the Bible.
As a result I'm rethinking my acceptance of women's ordination. It really wasn't scripturally based.
Live and learn. That's what I always say.
...and I'm throwing out my porn. But keeping the Mapplethorpe book.
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on
:
I've decided to use "homophile" for all those who hate the sin but love the sinner.
Greta
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
I've met some of them. Mostly in the nap room of the YMCA.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Faithful Sheepdog - what a very comprehensive trawl through the literature. The definition involving 'disdain' is one that rings true with me. You asked whether one might have: quote:
a sophisticated and well thought-out homophobia
Indeed one can. Just as one can be a sophisticated and thoughtful racist or sexist. Doesn't make one any less racist, sexist, or homophobic. It does make one more despicable, since one doesn't even then have the 'excuse' of ignorance.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Faithful Sheepdog - what a very comprehensive trawl through the literature. The definition involving 'disdain' is one that rings true with me. You asked whether one might have: quote:
a sophisticated and well thought-out homophobia
Indeed one can. Just as one can be a sophisticated and thoughtful racist or sexist. Doesn't make one any less racist, sexist, or homophobic. It does make one more despicable, since one doesn't even then have the 'excuse' of ignorance.
So let me get this right.
I am trying to apply the teaching of the Bible to my own life (being single, and not wanting to be a hypocrite) and also to draw attention to its teaching, and am attempting to do so in a loving way. But this is dispicable.
Others can call me dispicable and bigotted and throw other such stones. Is this an example of the loving response you seek in others? Interesting.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
FF the only despicable thing I have seen about you so far is that you refuse to consider that "the teaching of the bible" you are taking on is both accurate and complete. By the same token you are implying that your "teaching" is of a greater stature that Adeodatus's. Do you think he does not try and live a life in which the Gospel is vital?
P
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Faithful Sheepdog - what a very comprehensive trawl through the literature. The definition involving 'disdain' is one that rings true with me. You asked whether one might have: quote:
a sophisticated and well thought-out homophobia
Indeed one can. Just as one can be a sophisticated and thoughtful racist or sexist. Doesn't make one any less racist, sexist, or homophobic. It does make one more despicable, since one doesn't even then have the 'excuse' of ignorance.
So let me get this right.
I am trying to apply the teaching of the Bible to my own life (being single, and not wanting to be a hypocrite) and also to draw attention to its teaching, and am attempting to do so in a loving way. But this is dispicable.
Others can call me dispicable and bigotted and throw other such stones. Is this an example of the loving response you seek in others? Interesting.
Let's sharpen this up; for those of us who believe that the passage in I Cor 6 means what it is usually taken to mean - that the person in a gay relationship 'will not inherit the kingdom of God' - it is deeply unloving of us to fail to make this clear. It may be nice not to offend. It may be politically correct not to challenge. But it isn't loving; it's to fail to preach the whole gospel - it's to propound a false God. However if we've done that - in such a way as to show that we really care about the person (I'm not suggesting it's the something I've GOT to say, but I've got to be willing to make my viewpoint clear when appropriate and not duck the issue) - then hopefully we can develop the friendship with the person as with any other human being.
I've only two ongoing friendships where I've achieved that, and a third where I've lost contact for other reasons. And I admit they are not close - but they are not destroyed by our disagreement on the subject. I regret that noone has taken the risk of 'coming out' to me - the other people were known to me as gay by other means - and I hope that it is not because they fear my rejection of them.
Thank you Callan for your excellent summary of the situation and I regret that the reality is that the conservative backlash to Gene Robinson is probably more powered by 'homophobia' in the worst sense than 'principled' opposition. BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE THE OPPOSITION WRONG - because that is to succumb to the concept that an argument's validity is demonstrated by the people who propound it..... as on that logic the existance of the crusades and the inquistion prove that Christianity can't be true.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
FF the only despicable thing I have seen about you so far is that you refuse to consider that "the teaching of the bible" you are taking on is both accurate and complete.
Thanks for that, Pyx_e.
I would argue that I am absolutely flexible. Basing my morality and life on the teaching of the Bible, I am seeking its teaching and not at all to impose my own on it. So I read it seeking to know what it says on any issue. I have had to be flexible and change my mind on any number of issues since I became a Christian as I have become more clear on what it is teaching. So if I understand it differently I will change.
