WorldNetDaily.com | Bob Unruh | May 24, 2007
Bill threatens references to ‘mom,’ ‘dad’ at school
In a move with national implications, California’s state Senate passed a bill today that establishes a new definition for “sex,” threatens references to “mom” and “dad” and could restrict the presentation of scientific evidence to students.
The plan, SB 777, which actually would turn the state into a promoter for the homosexual lifestyle, is much like a bill approved by lawmakers last year but vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said adequate legal protections against discrimination already existed.
The new measure passed on a 23-13 vote.
For more than a year, advocates for the homosexual lifestyle repeatedly have pressed lawmakers in California – which wields national influence as the biggest purchaser of curriculum – to adopt their agenda. The new plan now goes to the state Assembly, which approved a similar plan in 2006.
The newest legislation, sponsored by state Sen. Sheila James Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, a lesbian, would ban textbooks, references, teaching aids, activities, events, discussions, posters, announcements, workbooks and anything else within the public school system from anything that “reflects or promotes bias against” homosexuality, transgenders, bisexuals or those with “perceived” gender issues.
. . . more
Actually, I was being precise. Some dictionary definitions include “homsexuals or homosexuality,” so antipathy toward either would still qualify.
But, for what it’s worth, it was not my intent to suggest that either you or Meona feel hateful toward people or classes of people. Based on what I’ve read from you, I suspect that you are sincere and compassionate when you are dealing with people who come to you to discuss their own sexual orientation, or other issues.
Note 51. Phil writes:
A dictionary definition of what? – antipathy, “homophobia”, homosexual, or homosexuality? And how does this address my point that your interchange of the term homosexual and homosexuality indicates you conflate the person with behavior? For all the incessant talk about how homosexuality is nothing more than, say, left-handedness, and should be overlooked as such, it’s the homosexuals themselves who can’t stop talking about their homosexuality. If being gay is no big deal, why do you keep bringing it up? Why do you keep trying to prove the ostensible normalcy of homosexual behavior to people who won’t be persuaded by your appeal?
This is a real question. My conclusion is that the discomfort homosexuals feel about their homosexuality is transferred to the larger society when in fact it is rooted in the behavior. In other words, because gay ideology demands that a man (or woman) experiencing same-sex desire define himself solely in terms of that desire (“I feel, therefore I am” transforms into “I am what I feel”), the self-negation that homosexual activity exemplifies and that the homosexual experiences in spiritual terms (friends dealing with homosexuality have described this to me) causes either honest self-introspection, or is projected onto the critic of homosexual behavior. If we believe the behavior is affirmative, as the homosexual ideologues would have us believe, then the critic of homosexuality must be a bigot the reasoning goes.
You might argue that there are plenty of stable homosexual men. That has not been my experience at all, and I know a lot of people. I find a deep and pervasive, and often debilitating insecurity in homosexual men. In fact, I think same-sex desire is a way of attempting to heal this insecurity — of trying to find one’s manhood in a sense by coupling with other men. It is not conscious in the sense that someone “chooses” to be gay, that is, same-sex desire lies deeper than the will, but it still indicates a deficit of masculine self-identity.
I don’t think it can be healed through coupling. And the danger in accepting homosexual ideology is that is snares and corrupts young men who otherwise would pass through these stages of insecurities and emerge more self-confident and secure.
But I don’t. I was quite careful not to state that you, say, feel animosity toward homosexuals. Why should the same precision of language that is important to you should be unavailable to me?
Um, are you suggesting that it was me who introduced the topic of homosexuality to this particular blog thread? The original article talks about “advocates for the homosexual lifestyle,” and it was posted by you.
I didn’t even introduce the word “homophobic” to this thread. I just responded, because I think discussions of language can be really interesting.
I don’t think any of my posts in this thread can reasonably be interpreted as “trying to prove the ostensible normalcy of homosexual behavior.” I can make a comment about the use of a confusing word (like “homophobic”) without making an argument for or against the normalcy of homosexuality.
“homophobia: unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.” (From the Random House Unabridged Dictionary.)
Now, a discussion could arise as to whether the adjective “unreasoning” must apply to the noun antipathy or just toward fear.
Note 33. Phil writes:
Advocating homosexual marriage attempts to normalize homosexual behavior. This is a plain fact, and all your other arguments will be seen in that light, especially since they mimic the reasoning that we hear from the homosexual lobby.
Homosexual marriage is a radical agenda, Phil — at least to anyone who has a historical perspective that extends beyond his date of birth. You like to think each of your arguments stands alone, as not part of a greater whole. Life does not work that way.
Note 54–
Your question was, “Why do you keep trying to prove the ostensible normalcy of homosexual behavior to people who won’t be persuaded by your appeal?” (emphasis mine).
My response was that I don’t keep trying to do that. I haven’t made any arguments in favor of the normalcy of homosexual behavior in this thread.
You replied
…but I’m also not advocating homosexual marriage in this thread.
It sounds like you’re saying that everything I say should be lumped together, because I disagree with you about some things. That’s not particularly charitable.
