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
I seriously don’t understand this sort of thing. No wonder homeschooling is growing by leaps and bounds. My child does not need this sort of nonsense forced on him. Talk about imposing a belief system! Yeesh.
They have a tyrannical mind driven by hate, self-loathing and a disgust for genuine freedom.
Meona they (as those proposing) see this type of legislation as being fair and compassionate. Not imposing a belief system.
I tried to look up the wording of the bill on all the websites expressing outrage over it, and oddly enough, I couldn’t find any actual text of the bill itself.
“Equality California’s Kessler sighed after hearing a summary of opponents’ arguments. “Those are outrageous claims … to say our bill is going to ban mention of Mom and Dad,” she said. “The curriculum statutes that this bill amends already say there shall be no adverse portrayals of groups based on [numerous things] and we’re just adding ‘sexual orientation’ … and, actually, we’re adding ‘religion,’ too.””
So, we already have statues that forbid “adverse portrayals” of various groups … and we’re just adding a couple more, it seems. Personally, I’m not a big fan of political correctness, and I don’t think we can enforce “sensitivity” via civil means. The claims of what this bill will actually do seem a bit overblown, however.
Yes I do understand that. And they are as compassionate as all get out as long as someone doesn’t espouse a traditionally conservative Christian point of view on this subject. I’m not homophobic, I just know that that particular “lifestyle choice” is not God’s best ((see Romans 1 through Revelation)) and I don’t want my son exposed to it before he’s old enough to make a rational logical decision. First grade is not old enough. Heck, 90 isn’t old enough as far as I am concerned.
JBL, while some may believe as you say, many do not. They want to impose their beliefs on others because of their own narcisstic hedonism, fear and emptiness. In order to continue living the way they want to the feel compelled to have it validated by culture and law. Many so-called Christians act the same way.
Meona writes:
This statement, I think, highlights a peculiar problem in gay rhetoric: two completely different sets of definitions are used in discussing the same issues. The commonly accepted definition of “homophobia” in political circles, academic circles, and in the gay community includes “prejudice against homosexual people.” Indeed, some dictionary definitions of homophobia include that phrase, or else “antipathy” toward homosexuals or homosexuality.
Clearly, making a statement that you think that not even 90-year-olds are old enough to be exposed to homosexuality fits that definition. The statement is dripping with antipathy toward homosexuality. Yet Meona feels it’s accurate to say that she’s not homophobic.
There seem to be two reasons for this:
1.) Conservatives oversimplify the word, neglecting the meaning it has acquired, by looking at the root words “homo” and “phobia.” Since phobia typically refers to irrational fear, they say “I don’t have an irrational fear of homosexuals” or “I’m not afraid of them at all!” Some will even say, “‘Homo’ means same, and I’m not afraid of people who are the same as me!”
This simplification is disingenuous; words evolve new meanings very rapidly, and it’s ridiculous to insist that all words must broken into the component meanings of their root words. You wouldn’t go to a traveling amusement show and say, “This isn’t a carnival! There’s no raw meat here!” And you would sound ridiculous correcting everyone who told you “That’s a cool outfit” by saying, “No! Actually, it’s very warm!”
2.) Religious conservatives seem to feel that if God tells them to believe something, they’re not responsible for the belief that they hold. “I’m not homophobic, I just know that God hates homosexuality and sends practicing homosexuals to hell. My antipathy toward homosexuality is not my own, it is directed by God.” But how ridiculous would it sound to say, “I’m not racist, I just believe that God created the darker people to be inferior to to the whites?” A religion-based bias is still a bias.
Or, since I realize that religious homophobes might take offense to being compared to racists, you could think of more positive examples. It would be equally silly to say, “I’m not devout. I just believe that God wants me to keep Him in my thoughts at all times and follow all of his laws.”
It would be more accurate, Meona, to say, “I am homophobic, because I believe that’s the way God wants me to be.”
How interesting Phil, that you are able to so inaccurately parse how I feel. I am not homophobic–by anyone’s definition. I am also not adultery-o-phobic, or liar-phobic, or anything else-o-phobic ((except maybe arachnophobic but that is another thread)). However, I do not think that adultery or lying are God’s best for humankind either. Please don’t assume I’m stupid because I happen to think the Bible ((in any language)) means what it says.
Phil writes: “The statement is dripping with antipathy toward homosexuality.”
Let me be clear. I’m not in any way opposed to long-term homosexual relationships, and I think that civil unions or even gay marriage should be legalized.
That said, I know that many Christians do oppose homosexuality, and most of these people are NOT hateful by nature. My question to you is this: in your view, is there a way that a Christian (or anyone else for that matter) could express opposition to homosexuality in a way that you would not consider to be homophobic? In other words, there has to be a meaningful way to distinguish between someone such as Meona, who I believe has legitimate concerns about the issue based on her religions faith, and the “God hates fags” crowd.
Note 8-
I never said that you’re stupid. I’m not sure what in my post made you think that. When you say, “Heck, 90 isn’t old enough as far as I am concerned [to be exposed to that particular ‘lifestyle choice’]” are you saying that that isn’t an expression of antipathy or prejudice toward homosexuality? If you think it’s bad (you compared it to lying and adultery), then don’t you legitimately have an aversion and a dislike of it? If so, that’s the dictionary definition to which I was referring.
