homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Homophobia: the meaning and use of the word (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Homophobia: the meaning and use of the word
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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!

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Timothy the Obscure

Mostly Friendly
# 292

 - Posted      Profile for Timothy the Obscure   Email Timothy the Obscure   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
  - C. P. Snow

Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305

 - Posted      Profile for Faithful Sheepdog   Email Faithful Sheepdog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe

Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rossweisse

High Church Valkyrie
# 2349

 - Posted      Profile for Rossweisse     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
I'm not dead yet.

Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timothy the Obscure

Mostly Friendly
# 292

 - Posted      Profile for Timothy the Obscure   Email Timothy the Obscure   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
  - C. P. Snow

Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784

 - Posted      Profile for Tortuf   Author's homepage   Email Tortuf   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not to be confused with homehomeontherangeophobia which is something completely different.

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Antelope give me hives

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gracious rebel

Rainbow warrior
# 3523

 - Posted      Profile for Gracious rebel     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website

Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305

 - Posted      Profile for Faithful Sheepdog   Email Faithful Sheepdog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe

Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Herminator
Shipmate
# 5250

 - Posted      Profile for Herminator   Email Herminator   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
"Wizards in trousers? Not in my university! It`s sissy. People´d laugh." said Ridcully
-Terry Pratchett: Soul Music

Posts: 83 | From: Ich bin ein Berliner! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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'.

Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195

 - Posted      Profile for La Sal   Email La Sal   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195

 - Posted      Profile for La Sal   Email La Sal   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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. [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
Formerly Molly Brown

Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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. [Roll Eyes]
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.

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
'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.

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305

 - Posted      Profile for Faithful Sheepdog   Email Faithful Sheepdog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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. [Smile]

Neil

--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe

Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195

 - Posted      Profile for La Sal   Email La Sal   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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...!)


--------------------
Formerly Molly Brown

Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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...

:-)

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994

 - Posted      Profile for Adrian1   Email Adrian1   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue

Posts: 1986 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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".

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568

 - Posted      Profile for Kyralessa   Email Kyralessa   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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] )

--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.

I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.

Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]

Thanks, everyone. It's been nice knowing you all.

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lioba
Shipmate
# 42

 - Posted      Profile for Lioba   Email Lioba   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]

--------------------
Conversion is a life-long process.

Posts: 502 | From: Germany | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568

 - Posted      Profile for Kyralessa   Email Kyralessa   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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. [Help]

Thanks, everyone. It's been nice knowing you all.

Wow. We turned a pedant into a glossophobe. [Razz]

--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.

I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.

Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195

 - Posted      Profile for La Sal   Email La Sal   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]

Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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. [Two face]
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?

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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? [Snigger]

There is increasing hostility, and even discrimination, to anyone who dares to say that they believe homosexual acts are sinful.

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195

 - Posted      Profile for La Sal   Email La Sal   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ?

--------------------
Formerly Molly Brown

Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195

 - Posted      Profile for La Sal   Email La Sal   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
Formerly Molly Brown

Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452

 - Posted      Profile for PataLeBon   Email PataLeBon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]

Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools