Yes, more closely than you. It does not say homophobia is something you do to yourself, and the definition it gives of internal homophobia is NOT “thinking homosexual acts are wrong or sinful”, but thinking “lesbian, gay and bisexual people are sinful, immoral or inferior to heterosexuals, or incomplete as women or men”. You’re not reading either me or the definition with any care.
I personally know people in these situations. Unsurprisingly, their friends do not call them homophobes or auto-honophobes.
Only those whose sins are imputed, are judged. I gave you half a dozen verses saying this, including several in Romas. You ignored them all.
“homophobia – an intense aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals.”
Note that the definition of the term focuses on emotional reaction. Nothing is said about discriminatory action against homosexuals. Nothing is even said about belittling them verbally. The term indicates an aversion, without reference to how the aversion might influence action.
This is in line with the usage for all other “phobias”. If someone has arachnophobia (fear of spiders) that person is terrified by or repelled by spiders. Nothing is said about how the aversion might express itself in action. We can’t tell from the term whether the person will kill spiders, or flee from them, or be paralyzed with fear in their presence.
What Jonathan is doing (by accepting the second definition provided by his source) is departing from normal English usage for “phobia” words, by including certain social/political reactions to an emotion along with the emotion itself. I see no reason why we should depart from the tradition pattern of usage, merely because some people before us have done so in the case of this one word. (His source says the term only goes back to 1972, and it doesn’t establish whether the second meaning goes back even that far.)
It would be easy enough to coin a Greek-based word for hostile actions toward homosexuals. For example, we might coin “homodiokia” (from homo + dioko), meaning “persecution” (or “prosecution” or “hounding” or “hunting”) of homosexuals.
I would be quite willing to condemn “homodiokia” as inappropriate in a secular society where not all members share traditional religious values. But “homophobia”, if used according to the standard pattern of “phobia” words, indicates not persecution but an emotional reaction – and a reaction which the Law of Moses appears to justify and even encourage. It is not wrong for a conservative Christian or Jew to feel “homophobia”, from a traditional Christian or Jewish point of view. It’s not even wrong for a non-religious person to feel homophobia. I know many non-Christians, non-Jews, etc. who are repelled by homosexuality. What is wrong, in a constitutionally pluralistic society, is physical or other hostile action (social, economic, etc.) against homosexuals – “homodiokia” in my tentative coinage.
I never asserted that the prefix came from the Latin homo, meaning “man”. It does, however, contra your claim here, come indirectly from the Greek adjective homos, since the “homo” in “homosexual” comes from that root (see full-sized OED), and through that association the prefix “homo-” has taken on the meaning “relating to homosexual love” (see Concise Oxford, “homo-”; the entry gives the origin from Greek homos.)
Only when those doing the coining are philologically incompetent – or motivated by some social or political agenda which is willing to do violence to root meanings and/or meanings of standard word-formations in order to carry out that agenda.
If someone wants to defend the civil rights of homosexuals, I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the use of “homophobic” to mean “holding a hatred of homosexuals so strong as to tend to encourage violence against homosexuals, or to justify the removal of their civil rights.” That’s how it’s often used in popular social discourse these days, but it has no basis in the meaning of “phobia” in the term. “Homophobia” should no more be a pejorative term, or a political term, than “arachnophobia” and “claustrophobia” are pejorative or political terms. If a pejorative term with political or social meaning is desired, a new one should be coined. What I resent is the co-opting of a potentially perfectly good psychological term (parallel with other phobias) and the addition of a pejorative flavor to it, for the purpose of a political agenda.
Why for the “purpose of a political agenda”? It is it somehow wrong to have a word to reflect “holding a hatred of homosexuals so strong as to tend to encourage violence against homosexuals, or to justify the removal of their civil rights”?
I’ll agree that it was an unfortunate choice, but it’s become established–even in a larger sense with other “phobias” often referred to–so that’s that. That’s how languages work
I understand your thinking. In fact, that has happened. There is no perfect system. Most recognize that you have to strike a balance somewhere between individual freedoms and the goals of the organization which often includes socio-political effectiveness. That mixed with changes in society’s views all have to be factored.
Aside:
Personally, I don’t like the term ‘homophobic’ though that phenomenon is quite real and still widespread. ‘Bigoted’ is possibly a reasonable term.
Both seem to be words used to categorise Us vis a vis them.
For ex: anyone who has reservations about a homosexual lifestyle or questions the logic of some actions would be homophobic and bigoted irrespective of his/her actual behaviour.
Its something like if you are not on our side, then you are a homophobic bigot (and probably a white supremacist too).
While the left uses this tactic in the US, i have seen the right use the same tactic in India. what such a strategy does is throw all kind of reasoned/nuanced approaches out of the window and lead to mob reactions. everything boils down to partisan allegiances.
You dont believe unbelievers will be resurrected for judgement?
John 9:41 is a fantastic verse. Doesnt say the pharisees are without sin… quite the contrary actually.
Besides, he is speaking to Jews who have the law, are you now claiming unbelievers who have the law are also without Sin?
Well, that’s an interesting point you raise at the end there. Most White Supremacists also deny they are bigots, and insist that they are just raising reasonable objections, which are not based on hate or bigotry at all, to the behaviours of non-white people.
Do you think we are obliged to take them at their word?
I recommend the following to evaluate any person/argument (if required)-
See if the argument makes any logical/rational sense.
Check if the claims made are factually accurate.
Look at what people do as much as what they say.
I insist on people talking to each other in a civil manner at all times… so if a person, speaks extremely rudely about any group, i usually stop paying attention.