It is for this reason I have changed from being totally accepting of almost any sexual relationship 10 yrs ago, to today where I am more convinced the Bible is teaching abstinance for all people outside marriage.
If someone can convince me the Bible teaches gay sex, or any sex outside marriage is fine, then please believe me, I'll be more than happy to change my beliefs. It would make life a lot easier for me so I wouldn't raise the wrath of some gay people, or those singles sleeping around etc! And, being single, it would let me dip my toe in that lifestyle as well. But all the reading, listening, and debating has done nothing to convine me that the Bible is consistent in its teaching.
Now I can't invite you to convince me otherwise as thats beyond this thread. But I can invite you to believe me that many of us "conservatives" are not biggotted or filled with prejudice or hate or preconceptiosn - we just are subbmitting to the Bible as we read it - and are open to reading it differently if there is good reason to do so.
Can I also suggest, the more biggotted, thick headed, insensative, casting-the-gay-deamon-out-of-you Christians may in aprt be struggling to come to terms with our new world. 30-40 yrs ago you could be imprisioned for being gay - so the pendulum has shifted wildly in some people's life times - and it must be difficult to accept that change. They would have been brought up being taught words such as "ABONINATION" and "DETESTIBLE" and not have realised the distinction between a (God loved wonderful) person and their (God disaproving sinful) actions.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
That should read "But all the reading, listening, and debating has done nothing to convine me that the Bible is NOT (!) consistent in its teaching."
Posted by The Black Labrador (# 3098) on
:
If you take the simple view that sex outside male-female marriage is wrong then that applies equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals. So I do not see how that is that homophobic. (It may well be incorrect to believe that, and discussion of that point belongs in DH.)
Can anyone give an example of a conservative church leader saying that for example adultery is ok but same sex relationships are wrong - that would clearly be homophobia.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
BL, it does sort of beg the question about the meaning and use of the word "marriage."
P
Posted by Godfather Avatar (# 4513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Black Labrador:
If you take the simple view that sex outside male-female marriage is wrong then that applies equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals
I'm sorry, but this saying this "applies equally" when marriage is only available to heterosexuals is just face-gapingly ludicrous. You might as well say that men and women are equally capable of fathering children, assuming they've got testicles.
It makes no sense! It's an empty statement! It boggles me that anybody can even say it with a straight face, let alone believe it.
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
I don't quite think that's an empty statement. We're not talking about civil society here. The church has held that the sacrament of marriage is the union of a man and woman. BL seems to just be stating what the church has traditionally taught.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Ender's Shadow has pointed out that being nice to one another is of secondary importance here - an excellent reinterpretation, ES, of the old gay maxim, 'It Isn't Mean If It's True'. I quite agree. And by that very token, those of you whose religion shows disdain for, prejudice against, or oppression of, homosexuals - or any of the other definitions we've seen of 'homophobia' - are just going to have to get used to the plain fact that your religion is homophobic .
It's not nice. But it's true.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...are just going to have to get used to the plain fact that your religion is homophobic .
No, because our religion does not pick on one group of people, but is consistant in applying God's standards to all people.
And we who hold this possition apply it to ourselves first. Where is the discrimination or phobia in that?
Posted by Space Monkey (# 4961) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...are just going to have to get used to the plain fact that your religion is homophobic .
No, because our religion does not pick on one group of people, but is consistant in applying God's standards to all people.
And we who hold this possition apply it to ourselves first. Where is the discrimination or phobia in that?
Oh, come on! You are saying that for a whole class of people, who are members of that class by birth not choice, the option of lifelong sexual union with one partner (something the church is supposed to value very highly) should not be available under any circumstances. You insist they should remain celibate (and saying it applies for straight singles too doesn't wash, because they have the option of marriage).
You may claim that it's God's law, loving the sinner, or whatever else you like, but there's no way you can deny that it's discrimination. That's what the word 'discrimination' means, you know. Or are conservatives going to start getting upset about having that applied to them too?
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
You insist they should remain celibate (and saying it applies for straight singles too doesn't wash, because they have the option of marriage).
I am single. I do not have the option of marriage. It's not a lot of help to me to say to me "One day you may marry" because the temptations and frustrations are today. I have no option of marriage today. I have no chance of sex today. I may never get that opportunity. I may desperately want to be married and never find someone.
However, God has said that single people should be celebate, and so I'm going to accept that's what he says, and I'm going to lean on him, and trust his promise to help me day by day.