If someone said, “I don’t think five-year-olds should be exposed to Orthodox Christianity, heck, I don’t think 90-year-olds should be exposed to it,” you would probably logically think that person had an aversion or dislike of Orthodox Christianity–and you would probably be right.
When you say that you are not liar-phobic but you might be arachnophobic, you are comparing “homophobia” to psychological phobias, which is what I described in reason #1. A medical phobia is a persistent, irrational fear of something, and “homophobia,” as the word is commonly used, is not a medical phobia. It happens to contain the root word “phobia,” but its meaning has changed over time.
In a similar vein, if someone calls your shoes “old school,” they certainly don’t literally mean that your shoes are an institution of learning, even though that’s what the root word, school means.
I was not suggesting that you hold an irrational fear, or a traditional “phobia.”
Perhaps it would be prudent for me to ask, Meona: what is the definition of homophobia?
Note 9-
I should clarify that, in saying, “The statement is dripping with antipathy toward homosexuality,” I’m not necessarily saying that the speaker is dripping with antipathy toward homosexuals. In fact, many speakers who make such claims make a distinction between homosexual persons and behaviors.
I think you’re right that there should be a way to distinguish between a relatively polite speaker like Meona and an obnoxious bigot like Fred Phelps et al. But I’m not sure what reason there is to oppose a word if your actions fit its definition. If you say, “I think that people of all races have value, and God loves them all, but they weren’t meant to integrate,” then that is a racist statement. It doesn’t become not-so because you are polite and you have lots of love for the people you are talking about. So it would be more accurate to say, “I think that racism is necessary; I’m a racist, and here’s why.”
Now, we both would disagree with that person’s views–in fact, probably most people on this board would disagree with their views–but we could all agree that that person is making racist statements, even the racist. A person who says “I”m not a racist, I just don’t believe in miscegenation” is obfuscating actual debate by relegating the discussion to the definition of a label. Why bother with that meta-debate, instead of discussing your actual views.
A person who says, “I’m not homophobic, I just think homosexuality is bad” is ignoring the commonly-held definition of homophobia. Many do this unintentionally, although I’m of the opinion that a lot of political discourse involves strategic misuse of words. Why do that? Own what you believe.
Not for Phil because his statements drip of Christophobia.
Phil writes: “The statement is dripping with antipathy toward homosexuality.”
What’s wrong with that?
The main issue here is the degree to which people are to be allowed, legally, to voice an opinion in opposition to homosexuality, for whatever reason. My impression is that Phil would like to see people who express such opinions spend time in the slammer.
These days it is not enough, apparently, for a person to merely tolerate homosexuality — to be indifferent to it. One must actively celebrate it and promote it.
This aspect of the issue has been discussed in this forum many times.
Jim, putting Phil and his fatuous, mocking, Christophobic attitude aside, you raise a legitmate question.
To understand human sexuality and its proper place in our lives from a Christian standpoint requires an understanding of Christian anthropology. All I can give here is a brief outline of some of the major features, which, BTW, serve as a foundation for the Christian moral critique of many of the issues we discuss. That is exactly why Christopher and I keep asking Dean about his anthropology. So far, Dean has made only one half-hearted attempt at ever responding to our repeated inquiries.
I.Man is created(male and female) in the image and likeness of God
II. Central to fulfilling our God given resposibility to dress and keep the earth and bring it to perfection in communion with God is the union of male and female in partnership (marriage)
III. Our decision to reject communion with God for the pleasures of this earth has profoundly twisted and fouled not only our being but all of the inter-relationships we have (man-God, male-female, humanity-rest of creation) Since one of the most central of those inter-relationships is sexual in nature, our sexual desires are easily twisted and used in all sorts of sinful ways even in marriage.
Sexuality is not meant to be and end in itself, it is a tool, an expression of God’s union with His creation and the fructification the occurs due to that union. Homosexuality and all of the other imitations of love into which we so easily and willingly fall is a sin. As Romans clearly points out it is sin because we love the created thing more than the creator. Homosexuality is only deserving of more condemnation than other sexual sins because it is a form of idolatry (we are not only loving the created thing more than God, but we are, in a sense, worshipping our own form. Homosexuality is, in fact, a personificaton of certain pagan forms of worship).
God does not “hate fags” because God is incapable of hate. However, homosexuals and all who persist in sin do so in part out of a hatred of God, but mostly out of the deep emptiness and fear which the absence of God creates in our hearts. As the old rock song says, “We are looking for love in all the wrong places”
It is deeply troubling to me when these misanthropic and destructive visions of man are enshrined in law and in culture as normative. We may not always articulate it well, but for sincere Christians, our objection to homosexuality is because we are homophilos, not homophobic. Of course, as our prayers say frequently it is Christ who is the only lover of mankind.
I would thus submit, perhaps unkindly, that given Phil’s evident Christophobia, it is his, not Meona’s who’s comments which are dripping with homophobia.
Augie,
I didn’t make an argument for what’s wrong with that (at least not in this thread.) As you seem to recognize, though, I did not mischaracterize Meona’s beliefs at all. I’m just pointing out fact; I’m not sure why Michael calls that Christophobic.