Can you at least acknowledge that I have not kept trying to prove the ostensible normalcy of homosexual behavior? That was a conscious choice. I read this board and I’m aware that one of the concerns you have with open discussion is that the same arguments get rehashed over and over. I was attempting to avoid that.
Note 55. So I am to believe that your attempts to legitimize the term “homophobia” is not related to your homosexual advocacy?
It’s a political term Phil, not a medical term. Your only argument so far is that because people use it in a political way, and because it’s in the dictionary, the term should be above scrutiny.
Now why would I think your homosexual advocacy is unrelated to your defense of the term?
Or is it that you think that your advocacy should be ignored because it was not directly mentioned in your multiple defenses of the term? Well, sorry. That’s an arbitrary ruling I don’t accept. Your ideas have consequences that extend beyond your discomfort that my responses might generate. Remember, this is a public forum.
Note 56–
I called the word “lame-brained” and “cumbersome.” I guess I don’t see that as an attempt to legitimize it.
I think it’s a pretty reasonable argument that usage determines the meaning of a word, though, and I think my observations about conservative versus liberal usage of the word “homophobia” are pretty much spot-on.
For all your talk about the importance of the larger culture, you seem not-too-fond of the traditional Western principles of argumentation. Traditionally, when we determine the truth or falsity of an argument, we examine the argument itself, not the speaker. I do this by outlining areas where we agree and areas where we disagree. You seem to be constantly in attack mode, where if someone holds one belief with which you disagree, you feel it taints all of their other beliefs so that their words are not worth listening to, that their arguments are not worth hearing.
The lesson I’ve learned from this thread, though, is that if we had a way to weigh communicative acts, the act of labeling someone carries more weight than the word that one uses.
That is, I thought it was neutral to say, “If homophobic means X, and you are X, then you are homophobic.” Kind of mathematical. The logical response is either “yes, you’re right,” or “homophobic does not mean X, it means Y, and I’m not Y.”
But there’s a floating variable in this equation, and it seems that, even when a speaker makes it clear that they don’t mean Y, the act of putting a word to another person’s beliefs (labeling, if you will), means something different entirely…Z. And Z is worse than X or Y.
Then, for clarification, why don’t you state once again what you think it means?
What’s it?
The term “homophobia.” Define it again since you seem to think your definition got muddled in the discussion.
I don’t think my definition got lost in the shuffle. Perhaps the definition did, but I maintain that trying to personalize words leads to communication breakdown.
But when I read the term “homophobia” in a paper, I interpret it to mean “negative attitudes toward homosexuals or homosexuality.”
So let’s look at what you wrote in note 7.
“Conservatives” believe words should mean what they say. Imagine that!
“Religious conservatives” believe their “homophobia” is excusable because it is directed by God.
Now, you still want me to believe you don’t use the term as a political tool; to separate people who reject homosexuality as normative from those who do? Futher, this term is not meant to be disparaging?
Note 62–
I’m not sure what point you’re making here.
By “words should mean what you say,” are you suggesting that the meaning of a word should always be exactly equal to the sum of its component root words? So “sinister” means “of the left hand side,” etc?
Is your problem that I used words (like “conservatives” and “religious conservatives”) to label people? If I offended someone by that, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to group people together based on behavior, or to imply that all conservatives or religious conservatives act the same way.
Beyond that, I’m not seeing where you’re contradicting anything I’ve said. My description of human behavior there was pretty accurate. If you substitute the definition I provided for the word “homophobia,” I’d say most reasonable people would find the correct.
For example:
[People who are religious and conservative] believe that their [negative attitude toward homosexuals or homosexuality] is directed by God.
Are you saying that sentence is inaccurate? I don’t get what your beef is. You’ve already made the point that you don’t like the term “homophobia,” but beyond that, you’re not showing me where the logic in my statements has been inconsistent.
If anything, I think that you agree with me, to wit: “Yes, my negative attitude toward homosexuality is directed by God, but please don’t call it ‘homophobia,’ because I believe that word has a negative connotation.”
Would that be a reasonable summary of your views? You could even add the traditional, “I do not have a negative attitude about homosexual people, just homosexuality” if you want to make sure I’m not misunderstanding you.
In other words, Phil, no matter what I say to you, as far as you are concerned and in your world, I am a homophobe. So what is the point of having this discussion since your mind is already made up about how folks with a conservative Christian bent think and are and you are not willing to even think that a person can actually believe that homosexuality ((or lying or adultery or thievery or )) is wong without being some kind of “-phobe”?
Phil, look, you can’t have it both ways. You want to side-step responsibility for using the term in a political way by arguing that words change meaning over time. Then you turn around and use the politicized meaning in precisely the way in which it has been “redefined.”
Yet the truth is that the term “homophobic” has no pedigree in the behavioral sciences. It never existed. That is why there is no relationship between the root words and the politicized manner in which it is used today.
The term is truly Orwellian. It’s the attempt to manipulate language to cast the critics of homosexuality as deviants, with the target of choice the “Christian conservatives” because they challenge homosexual behavior on moral grounds – clearly the strongest challenge because moral illegitmacy threatens the attempted takeover of the Civil Rights narrative by homosexual activists at its core.