And all of us can argue till we're blue in the face. But I am simply saying what the Bible clearly says. I'm taking that as my authority because I've found none better. The alternative is to take my own (sinful) reasoning as authoritative - and, as I have said before, if we do that, someone is going to have to give me a good reason why we don't have to accept everyone's reasoning as equally valid - and some people's reasoning of acceptable behaviour is totally evil.
So I'll stick with what God says in the Bible. And if I have a problem with that (when I'm feeling frustrated and single), rather than argue that its unfair and arrogantly demand my rights from God (who am I to demand anything off God?), I'll thank him life, his many blessings to me other than sex, and ask his help to live as he wants me to. And God bless everyone who does likewise!!!
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on
:
quote:
Ender’s Shadow said:
I've only two ongoing friendships where I've achieved that, and a third where I've lost contact for other reasons. And I admit they are not close - but they are not destroyed by our disagreement on the subject. I regret that no-one has taken the risk of 'coming out' to me - the other people were known to me as gay by other means - and I hope that it is not because they fear my rejection of them.
ES, this is a good point. I have a longstanding straight friend who has frequently wandered far from the “paths of righteousness”, despite an ostensible Christian commitment. She has never hidden her occasionally wild behaviour from me, nor have I hidden from her my views on Christian morality.
Despite some trying moments, I am grateful that our friendship is sufficiently strong that it continues to this day with an open and honest dialogue. As a personal value, I actually hold honesty in my friendships higher than whether someone else is squeaky clean in terms of their personal relationships and sexual morality.
Up to a point, their private life is none of my business, until either they start asking for my approval (either personally, or in terms of Christian morality), or start telling me untruths. Who wants a friendship involving dishonesty?
So, coming back to the meaning and use of homophobia, being open and honest with my straight friend about my views on Christian morality has not been to show disdain, demonstrate prejudice, or exercise oppression. It has actually helped to keep a relationship strong over a period of 20 years. Why should it be any different when I am equally up-front and honest with gay people?
Neil
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
Oh, come on! You are saying that for a whole class of people, who are members of that class by birth not choice, the option of lifelong sexual union with one partner (something the church is supposed to value very highly) should not be available under any circumstances. You insist they should remain celibate (and saying it applies for straight singles too doesn't wash, because they have the option of marriage).
You may claim that it's God's law, loving the sinner, or whatever else you like, but there's no way you can deny that it's discrimination. That's what the word 'discrimination' means, you know. Or are conservatives going to start getting upset about having that applied to them too? [/QB]
Clearly this principle is applied to paedophiles - for lots of good reasons. (No, I'm not trying to equate the two - just point out that the principle is applied to one group). So clearly this is not a generally applicable line of logic.....
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
ES it can not be my turn to call you to Hell again, but if no one else does soon, I will. You just can't stop yourself can you?
P
Posted by Space Monkey (# 4961) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
You insist they should remain celibate (and saying it applies for straight singles too doesn't wash, because they have the option of marriage).
I am single. I do not have the option of marriage. (and so on...)
Look, this is getting derailed again. I was just making the point that, whether or not you believe it's instructed by the Bible, if you deny certain people opportunities that are available to others, it is called discrimination. You may think it's acceptable discrimination, but you really start to appear sadly self-deluding when you deny that it's discrimination at all.
(Which kind of brings us back to the homophobia thing, IMHO...)
The example of your current singledom is entirely irrelevant, I'm afraid. There's an enormous difference between you being unable to get a date, and you telling other people that they can never go on one just because of the way they were born.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
The example of your current singledom is entirely irrelevant, I'm afraid. There's an enormous difference between you being unable to get a date, and you telling other people that they can never go on one just because of the way they were born.
No one is objecting to anyone having close, intimate friendships. We all need that sort of love. However, I would strongly question the assumption that we all need sexual relationships. Our creator seems to be saying we don't. And so, if the object of going on a date is a sexual encounter, then I'll rule that out for me as I would suggest anyone rules out for them as well.
I'm trying to be consistant.
Posted by Godfather Avatar (# 4513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I don't quite think that's an empty statement. We're not talking about civil society here. The church has held that the sacrament of marriage is the union of a man and woman. BL seems to just be stating what the church has traditionally taught.