No, I would oppose criminal sanctions for people expressing their views in nonviolent ways. What on earth gave you a different impression?
Note 10. Phil writes:
The word is a political creation. Homophobia has a very straightforward root: man and fear, and literally means “fear of man”. How this got twisted into “fear of homosexuals” has nothing to do with the meaning of words “changing over time” but everything to do with trying to frame critics of homosexuality as irrational.
It’s loopy. It’s a loopy as, say, calling homosexuals who criticize heterosexuality (and there are many as I am sure you know) “heterophobic” — which, if given the linguistic rationale you provide above (politics determine the meaning of words), would be entirely accurate.
Michael, you might find this article interesting about former AFA columnist and staff attorney Joe Murray (who still considers himself a pro-life conservative).
I sympathize a bit with the fear of the Christian community on the part of some within the gay community. Given that they feel they must defend their ability to keep their homes, their jobs and in many cases, their very lives, wouldn’t you feel just a bit on the defensive and a bit resentful, even?
That being said, I think the Catholic Church for instance has been very compassionate on this topic while remaining consistent with their overall moral framework.
Phil, I hear you, I really do. I disagree with you. I’m still waiting on a non-“homophobic” way of expressing my opposition to homosexuality being forced on small children in spite any objections their parents may have.
Judgment and Proportionality:
JamesK: Note 16:
I
Shall we adjust this “information” in the light of reality. There is no real probability of such legislation being passed. Given recent U. S. Spreme Court decisions outlawing the criminalization of homomsexual conduct, any such legislation would be unconstitutional. {and you darn well know that}
You might want to compare this information with the results of the Pew poll of American Muslims. It found that as many as 25% of young American Muslims under 25 believe that it is acceptable to commit suicide-murders in the name of their religion. Given that hundreds of thousands of these suicide murders have occurred across the globe: U.S., U.K., Spain, Chechnya, Russia, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Phillipines, Nigeria, Kenya ad nauseum. There is no equivalence between the threat of Muslim violence against everyone and the threat of violence from people calling themselves Christians against gays. There is real reason for everyone to fear violence from Muslims and very little reason for gays to fear violence from Christians.
Islam explicitly preaches never-ending, global war against infidels, Christianity does not. Islamic countries are putting gays to death as we speak.
The fear of violence on the part of gays in the United States is mainly trumped up.
Phil writes: “A person who says, “I’m not homophobic, I just think homosexuality is bad” is ignoring the commonly-held definition of homophobia. Many do this unintentionally, although I’m of the opinion that a lot of political discourse involves strategic misuse of words. Why do that? Own what you believe.”
I find myself in the strange position of feeling like I’m supporting the conservative side on this issue . . . .
I want to make a distinction between three kinds of opposition to homosexuality, and I believe these are important distinctions:
1) simple homophobia. These are people who simply dislike or even hate homosexuals, for whatever reason.
2) unsophisticated theological opposition to homosexuality. These are people who say things such as “God says that homosexuality is wrong.” They see the issue in black and white moral terms from a very rigid rule-based perspective. Homosexuality breaks the rules, end of story. This kind of opposition can fairly easily morph into simple homophobia, as in “God doesn’t like homosexuality, therefore I don’t like homosexuals.” In that case the person adopts a homophobic attitude under the cover of a theological justification.
3) sophisticated theological opposition to homosexuality. In this case the person believes that one who engages in homosexual activity does real spiritual harm to him- or herself. To the extent that the larger society fails to comprehend the moral and spiritual consequences of homosexuality, the society also is harmed. This harm is perceived as occurring in several different ways.
First, homosexuality is perceived as a violation of the natural uses of the body. Second, homosexuality is seen as a profound misunderstanding of sex in its legitimate role in the sacrament of marriage and in the procreation of children. Marriage here is seen as primarily a spiritual union and institution, not just a physical union or legal construct. (Even nonbelievers sense the spiritual aspect of marriage. E.g., nonbelievers talk about how “fate” or “destiny” brought them together. They talk of loving each other “forever.”) Third, homosexual marriage is seen as a break in the long-held tradition of marriage founded millenia ago in the Jewish and Christian religious narratives.
In that sense, an acceptance of homosexuality or homosexual marriage would be seen as harmful to society, not just because of the homosexual activity itself, but because it would actually change how people perceive these larger issues. It would change how people perceive the body, how they perceive sex, how they perceive marriage, and how they perceive the whole ontology or gestalt of what it means to be a person, either singly or in sacred union with another person. And this change in thinking would have all sorts of implications for how people perceive other important issues.
Now whether these arguments or concerns are right or wrong is beside the point. The point is that sophisticated theological opponents of homosexuality have a a coherent worldview in which homosexuality has no place, and in which it is seen as an actual harm. One could argue that this whole worldview was constructed just for the purpose of justifying homophobia, but I don’t think that’s the case at all.
The bottom line is that people can in fact oppose homosexuality and homosexual marriage without being at all homophobic, because they see it as a personal and social harm. And I think that’s how many people in this venue would see it. The problem is that it is often difficult to distinguish between simple homophobes and sophisticated theological opponents of homosexuality based merely on a statement of opposition to homosexuality. Both might say “I oppose homosexuality,” but you have to look beneath the surface of the statement in order to understand why the person actually says that.
