|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Homophobia: the meaning and use of the word
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
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. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
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?!
--------------------
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
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
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
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
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
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
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
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mertseger
Faerie Bard
# 4534
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Go and be who you are:
The Body of Christ,
The Goddess of Body,
The Manifest Song of Faerie.
Posts: 1765 | From: Oakland, CA, USA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
You really made me smile, Kishi. I wish I could have been invited to that party.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
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. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ]
[ 27. January 2004, 03:02: Message edited by: Kyralessa ]
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 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?
--------------------
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
|
|
Atmospheric Skull
Antlered Bone-Visage
# 4513
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Surrealistic Mystic.
Posts: 371 | From: Bristol, UK | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Talitha
Shipmate
# 5085
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 554 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
[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]
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
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?!! ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif) )
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 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! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) I can see that was crass and insensative.
--------------------
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
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"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
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
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
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 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?
--------------------
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
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
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Talitha
Shipmate
# 5085
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 554 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
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
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Talitha
Shipmate
# 5085
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 554 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