To put it another way, you affect the posture that the term is normative, thus implying homosexual behavior is normative and the critics are out of the mainstream. This is evident by your refusal to defend the political use of the term, but still employing it in your critique of the “Christian conservatives”
I’ll grant you that a lot of people are confused by the term. By my sense is that this confusion is something you welcome, again, evident by your reluctance to come forward with a clear definition of what you take the term to mean. So far all you have done is continued the confusion.
But, when the pedal hits the metal, most people, despite their confusion, and despite the evident need to express that they are not indeed “homophobic”, just don’t buy the homosexual cultural agenda, as evidenced by the resounding defeats of gay marriage plebicites all across the country. It’s that visceral thing again. They sense that something is wrong with making homosexual behavior normative.
Meona,
If you’re acknowledging the definition I provided for homophobia, then I’m not sure how you’re interpreting that to be pejorative.
I’m happy to avoid applying the term to you, or to anyone else who feels it has a negative connotation.
There are probably lots of categories that I would fit into under your definitions, regardless of what I say: “liberal,” “pro-lifer,” “homosexual,” “neologian”….who knows? But the fact that I fit into those categories in your mind doesn’t necessarily mean that you are somehow closed-minded, does it?
Note 66:
Nope. I’m not. I’m just wondering why you bother since your mind is made up already.
Thank you muchly. Especially since it isn’t true and I will not be called outside of my name.
I try not to categorize folk I don’t know well. It tends to backfire and my parents went through a lot to teach me that prejudice ((defined as antipathy based on faulty and inflexible generalization felt or expressed toward a group or an individual of that group)) is wrong.
So, Meona and Jacobse, if someone said,
“I’m not pro-choice, I just believe that it’s a woman’s decision, not mine, to determine whether or not she wants to carry a pregnancy to term?”
You wouldn’t think that they were misusing that particular term, however politically-loaded the word might be?
I definitely wouldn’t vote for them. ~wink~
That said, I know plenty of people who want to stay out of other people’s business. That’s fine. I’m one of them.
Up until said people start advertising their business.
For example: To be perfectly honest I don’t care if “Adam and Steve” want to be together. Let them. That’s between them and God and I don’t have “Judge” anywhere on my resume.
What gets my goat is when Adam and Steve want to pass laws that tell me I can’t express my profound disagreement with their decision to pass laws that say I can’t express my disagreement based upon my religious beliefs. Where is freedom of speech then? Where is freedom of religion?
I also don’t particularly care for Adam and Steve, or their friends and supporters, concocting a bit of psychobabble because I disagree with them. Folks need to grow thicker skins and quit trying to pass laws based upon being offended by someone disagreeing with them.
Note 68.
So how does the analogy work? “I’m not pro-homosexual, but I think men should be able to decide for themselves if they want to copulate with each other?”
Doesn’t it already work this way?
But if you want homosexual marriage, homosexual sex education in the schools, etc. — that’s an entirely different issue.
This is “homophobic”? You are trying to stuff a lot of laundry into that bogus little term, Phil.
No, I was just suggesting that “pro-choice” is also a politically loaded term, like “homophobic.” Although a speaker may wish to distance themselves from the term, in some instances they do so by ignoring the term’s commonly-used meaning.
Could you put this into plain English please? Your point is muddled.
Phil the term “homophobe” has no common usage. It is a synthetic construct used by political advocats to promote their agenda and demonize their opponents ideas.
Your argument holds no water.
I can see where you might believe that. But the term “homophobe” does result in 1.1 million Google hits. “Homophobic” and “homophobia” add another 3.2 and 4.4 million hits, respectively, so the terms seem to get quite a bit of usage.
For comparison, the term “Eastern Orthodox” resulted in 1.01 million hits, and “Oprah Winfrey” resulted in about 1.7 million hits.
I think it’s fair to say that political advocates do you use the term. And I think you can make an argument that it’s a term that shouldn’t be used.
But I don’t think you can reasonably claim that a term that appears on 8 million web pages and in dozens of dictionaries (including Merriam-Webster’s and the American Heritage Dictionary) has “no meaning” because it has no common usage.
Perhaps what you mean to say is that you find the commonly-used meaning of “homophobe” to be offensive?
Note 74. So what? The “n” word has a lot of usage too (4,400,000 — yes, four million, four hundred thousand — on Google). Does that make it’s meaning morally legitimate?
And yes, I would argue the “n” word should not be used because it demeans blacks, just as “homophobe” intends to demean critics of homosexuality.
Note 75–
There you go. It’s one thing to say that a word’s meaning or usage is offensive; it’s another to say that it has no meaning.
Note 75. Phil, read my comment again. I said “morally legitimate” not “it has no meaning.” These are two different things. Of course the term “homophobe” has meaning. How could it be used to disparage critics of homosexuality otherwise?
Whether this usage is morally legitimate is an entirely different question which reaches back into points already introduced, particularly the lack of any pedigree in the social sciences as well as no usage related to its root.