What Jim Holman said. And I fall under the third heading although I hesitate to call myself “sophisticated” by any means.
Rule-a-phobia: Note 19 Jim Holman
First, a point of scholarly reference. Dr. Robert Gagnon is a professor of New Testament Studies. He is conversant with all of the ancient languages of both the New and Old Testament. He has a long standing scholarly record on many topics. He has published several book length, comprehensive, thoroughly scholarly arguments in support of the traditional Christian condemnation of homosexual conduct (not persons, conduct) as sinful. For references, Google Robert Gagnon or look him up at Amazon’s book store.
Prof. Gagnon’s final conclusion is that homosexual conduct is condemned by God, but, like any other sin, the sinner can turn to God in repentance and receive forgiveness and a new start. In other words, there exists a clear-cut rule understood all through Scripture, and all through Judeo-Christian tradition.
What I would like to turn to is the typical “New Age” aversion to rules, to straight-lines, and to clear codes of conduct. There is no phobia greater than this. You can call it “culturally Left” or “New Age” or whatever you want. It takes the position that anyone who adheres to clear and distinct guidelines is morally and psychology infirm or inferior.
But it is very clear that although Jesus preached forgiveness and mercy, Jesus Himself warned us that a time would come when judgment would occur. At some point the sheep will be separated from the goats, in fact, Jesus told us that if something was an impediment to our salvation, it would be better for us to totally abandon that something rather than risk our salvation. Some people accuse Paul of being harsh and judgmental and claim that he betrayed Jesus’ teaching of love and forgiveness, however, it is quite easy to find parables and teachings directly from the Lord warning us that “lines will be drawn” and those lines will have a terrible consequence for most of us.
While some people may not be masters of the ancient languages and other may be, the adherence to clear standards of conduct and the promotion of clear moral rules is not a psychological, intellectual or moral infirmity by itself.
Note 21. Robert A. J. Gagnon Rowan Williams’ Wrong Reading of Romans ( … and John 14:6).
Archbishop of Canterbury’s misreading of Romans on homosexual passages.
I agree that Paul was not harsh or judgemental, since there are several examples where he implored other Christians to forgive and help individuals accused of crimes.
The early Christianity cultivated by Saint Paul was a fledgling religion with powerful enemies. As Paul’s epistles to the Galatians and Corinthians indicate he was particularly concerned with flamboyant and embarrassing behavior could draw the unwelcome attention on the young Christian faith As a matter of good sense, he counseled the young Christian communities to be simple and modest in their behavior to avoid such attentions. As a matter of faith he taught them that human bodies were for the service and glorification of God, not debauchery and perversion. The Caligula-like sexual morality of the Roman Empire would have been another aspect of the external world that would have greatly disturbed and offended early Christians.
Paul clearly did not see hetersosexual marriage as the only arrangement acceptable to God. Paul may have been a widower, but if so, we know he never remarried. His friend Luke was a confirmed bachelor who marriage and children as potential distractions from evangelical work. Paul once advised widows that they might be happier not remarrying, a suggestion that may have prompted the establishment of Holy Orders for women.
What would Paul make of the gay lifestyle today? He would certainly deplore the sexual promiscuity and emphasis on physical gratification that is frequently part of that lifestyle. I’m not so sure he would condemn celibate gay people, or gay people in quiet, caring, monogamous relationships, however.
Missourian notes: “it is quite easy to find parables and teachings directly from the Lord warning us that “lines will be drawn” and those lines will have a terrible consequence for most of us”
The parable you mention strictly separates the “merciful” from the “unmerciful” in that those who have met the needs of others (in terms of their spiritual but also physical, earthly needs) are the sheep. (Not that this is necessarily easier … none of us have done all we can.) It’s interesting that he did not mention (at least in that parable) separating people by their doctrine or their faith. Other parables reference God’s forgiveness as being dependent on whether we extend that forgiveness and grace towards others, not whether we’ve placated Him with repetitive prayers.
This is not a matter of simply being sentimental but the fact that “working out our salvation” entails us picking up our crosses and denying our selves for the good of others.
What does that cross entail for gay people? Well, they seem to be given three choices: a) remain celibate for life (which no one else seems willing to do, outside of some monks and hermits) b) undergo reparative therapy to make them “straight” (which rarely, if ever, works, even for the most dedicated of patients) or c) marry a member of the opposite sex (which usually ends up tragically for both parties — as it did for Ted Haggard and his wife).
As I have mentioned, as I’m single, I can’t comment on married life, but it seems that those who at least attempt to remain in a committed relationship with one person are required to sacrifice, to a great degree, many selfish elements of their personalities. It demands compromise, generosity, patience and many other virtues, virtues that I have seen demonstrated by some gay couples and that I don’t think would be expressed were they simply single and celibate and donating their Saturday mornings in a soup kitchen or some other stereotypical act of charity.
Now, I’m not talking about recommending a life of a frivolous pursuit of self-gratification (and yes, I know that is how some in the sexually active community live), but it seems that for some, these relationships may in the end make them more likely to respond to the God that Christians confess to be Love Incarnate.