Fine. But as long as that paradigm of marriage is the prevailing one, don't go claiming that the requirement to celibacy for the unmarried "applies equally", because it's self-evident rubbish. If you [and that's a generic "you", not a "you, Alt Wally"] are going to discriminate because you think it's right, then at least have the honesty to admit to it.
Posted by La Sal (# 4195) on
:
Fish Fish,
quote:
"...(who am I to demand anything of God?), I'll thank him life, his many blessings to me other than sex, and ask his help to live as he wants me to. And God bless anyone who does likewise!!!
I agree with the line in bold. I too have been trying to do just that my whole life.....
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
whether or not you believe it's instructed by the Bible, if you deny certain people opportunities that are available to others, it is called discrimination. You may think it's acceptable discrimination, but you really start to appear sadly self-deluding when you deny that it's discrimination at all.
How about denying people the opportunity to eat pork (Judaism, Islam) or beef (Hinduism)? Does that count as discrimination?
How about Jehova's Witnesses being denied blood transfusions?
If not, why not?
The fact that more people care about having sex than eating pork is irrelevant to my question.
Posted by Space Monkey (# 4961) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
whether or not you believe it's instructed by the Bible, if you deny certain people opportunities that are available to others, it is called discrimination. You may think it's acceptable discrimination, but you really start to appear sadly self-deluding when you deny that it's discrimination at all.
How about denying people the opportunity to eat pork (Judaism, Islam) or beef (Hinduism)? Does that count as discrimination?
How about Jehova's Witnesses being denied blood transfusions?
If not, why not?
The fact that more people care about having sex than eating pork is irrelevant to my question.
Those are rules which apply equally to everyone who belongs to a tradition, so there's no discrimination (you discriminate between one thing and another). And if I was a member of one of those faiths, I - like many progressive Jews and Muslims (can't speak for JWs) - probably wouldn't regard those rules as very importtant nowadays.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
I don't quite think that's an empty statement. We're not talking about civil society here. The church has held that the sacrament of marriage is the union of a man and woman. BL seems to just be stating what the church has traditionally taught.
If we are going to insist on what the Church has traditionally taught then we should be insisting that all sexual activity for non-reproductive purposes is sinful, and that marriage is indissoluble as per the teaching of our Lord. Which is why I maintain that Roman Catholicism, which maintains exactly that, isn't homophobic. The condemnation of homosexual activity is, as it were, purely incidental to its account of what sex is for and about.
But it's slightly hypocritical to move the goalposts for heterosexuals, whenever it suits but to insist that any attempt to reconsider the status of homosexuality is deplorably wicked.
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
Agreed there is some inconsistency there, at least in many churches where standards for heterosexual people has been relaxed.
My only point was just to say that Black Labrador wasn't making an empty statement, there is teaching that follows along with it (whether or not one agrees with it).
Posted by barrea (# 3211) on
:
Fish Fish, I am sorry that I clicked too soon WhatI wanted to to say was that I agree wiith what you have said regarding the right way to live for single people.It was good to hear someone spell it out. This teaching is so much disregarded these days even by Christians.
I do believe too that the bible does teach that sex between two people of the same sex is wrong, and that we can't just please ourselves what we do or think in our lives.
We do not hate gay people or wish them harm, as so many people on this thread have sugested.
[Previous aborted post and duplicate of this one deleted]
[ 28. January 2004, 17:15: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
Those are rules which apply equally to everyone who belongs to a tradition
So's this though.
Is denoting something a sin discriminatory just because not everyone is tempted to that sin? Is it discriminatory to call drunkenness a sin because I don't drink?
Note that this is a different question from asking if I should go to bars and rail against drunkards when I'm not tempted with the sin myself; the answer to that one is obviously "No."
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
I do believe too that the bible does teach that sex between two people of the same sex is wrong...
[Previous aborted post and duplicate of this one deleted]
But you think it's OK to abort posts?
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
If we are going to insist on what the Church has traditionally taught then we should be insisting that all sexual activity for non-reproductive purposes is sinful, and that marriage is indissoluble as per the teaching of our Lord. Which is why I maintain that Roman Catholicism, which maintains exactly that, isn't homophobic. The condemnation of homosexual activity is, as it were, purely incidental to its account of what sex is for and about.
But it's slightly hypocritical to move the goalposts for heterosexuals, whenever it suits but to insist that any attempt to reconsider the status of homosexuality is deplorably wicked.