Only within a certain journalistic, left-wing-academic, and lobby-group culture. There are millions of Americans who don’t like the current usage of the term, and don’t use the term in that way themselves. And there’s nothing wrong with those Americans who don’t like this usage fighting back against it, and recommending its discontinuation and replacement with a clearer, less emotionally loaded set of terms for handling questions about homosexuality.
No, it’s not wrong to have such a word, which I why I coined a suggested alternative that would be more philologically accurate, and more suited to political and social application, than a word based on the root “phobia.”
Here is the deeper issue I’m concerned about. Elsewhere in these discussions, Jonathan Burke endorsed the notion of hate speech laws. I’m against hate speech laws, unless they are focused on hate speech which is so strong and directed as to constitute an incitement to violence or to the deprival of human or civil rights. To use our current word as an example: suppose that on a website frequented by a mixture of people, Christian and non-Christian, a Christian pastor expresses the view that homosexual behavior is a sin, or, less strongly, that homosexual inclination is a “disorder”. If there is a hate speech law in the jurisdiction of the website, can the pastor be charged with hate speech for using the word “sin” or “disorder”? How about if he uses the word “evil” or “bad”? Or “perverse”? Or, following the Bible, “abomination”? How about if he says that homosexuals will be happier and live richer lives if they undergo counseling and change their orientation as a result? If the hate speech law is not carefully defined, any of those words or statements might be considered by some judge or panel to constitute “hate speech.” So a Christian pastor, expressing what he believes is his duty to express, could find himself up on criminal charges and facing possible jail time.
My point would be that mere “homophobia” – personal aversion to homosexuals or their behavior, whether that aversion comes from religious teaching or some other cause – should be able to be expressed freely in public venues provided there is no physical, economic, or social assault, or incitement to such assault, in the expression. But “homodiokia” – active persecution of homosexuals, or incitement of others to engage in such persecution – might legitimately be covered under hate speech laws. “Let’s lock up all these perverts and throw away the key” might constitute hateful speech that amounts to persecution or incites it. But “homosexuality is a disorder of the sexual affections”, expressed as a religious, theological, philosophical, or psychological judgment, even if it is is partly based on homophobic feelings, should not be counted as hate speech and should not be able to make someone subject to criminal charges. The law should not be trying to regulate feelings; its place is to regulate actions, and to regulate speech only insofar as speech is a clear and obvious incitement to illegal action.
The problem with the loose way that “homophobia” is used is that the very use of the term, with its usually intended pejorative overtones, could prejudice a judge or jury or panel in jurisdictions where hate speech laws exist. It is usually used as an emotionally loaded term, and its purpose, in most cases, is to cajole others into regarding the allegedly “homophobic” person as a wicked denier of human rights whose views are immoral and intolerable in a modern society. That’s not the emotional atmosphere one should have in a courtroom where a citizen might be facing jail time. The heated flavor that “homophobic” has acquired is therefore of concern to me, in an era where an increasing number of intellectuals would like to control the expression of conservative views through the use of hate speech laws. Democracy is best served by ratcheting down the rhetorical temperature, and the avoidance of certain terms can help in this regard.
You can check my posts above… you wont find me defending anything he has said. I have raised concerns along the following lines-
Branding all people who believe homosexual sex is Sin as homophobes.
Restricting freedom of speech/expression through punitive actions as something that’s a bad precedent. You should note that the hospital this doctor works n couldnt find any evidence of inappropriate behavior towards homosexuals during the course of his work.
Using words such as homophobe, bigot etc as a way of labeling those who disagree and scapegoating them.
These are issues that will lead to all kinds of problems in the future.
No way. It’s well established. Just as an example, here’s Merriam-Webster on the first similar term I could think of
You may as well fight against the rising tide as established language usage. I personally dislike the term “Islamophobia” for what I feel are sound reasons. But the meaning of words is established through usage. I don’t see why you can’t use other words of equivalent meaning in your speech if you want, though it may lead to misunderstandings in fact. That being said, fighting against how most people use a word is a fool’s game IMO.
I agree with you, and I think the US gets it right with the emphasis on freedom of speech.
This is English, not Greek You’re not the first person to object to a certain English terminology, certainly. But actual usage always wins out. All you might accomplish there is to confuse someone as to what you’re actually trying to say.
That could be equally true of whatever word was used in its place.
They are, just as anyone who believed being black was a sin would be a racist.
So do you think the Catholic Church should not be allowed to remove a priest who expresses support for same sex marriage?
When those words are appropriate, they should be used.
The irony here is in your claiming to champion free speech with one point, and then trying to police how people use words in the very next point. I think you need to think your position thru more carefully.
Well, at least we agree on something! That’s progress, I suppose. And by all means express your conviction on this point to Jonathan Burke, next time you see him.
I’m honestly curious if you can’t see the difference between these two. Being black is unavoidable, as is (for homosexuals) the desire for homosexual sex. However acting on that desire is not unavoidable. We would obviously disagree on weather that action is sinful or not, but it seem’s quite different from being black.
I’m also curious if you would consider someone homophobic who believes homosexual sex is a sin, but who see’s no reason to in any way limit the rights of homosexuals (except within the context of Christian institutions)?
I don’t see any meaningful difference. If someone said that a person who is black ought not have consensual sexual with the adult of his choice, but people of other races can, that would also be indefensible in my view. You disagree?
Yes, but I see no reason to make a big deal about it. Just as there are lots of racist people out there who just suck it up and accept that racism is not acceptable in our society, so they keep it under wraps. That’s good enough for me.
You’re not the first person to object to a certain English terminology, certainly. But actual usage always wins out. All you might accomplish there is to confuse someone as to what you’re actually trying to say.