Note 15–
It sounds like the disagreement that you have, then, is with the definition. I agree that the word is a creation, although not entirely a political creation (except in the grand sense of “everything is political”)–I think it’s more of an academic creation. And I don’t think the definitional problem is entirely with the conservative community; gay scholars seem completely oblivious to the fact that the word “homophobia” has a different meaning depending on whose ears it’s falling on.
But if you pick up a scholarly journal and read a rhetorical analysis of homophobic language, I guarantee that the authors’ working definition of homophobia is not “fear of man.”
I think we go to different lectures, Jacobse. I hear that word used all the time, to identify exactly the behavior you’re describing. And that behavior–“heterophobia,” if you will–is, in my opinion, inappropriate and sad.
At any rate, I think we can both agree that your explanation here is exactly what I described in “reason 1”–except if you feel “neglecting” is pejorative, perhaps “ignoring” or “rejecting” is a more accurate word. You are ignoring/rejecting the meaning the word has acquired by looking at the root words.
I’m not suggesting you do this out of spite; I’m just pointing out one of many little communication barriers between left and right.
I think usage determines the meaning of words, actually. I think both of us find the word the word “homophobia” to be a little lame-brained and cumbersome, but I think as far as its definition is concerned, that ship has sailed.
Note 19–
Jim, it sounds like you’re operating with a definition that would describe simple homophobia as “irrational disdain for homosexuals,” which would make it more clearly analagous to bigotry. Perhaps I’m guilty of using a too-broad definition?
At the same time, to extend the comparison, can’t there also be levels of sophistication in racist attitudes? I realize that Orthodox Christians are not racist, but we’re all aware that there have been throughout time religious leaders who believed that the Bible forbids the intermixing of races.
Now, if someone was smart, sophisticated, and thoughtful, and also sincerely believed that their Scriptural interpretation forbade miscegenation, would that person’s views somehow transcend the label “racist?” Or would it be more accurate to say that they their racist beliefs were smart, sophisticated, thoughtful, and Scripture-based?
Still waiting Phil.
Would Paul condemn “quiet, caring, monogamous” gay lifestyle? Yes
Again, Dean, I would refer you to Dr. Gagnon’s work. He tackles this evasion of Christian teaching head on and illustrates based on careful, detailed analysis of the text and all the surrounding historical, religious and theoretical context that Paul roundly condemns all homosexual activity.
Secondly, you need to be clear about your unspoken assumption that “gayness” is a characteristic of a person rather than a choice.
We have had very long discussions of that point and there is abudant
scientific evidence, as well as historical records, that homosexual conduct is a choice in most cases and a mental disorder in others.
I think you should consider how far from rationality we have wondered when the unnatural abuse of the human body is treated as acceptable. No one would deny that the clear purpose of our lungs is to transmit oxygen to the cells of our bodies. No one would deny that the purpose of our livers is to filter toxins from our bloodstream. The proper function and use of our reproduction organs is abundantly clear. It takes a form of insanity to deny the evidence before our eyes.
.
Full documentation of Gagnon’s position on “committed gay relationships”
Gagnon has thoroughly refuted the concept that St. Paul in Romans or Scripture in any other place accepts “committed gay relationships.”
For a full discussion see:http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexWinterResponse.pdf
Here is a critical portion of the argument:
Again, follow the links for abundant documentation of the argument.
A position which has been held by virtually every Christian group before the 1960’s.
Note 24, JamesK it isn’t your opinion that counts (or mine)
JamesK.
You don’t seem to understand that we are dealing with a matter of authority here. The authority of God the Creator. Your opinion is interesting, of course, but it is just your opinion, it carries no more salvific weight than mine does, which is nada, zero, zilch and nothing.
Each individual has to decide whether there is a God and who or what is a reliable source of information about what God wants of us. I consider the Orthodox Church to be a reliable source of information about what God wants of us.
God is different from us. We do not “think” as God thinks, we do not understand everything God understands, much as children do not think as adults and understand as adults do. The gap between God and ourselves is much, much greater than the gap between parents and children.
So, what seems “logical” to you is drawn from your family background, your education, the culture you were born into and many other things. You may disagree with my conclusions. You may disagree that there is a God. You may disagree that the Orthodox Church teaches the Truth about God. That is your perogative, but, reasoning from your opinion of what is appropriate is not really important to me because I won’t have to account for my life and my soul to you, or to anyone else other than God.
Note 24,JamesK, Separating people by their faith?
Christ discusses people’s faith quite directly. He condemns the religious beliefs and practices of quite a few people as false and unpleasing to God. Would you like references?
Note 24, JamesK: No loving God would discomfit his Children
I don’t think you believe that a loving God would ask His children to endure any type of discomfort, right? That wouldn’t be loving. Yet Christ expressly states that if “you right hand causes you to sin” get rid of it. Better to lose a hand than spend an eternity in Hades. Christ makes clear that salvation may require intense discomfort. I would assume that each of us will face different types of sacrific or discomfort or costly discipleship.
Loving parents take children to get immunization shots. At the time of the shots the child thinks the parent is cruel. Do you think someone who refrains from taking his child for immunizing shots is a good parent? I hope not.