We have 3 options of how we set our moral standards
1. Reason (though, as I have asked, who decides who's reason is acceptable?)
2. The churches teaching (Who change their teaching from generation to generation as you rightly point out)
3. The Bible
As I stand firmly on the Bible, and since it does not teach the restrictions on sex you allude to, and doesn't change with the whims of the age. Therefor we shouldn't so much rely on the church's traditional teaching, but on the Bible's.
[Edited for quote UBB.]
[ 29. January 2004, 00:05: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
I do believe too that the bible does teach that sex between two people of the same sex is wrong...
[Previous aborted post and duplicate of this one deleted]
But you think it's OK to abort posts?
Only the ugly, stunted ones that would have had a miserable existence anyway.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
I do believe too that the bible does teach that sex between two people of the same sex is wrong...
[Previous aborted post and duplicate of this one deleted]
But you think it's OK to abort posts?
Just to be clear in case anyone is under the impression that the comment about aborting posts was made by barrea. He didn't say that, I did to just indicate what had happened to an earlier post by barrea that he mentioned ... it was a quote from Fish Fish without comment, and I deleted it.
Alan
Purgatory host
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
That would make a difference, now wouldn't it.
That's what I get for being a smart-ass.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
Clearly this principle is applied to paedophiles - for lots of good reasons. (No, I'm not trying to equate the two - just point out that the principle is applied to one group). So clearly this is not a generally applicable line of logic.....
ES please could you explain to me what you are trying to say here? I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But this quote is defeating me. Ta.
P
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I don't hear anyone excluding you from eternal life, and I agree its up to God. I wouldn't dare step on his toes.
Well, that's a relief. Big of you.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
Oh, come on! You are saying that for a whole class of people, who are members of that class by birth not choice, the option of lifelong sexual union with one partner (something the church is supposed to value very highly) should not be available under any circumstances. You insist they should remain celibate (and saying it applies for straight singles too doesn't wash, because they have the option of marriage).
You may claim that it's God's law, loving the sinner, or whatever else you like, but there's no way you can deny that it's discrimination. That's what the word 'discrimination' means, you know. Or are conservatives going to start getting upset about having that applied to them too?
Clearly this principle is applied to paedophiles - for lots of good reasons. (No, I'm not trying to equate the two - just point out that the principle is applied to one group). So clearly this is not a generally applicable line of logic.....
To respond to Pyx_e: the emotional weight of the original statement lies in:
You are saying that for a whole class of people, who are members of that class by birth not choice, the option of sexual union should not be available under any circumstances.
The fact that it is padded out to say:
You are saying that for a whole class of people, who are members of that class by birth not choice, the option of lifelong sexual union with one partner (something the church is supposed to value very highly) should not be available under any circumstances.
makes for a more attractive statement within a church context - but isn't actually where MOST of the emotional content of the statement lies.
I'm aware that we are wandering into Dead Horses territory - but my point is that statement 1 is applied to one class of people - paedophiles. Therefore where society deems it wrong for sex in that context to occur, this group is banned from sexual union.
In the past 50 years, society has decided that the historic rejection - that was led by the church - of gay sexual relationships should be relaxed. So it is now acceptable to argue that statement should not be made about homosexuals.
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.
Which is NOT intended to draw any parallel between gays and paedophiles - just point out the flaw in an argument whose strength lies in its generality.
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
ES, one would think you'd been on the Ship long enough to know by now that it's not acceptable to compare those who approve of homosexual behavior to pedophiles.
It's only acceptable to compare those who disapprove of homosexual behavior to racists or slaveholders.
Please try to get it right next time.
[ 28. January 2004, 20:27: Message edited by: Kyralessa ]
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on
:
If the term "homophobic" is to be used at all, I think it should not be applied to the beliefs of a person or group. Temptation to use the term, however, arises when these beliefs are translated into anit-gay action, which can encompass a wide variety of forms, from the somewhat innocuous (e.g., fag jokes) to the dreadfully hate-filled (e.g., farm fence crucifixions). In the vast middle are actions involving discrimination and denial of civil rights.
I think the term "homophobic" will fall into disuse on the day GLBT people are given full civil rights and equal protection of the laws. It seems to me that some religious groups unfortunately and wrongly have been very active in delaying that day.
Greta
Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on
:
Kyralessa:
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
hosting
To use paedophilia once to illustrate a point relating to homosexuality, Enders Shadow, may be regarded as a misfortune. To do it twice looks like carelessness.