Note 26–
I think we’re both opposed to forcing homosexuality on small children, except I might be more inclined to think it’s appropriate to tell kids not to make fun of the classmate with two daddies, or two make fun of the two daddies. (Which seems to be one of the purposes of this bill; it really does add sexual orientation and religion to a list of categories about which public schools are not to use materials that reflect adversely.)
But the statement that I called homophobic was the statement where you said that you didn’t think even ninety-year-olds should be exposed to “that particular lifestyle choice.” I asserted, and I still maintain, that statement is homophobic, according to the commonly used definition of the word. I did not parse your statements about child education.
Phil 32, The term “Homophobia” is …..
nothing more than the delegitimization of any critique of the gay agenda. The term is intended to put persons defending traditional morality on the defensive. Traditionalists now have to defend the very idea of disagreeing with the gay agenda, it consumes our time and energy and distracts from the issues.
The term and technique is directly analogous to the use of the term “Islamophobia.” The Organization of Islamic States is working very hard through the EU and the UN to redefine the concept of free speech and “human rights” in such a way as to outlaw and delegitimize any critique of Islam.
Very well. I shall leave out the facetious extras then when making my objections.
Phil writes:
Umm, you might be. The gay lobby isn’t.
Of course not. That’s my point. (You have a way of repeating your assertions as if they were fact.)
The term is pseudo-scientific clap-trap. All other terms with “phobia” mean something concrete; they spell out a real fear. “Homophobia” is thrown out against anyone challenging the homosexual agenda. It’s politics masquerading as truth, and twisting language to do it. (George Orwell: Politcs and the English Language.)
What could, say, polygamists call the critics of polygamy? Polygaphobics?
Phil said: “No, I would oppose criminal sanctions for people expressing their views in nonviolent ways. What on earth gave you a different impression?”
My impression is that under existing and proposed “hate-crime” laws, if someone commits a crime against a homosexual person, and the case is successfully made that the aggressor was influenced by an otherwise nonviolent statement from a third party against the homosexual lifestyle, the third party is at considerable legal risk.
My impression is also that outside the U. S., “hate-crime” laws have already inhibited Christians from making biblically-based statements disapproving homosexual actions, under penalty of law.
If someone commits a crime against a person, the penalty should be based on the nature and severity of the crime, irrespective of the circumstances of the victim or the thoughts of the aggressor. Most fair-minded people, upon reflection, believe this. Suppose someone commits violence against me. The penalty for the offender should not be worse because he didn’t like my “lifestyle,” than if he merely wanted to steal my wallet. We already have laws against violent crime.
The only reason I can see for “hate-crime” laws is to shut people up.
Phil writes: “Jim, it sounds like you’re operating with a definition that would describe simple homophobia as “irrational disdain for homosexuals,” which would make it more clearly analagous to bigotry. Perhaps I’m guilty of using a too-broad definition?”
As the discussion shows, what religious homophobia actually is can be hard to pin down. So let’s do an autopsy on an actual incident of homophobia, done by Yours Truly around 30 years ago.
In my younger days I was very strict fundamentalist involved with a group that provided overnight housing and food to the many hitchhikers and “trippers” traveling around, with the intent of converting these folks.
Shortly after we had opened a new place, a fellow came to the door with a box of food and some clothes. He had heard about our ministry to the hitchhikers, and brought this donation of food and clothes to help out. Everything was Ok so far.
Then he mentioned that he was from the Metropolitan Community Church, which I, as a good fundamentalist, recognized as the name of the local gay church. (Fundamentalists always know who the enemy is.) So I immediately tore into him with the scriptures, calling down the wrath of God on him, ordering him off the porch with the rebukes of The Lord ringing in his ears. Later I told my supervisor about that, and he praised my diligence in protecting the work of The Lord from the corruption of homosexuality. So I was feeling pretty good. First, I got to rip into a guy and experience a feeling of self-righteousness, and then I got a pat on the back for it. I mean, it’s not every day that you really get to confront the forces of Satan in such a dramatic and forceful way. I felt very good about all that.
So now, 30 years later, why do I feel so badly about that?
Well, here was this poor guy, who never did me or my group any harm, who went out of his way and came with a sincere gift with a smile on his face and friendship in his heart, and I threw all that back in his face, utterly rejecting him, all but spitting on him. I didn’t know him as a person and didn’t want to know him. He was just a hateful object to me. I had no concern for his feelings. But according to my religious beliefs at that time, I was completely justified in doing that, and I even had an obligation to do that.
Now prior to being a fundamentalist I had no ill will against homosexuals. I really had no opinion at all about them. So my rabid opposition to homosexuals was something that was transmitted to me by the religion. But what exactly was that “something?” I think it was an instinct, an unthinking reaction, a gut feeling, that operated quite independently of and outside of any ordinary moral sensibility or thought.
And this instinct was pre-justified by the theology. In other words, in dealing with this guy I didn’t have to think about compassion, love, kindness, humility, or anything else. I didn’t have to think about him as a person. Was he a nice person? Was he compassionate? Did he have a hard life? Did his parents reject him because of his homosexuality? Did he love God and the church? None of those were my concerns. The moment the “homosexual” was identified I could simply blow up at this guy, and it was automatically Ok. In fact, I did it in the name of morality.