You know well enough not to do it thrice.
Alan
Purgatory host
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
hosting
To use paedophilia once to illustrate a point relating to homosexuality, Enders Shadow, may be regarded as a misfortune. To do it twice looks like carelessness.
You know well enough not to do it thrice.
Alan
Purgatory host
I find this reaction interesting.
As I understand it, ES is NOT equating homosexuality and paedophilia. What ES is doing is showing that the basis of an argument is flawed. There is a world of difference.
We are questioning how one determines sexual morality. The concensus on this site is that sexual morality is not decided by any absolute, or external authority. It is decided by rational thought - I decide what is my sexual morality. I have decided that homosexual sex is morally acceptable, and so that is what I will practice.
This arguement makes sense until you apply it to people of practices which society still finds unaceptable - such as paedaphilia. This is NOT to equate homosexuals with paedophiles - but to draw parallels with the processes by which moral choices are made.
So, what is to stop a paedophile deciding on their own rational grounds, since there are no abdolute moral boundaries, and no external aithorities, that they wish to express themselves sexually? If rational thought is our arbiter, then they should have as much right as anyone to do what they choose. We might claim "Their sex is non-consentual" - but if there are no absolute moral guidelines, who made that the deciding line?
Can someone answer that without simply missing the point, and decrying the argument as offensive?
[ 28. January 2004, 22:54: Message edited by: Fish Fish ]
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
As I understand it, ES is NOT equating homosexuality and paedophilia.
Oh, but he should! I know I'd just as soon screw a terrified, crying nine year old girl as a hunky, hung, hot, horny, thirty year old man.
Makes no never mind to me. Lord no. Large dogs. Sheep. Whatever.
Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
As I understand it, ES is NOT equating homosexuality and paedophilia. What ES is doing is showing that the basis of an argument is flawed. There is a world of difference.
We are questioning how one determines sexual morality. The concensus on this site is that sexual morality is not decided by any absolute, or external authority. It is decided by rational thought - I decide what is my sexual morality. I have decided that homosexual sex is morally acceptable, and so that is what I will practice.
This arguement makes sense until you apply it to people of practices which society still finds unaceptable - such as paedaphilia. This is NOT to equate homosexuals with paedophiles - but to draw parallels with the processes by which moral choices are made.
So, what is to stop a paedophile deciding on their own rational grounds, since there are no abdolute moral boundaries, and no external aithorities, that they wish to express themselves sexually? If rational thought is our arbiter, then they should have as much right as anyone to do what they choose. We might claim "Their sex is non-consentual" - but if there are no absolute moral guidelines, who made that the deciding line?
Can someone answer that without simply missing the point, and decrying the argument as offensive?
No Fish Fish, there's no answer. Any post with the word "homosexuality" and the word "paedophilia" - no matter how logical or reasonable - will be jumped on by the hosts because they can't stand the screaming and the flak from the large number of shipmates who advocate the acceptance of homosexual practice. It isn't about logic - it's about who screams the loudest.
I know it's crap, but that's just the way it is.
Pax,
anglicanrascal
Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on
:
Well, to be fair to the hosts, pedaphillia analogies cause so much offense that discussions become hellish rather quickly, to say the least. Even without the hostly admonitions, other analogies would be wiser, methinks.
Methinks and agrees, however, that instantly equating views you dislike to homophobia, racism yada yada also does discussion no good and obscures real homophobia and racism. (I not saying that's happening on this thread.)
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
...and obscures real homophobia and racism.
Mark, am I being racist when somebody cuts me off in traffic, and I look over at the driver and mutter to myself "black bitch!"
She never hears it. Is it real racism? Or just, you know, regular run-of-the-mill road rage?
Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on
:
S. N., methinks I dare not answer your question.
Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
...and obscures real homophobia and racism.
Mark, am I being racist when somebody cuts me off in traffic, and I look over at the driver and mutter to myself "black bitch!"
She never hears it. Is it real racism? Or just, you know, regular run-of-the-mill road rage?
Or could we say that action was immoral - even though no-one felt hurt by it?
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Or could we say that action was immoral - even though no-one felt hurt by it?
Action? What action? The action of speaking? Is talk action? Do tell.
Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Or could we say that action was immoral - even though no-one felt hurt by it?
Action? What action? The action of speaking? Is talk action? Do tell.