Note 37: So I am not supposed to have a ((well thought out, mind you)) opinion on this issue because you are feeling guilty about what you did 30-odd years ago? Gee whiz, in that case let’s all not think or have an opinion because someone someplace might have guilty feelings about something they did to someone else years ago?
Perhaps that was homophobia. Perhaps it was a lack of love toward a brother in Christ who may or may not have been struggling with a besetting sin–as we all probably are. Personally, I think the latter is more spiritually disasterous than the first.
I’m not about condemning folk for having a besetting sin–that’s not my job and I don’t want it. Believe me, I have my own that I struggle with. I don’t care if my kid plays with the kids of the lesbian couple across the street from me. I don’t care until folk start trying to pass laws that say I can’t object, on religious grounds, something that has traditionally been objected to by my religion.
Meona writes: “So I am not supposed to have a ((well thought out, mind you)) opinion on this issue because you are feeling guilty about what you did 30-odd years ago?”
Ok, I’m a little confused here. I didn’t think I was criticizing anything that you or anyone else said. Phil implied that we didn’t really have a common definition of what constituted religious homophobia, so I offered an example of that, an example with which I am intimately acquainted, because I’m the one who did it. So I don’t understand how that implies that you can’t have an opinion on the issue. I’m missing the connection.
Jim said, “Ok, I’m a little confused here. I didn’t think I was criticizing anything that you or anyone else said.”
I don’t think you are confused. I think you are disingenuous. In the span of a few sentences you get to be sanctimonious about your conversion to a more tolerant approach and critical of your former co-religionists for something you yourself did. At the same time, you get to take on the air of someone too good to be so crass as to criticize what anyone else is saying in this discussion.
This statement is confusing. When you say, “Of course not,” it sounds like you are agreeing with the statement I just made, and yet you imply that it is somehow not factual.
I get the impression that because you disagree with the spirit of what I’ve written, you feel uncomfortable acknowledging that a single sentence might be true. See below:
So you’re agreeing with me that the term is not a medical term… Understanding the definition of a word as it is used is not the same as advocating that the word should be used.
Augie writes: “In the span of a few sentences you get to be sanctimonious about your conversion to a more tolerant approach and critical of your former co-religionists for something you yourself did.”
“Sanctimonious” is a pretty harsh word. Rather than talking in the abstract about homophobia, I thought there would be some value in presenting an actual example of it, one that happened to involve me and that I now regret. Guess I was wrong.
And yes, I am critical of my former co-religionists though at the time I held the same opinions as they did. The only difference is that I have changed over the last 30 years, and some of them have not. If that’s sanctimony, so be it.
The problem with religious homophobia, racism, or anything else like that, is that it is always done in the name of some perceived higher moral good. Thus ordinary rudeness and cruelty are seen as examples of religious virtue, and anyone who calls it for what it is can be accused of attacking religion. Then again, a religion that allows people to be rude and cruel and feel good about it deserves to be attacked. Just because someone glues “God said” on to the front-end of a rude or cruel statement doesn’t elevate the statement to the status of a virtue, nor does religious belief exempt one from politeness and civility.
Augie: “At the same time, you get to take on the air of someone too good to be so crass as to criticize what anyone else is saying in this discussion.”
I’m more than happy to criticize what others say. I just didn’t think I was doing that in that particular post.
Note 41. Phil writes:
Let me see if I can make it comprehensible:
The term “homophobic” has no grounding in the behavioral sciences. Its literal meaning is “fear of man” but in homosexual activist usage means something along the line of “one who criticizes homosexuals or homosexual behavior.” Its discursive function is to limit or close debate that is unfavorable to homosexuals or homosexual behavior.
The Greek root of the term is common to terms employed by behavior psychologists and lends it an patina of credibility which in fact it does not possess.
See: Islamophobia
Do you submit that the only people who use the generally-accepted definition of “homophobia” are homosexual activists? You seem to be tarring the vast majority of university professors in fields such as sociology, rhetoric, psychology, (and even hospitality) with the term “homosexual activist” in an effort to shut down debate.
But, you are correct in that the word is not a behavioral-science term, and people who use it, believing or pretending that it is, are either accidentally or intentionally misusing the term.
Is there a word that you think encapsulates for sexual orientation what “racist” or “sexist” do for race and sex? Right now, homophobia is that word, and by asserting that its only function is to shut down debate, you seem to imply that there need be no descriptor for anti-gay words and actions because those should be the status quo.
…and let’s not pretend that I’m mischaracterizing your (or Meona’s) beliefs. You do think that being anti-homosexuality should be the status quo. I see it. You see it. We’re quibbling over language choices to define a position, but I’m not trying to twist anyone’s words and make them sound bad. My primary point in this thread is just this: it’s inaccurate when someone says, “I’m not homophobic, but ________” and then makes it clear that they feel antipathy toward homosexuality. In making this point, I’m not judging whether that antipathy is justified or not. If anything, you could interpret what I’m saying to mean that one should not co-opt the language one associates with one’s rhetorical opponents and then assign a different meaning to it. I don’t see that as a particularly controversial point.
(Realize, too, that such a word need only be pejorative if the user and listener think it should be. One can have positive racist beliefs, along the lines of “Asian women are more beautiful than any other women,” etc. If you hold such a belief, you might feel uncomfortable thinking that it’s a racist belief, but it’s not inaccurate to say so. Why not own your beliefs?)
Note 44:
I disagree. The simple use of the word “antipathy” ((defined as a strong feeling of aversion or repugnance)) to describe what you believe my feelings are is definitely a judgment call on your part. If we are going to own things, let’s all own things.
I’m not uncomfortable with my point of view as you seem to think. I just think slamming my opinion with a name that does shut off communication is a rather weak way of dealing with very real issues the opposing sides have. I don’t go around calling homosexuals and the supporters of their choices perverts or what have you, and I don’t expect to be called names either. Unfortunately, the name calling from both sides shuts down what could be actual constructive discussion that leads to solving the issue at hand.
Phil, like many you have an absolutely incorrect idea of what the words even mean. Much like your moral relativism words mean whatever you choose to have them mean each time you use them. Such an approach makes it effectively impossible to communicate. As children change the rules of the game as they go along simply to “win”, you change words and anything else you feel like changing so you can be “right” It is dishonest and perverted.
Note 44. Phil writes:
Nope. I object to the notion that criticism of homosexual behavior and the homosexual cultural agenda is tantamount to racism or “sexism” (another overwrought term). Homosexual activists have been trying to usurp the Civil Rights narrative for years, hoping to achieve moral parity for homosexual behavior in the larger culture by framing it as a struggle for rights.
The larger culture is not buying it. Whenever gay marriage is brought to vote for example, it is roundly rejected. The opposite occurred for Blacks. Are the homosexual setbacks due to “homophobia”, or might there be something about homosexual activity that strikes at the heart of psychological and cultural stability that the homosexuals themselves don’t see?
As for assaults, any assault, whether against homosexuals or heterosexuals, should be treated equally under the law.
“Anti-homosexuality”? This reminds of pro-choicers trying to capture the moral high ground by calling pro-lifers “anti-choice.” It’s a rhetorical gambit, IOW.
No, I don’t think anti-homosexuality should be the status quo, at least not in contradistinction to your ideas of sexual license, which I have indicated earlier can be applied to any form of sexual desire — polygamy, pedophilia, even bestiality. You might personally be against such deviance, but your logic opens the door all three given the right cultural climate.
What I object to are the attempts by the homosexual lobby to normalize homosexuality in the cultural and institutional structures. If you want to partner with men, well, who is stopping you? If you want society to recognizing the partnering as on a moral, and thus cultural, par with heterosexual marriage, then no, there is a line that should not be crossed. So call it what you will.
Yes, it is inaccurate but not for the reason you provide. The inaccuracy occurs in that the term has no specific meaning except to point out ideas that threaten the homosexual cultural agenda.
Thus, the assertion that you are not judging the antipathy is not really true. The fact that you categorize the antipathy as “homophobic” is already a preemptive judgment. Another indication is your frequent interchanging of the terms “homosexual” and “homosexuality” thereby conflating the person with his sin and making any criticism of the sin also a criticism of the sinner
A polygamist makes exactly the same arguments you do, BTW. Do you think polygamy deserves the same cultural sanction as heterosexual monogamy?
Note 46–
Michael, this is a strange post. I sense that you disagree with me, but your tone seems pretty emotionally charged for a linguistic discussion.
Can you provide an example of a word whose meaning has changed each time I use it?
Phil, your response indicates the depth of your ignorace concerning the nature of the argument. Words have meanings that are important because they describe what they name. Change the meaning of a word and the understanding of what is described changes. When one constantly reinvents words that describe human beings, the idea of who a person is changes. Such changes have a profound implication. No matter how much I may dislike a black person, I would never use the word nigger to describe him, neither would I use the word fag to describe homosexuals. Unfortunately, those who use the word homophobe use it in the same manner for the same reasons as nigger and fag are used.
The entire homosexual activist agenda fulminates from a misanthropic vision of the human person. Those who support the agenda do not want just tolerance, they wish to force their misanthropy on the rest of us and on our culture. One of their techiques, which you use, is the manipulation of language to fit a policital agenda. Such action is tryannical as George Orwell pointed out long ago. It is dishonest, in this case, because it is a lie. There is no such thing as “homophobia” It is perverted because of the misanthropy which the lie is attempting to promote.
Words matter, distinctions matter, ideas and values matter because they are all reflective of our understanding of who and what we are. To maintain and promote a destructive anthropology, as you do, while mocking the sacred will always rouse me to opposition.
Hi Michael,
I appreciate that we have differences of opinion. But, after reading your post, I get the impression that your answer to my question (“Can you provide an example of a word whose meaning has changed each time I use it?”) is no.
I recognize that you think I am ignorant concerning the grander “argument” of humanity’s place on this earth, etc., as well as the appropriateness of homosexual conduct. I’m not trying to contradict your views on that in this thread.
But in terms of the specifics of the argument that we’re having, you asserted that I change the meanings of the words I use each time I use them. I believe that particular assertion is incorrect, but if you can provide me with an example of two such words, I’d be happy to reconsider.
Or, were you simply being colorful and exaggerative with your language choice there?
I can see where you would think I promote a destructive anthropology, but where did I mock the sacred?
Do you mean that being willing to argue a position opposite yours is an inherent mockery of the sacred?