Yup - the action of thinking a hateful thought about someone and putting it into speech is immoral.
IMNSHO, of course.
Pax,
ar
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
...and obscures real homophobia and racism.
Mark, am I being racist when somebody cuts me off in traffic, and I look over at the driver and mutter to myself "black bitch!"
Not only that, you're being sexist too.
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Clearly this principle is applied to paedophiles - for lots of good reasons. (No, I'm not trying to equate the two - just point out that the principle is applied to one group). So clearly this is not a generally applicable line of logic.....
This is one good example of why there is the Dead Horse thread. Some people simply refuse to try to understand the difference between a sexual orientation and an abusive power relationship. The analogy becomes a false analogy because any sexual orientation does not work the same way as an abusive power relationship.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
I appears that you still do not understand that pedophiles really don't care about the gender of their victims. The important thing for a pedophile is finding a person over which they can exert control and power. That is why the vast majority of cases involve family members: access and power.
There was a time in my life I did not understand many of the concepts behind sexuality, sexual orientation, and pathologies. I am not "expert" (although I have experiences that have given me more knowledge than most lay people), but I do pay attention to those that are experts by training and work experience.
Please, please, please read, mark, and learn something about this subject before saying somthing like this again. Please.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Yup - the action of thinking a hateful thought about someone and putting it into speech is immoral.
IMNSHO, of course.
Pax,
ar
Oh, no. Not just IYNSHO. I agree with you totally.
Posted by Belisarius (# 32) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Not only that, you're being sexist too.
No, "bitch" isn't sexist, it's gender-specific--the female equivalent of "asshole," if you will.
[Quote added due to cross-posting]
[ 28. January 2004, 23:57: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
Bede, I said the same thing in one sentence. Were you afraid he wouldn't get it?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
pedophiles really don't care about the gender of their victims.
Really? I never knew that. I always sorta assumed there were some straight ones and some gay ones...
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I always sorta assumed there were some straight ones and some gay ones...
Oh dear. Now there's a tangent.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I always sorta assumed there were some straight ones and some gay ones...
Oh dear. Now there's a tangent.
It was an idle musing, shall we just not go there?
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
pedophiles really don't care about the gender of their victims.
Really? I never knew that. I always sorta assumed there were some straight ones and some gay ones...
Most people make that assumption.
Based upon what I have found out from victims and experts in the field, it is actually a matter of availability--not gender.
(Note to Sine: Now do you know why I took a few more lines to explain?)
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Suggesting that homosexuality is comparable to paedophillia is like suggesting that the policies of the current American government are comparable to those of the Nazis.
Even if there is a smidgeon of common sense lurking somewhere in the depths of your argument (and I give ES credit for this. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I hope that someone will tell me I'm selling out or something) it will be lost as people queue up to point out that homosexuals are not like paedophiles or to point out that Dubya isn't Adolf. Which is entirely true in both cases.
Motto: Don't use crap analogies. This would apply even if the hosts didn't have strong views on the subject.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Suggesting that homosexuality is comparable to paedophillia is like suggesting that the policies of the current American government are comparable to those of the Nazis.
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.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
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
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
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?
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
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)
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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.
Posted by Space Monkey (# 4961) on
:
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.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
but I don't know how to set one up!
Oh, I see now...!
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
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.
Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on
:
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.
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on
:
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
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
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.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Kyralessa: try
here
here (could be referring to the same research)
and here
Is that enough to make a start?
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
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.
Posted by Space Monkey (# 4961) on
:
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
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
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.
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
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?
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
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.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
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.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
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 ]
Posted by La Sal (# 4195) on
:
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
Posted by Timothy (# 292) on
:
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
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
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 ".
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
<ewwwww>
<holds nose tight>
There is a big sbelly rottig corpse with hooves subwhere roud here!
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on
:
How to be a homophobe:
Lesson one........
Greta
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
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?
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
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!
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
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.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
Just thought I'd check my new sig down here rather than in the Styx.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
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!
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
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!
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
Sine: good sig.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
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.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
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?
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
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.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
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)
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
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.
Posted by Fish Fish (# 5448) on
:
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!
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
/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.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
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.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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!!!
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
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.
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
Surely you meant a console table with a girandole above it?
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
And here's a lovely one now...
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on
:
What a tacky looking mirror!
I'd prefer something more in the arts and crafts style.
Sieg
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on
:
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
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
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.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
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.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0