Post by foolishwisdom on Jun 16, 2011 18:05:21 GMT -5
Since being call a homophobia is considered too...what's the word?...well, it gives Good Christians™ a bad reputation, lets put it like that. This bloke, Peter Saunders, suggests a new word: homosceptic.
Also, something else about the word, homophobia, is that it's misleading. I mean, who the hell is really afread of the big, bad, geh?
www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/im_coming_out_as_a_homosceptic/
The bolded bit is my own, which I personally think is the true fear of these people. Or worse, that they may be gay. But I may be digressing.
Anyway, can't say I blame him for wanting a new word; it's rather dehumanizing to be called such a word when you're dehumanizing people you disagree with.
On a side note, NOM made an article on this, not really shocking. BUT I wish to point out this post, the first post, by an AnonyGrl:
www.nomblog.com/9837/
Good point: you don't want to be labeled as homophobic, stop dehumanizing people just because they make you think of buttsechs. Too bad it flys over the heads of some people. One guy, bman (9th commenter), compares marriage license to...
So...the whole reason for marriage is to create children. It's okay if the couple doesn't have children, even for the rest of their lives, but it's not okay for homosexuals to marry, because they can't (biologically) have children...
In other words, homosexual couples who could adopt or have a surrogate are less valuable then straight couples who do not want to have children for whatever reason.
...Okay, if you'll forgive me for digressing a bit more, I have two questions, if the whole reason for marriage is to procreate:
A. How come it's possible to procreate outside of marriage?
B. Shouldn't adoption be outlawed. You're taking care of a child that already exists, rather then making your own.
Being judged “homophobic” can cost you dearly.
...
In keeping with this view, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King in a 1998 address, equated homophobia to “racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry” on the grounds that “it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood”.
It is therefore understandable that “homophobic” is a label that no one wants to have. There is even an International Day Against Homophobia celebrated on May 17 each year.
...
In keeping with this view, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King in a 1998 address, equated homophobia to “racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry” on the grounds that “it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood”.
It is therefore understandable that “homophobic” is a label that no one wants to have. There is even an International Day Against Homophobia celebrated on May 17 each year.
Also, something else about the word, homophobia, is that it's misleading. I mean, who the hell is really afread of the big, bad, geh?
I’ve always been puzzled by the term “homophobia”. In the minds of most people it means being prejudiced against, or even hating, people who are homosexual. Wikipedia defines it as “a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people identified or perceived as being homosexual”.
...
However when the term was first used it actually meant something quite different. The word homophobia first appeared in print in an article written for the 23 May 1969 edition of the American tabloid Screw, in which it was used to refer to heterosexual men's fear that others might think they are gay. It has also been used to describe a fear of people who “come out” as homosexual.
These definitions are much more in keeping with the literal meaning. After all, a phobia is a fear: claustrophobia, arachnophobia and acrophobia being fears of closed spaces, spiders and heights respectively.
For many people “homophobia” is actually about “having a fear of being accused of being bigoted, prejudiced or discriminating against homosexual people”. This fear, which is increasingly common, causes people to take a defensive posture in order to avoid attracting disapproval or adverse publicity. This may take the form of changing ones public position, pretending to adopt views in accordance with the prevailing liberal consensus, actively denying ones real beliefs or simply abstaining from expressing an opinion when the matter is discussed.
This kind of “homophobia” is becoming increasingly common amongst those who belong to religious faiths which teach that sex outside marriage is wrong (ie. most world faiths) and it is not difficult to come up with examples of (often) prominent people in whom the condition is well advanced.
For people who don’t hate, dislike or fear gay people, but simply believe that sex between people who are not married (including all sex between those of the same sex) is morally wrong, we need a new term. I’d like to propose the term “homosceptic” - a term that is not yet in common use and hence arguably open to (re)definition. My Microsoft Word spell-check rejects it as a known word and a Google search for it throws up only 1,830 examples of its use in any context. (In the American spelling, homoskeptic, there are only 230 examples.)
...
However when the term was first used it actually meant something quite different. The word homophobia first appeared in print in an article written for the 23 May 1969 edition of the American tabloid Screw, in which it was used to refer to heterosexual men's fear that others might think they are gay. It has also been used to describe a fear of people who “come out” as homosexual.
These definitions are much more in keeping with the literal meaning. After all, a phobia is a fear: claustrophobia, arachnophobia and acrophobia being fears of closed spaces, spiders and heights respectively.
For many people “homophobia” is actually about “having a fear of being accused of being bigoted, prejudiced or discriminating against homosexual people”. This fear, which is increasingly common, causes people to take a defensive posture in order to avoid attracting disapproval or adverse publicity. This may take the form of changing ones public position, pretending to adopt views in accordance with the prevailing liberal consensus, actively denying ones real beliefs or simply abstaining from expressing an opinion when the matter is discussed.
This kind of “homophobia” is becoming increasingly common amongst those who belong to religious faiths which teach that sex outside marriage is wrong (ie. most world faiths) and it is not difficult to come up with examples of (often) prominent people in whom the condition is well advanced.
For people who don’t hate, dislike or fear gay people, but simply believe that sex between people who are not married (including all sex between those of the same sex) is morally wrong, we need a new term. I’d like to propose the term “homosceptic” - a term that is not yet in common use and hence arguably open to (re)definition. My Microsoft Word spell-check rejects it as a known word and a Google search for it throws up only 1,830 examples of its use in any context. (In the American spelling, homoskeptic, there are only 230 examples.)
www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/im_coming_out_as_a_homosceptic/
The bolded bit is my own, which I personally think is the true fear of these people. Or worse, that they may be gay. But I may be digressing.
Anyway, can't say I blame him for wanting a new word; it's rather dehumanizing to be called such a word when you're dehumanizing people you disagree with.
On a side note, NOM made an article on this, not really shocking. BUT I wish to point out this post, the first post, by an AnonyGrl:
And I would like to suggest that people who don't hate or fear African Americans but simply think that they are morally inferior should be called afroskeptics. And people who don't hate or fear women but think that they just shouldn't get paid the same as men or have control of their own bodies should be gynoskeptics.
No matter what you call yourselves, if you are doing so to justify denying rights to another group (and that is what you are doing with homosexuals) then the correct term you should be using is bigot.
And if you fear that label, stop discriminating against people. That is the real solution to this problem. Stop using your religion as a justification to violate the rights of others, and the term will stop applying to you.
No matter what you call yourselves, if you are doing so to justify denying rights to another group (and that is what you are doing with homosexuals) then the correct term you should be using is bigot.
And if you fear that label, stop discriminating against people. That is the real solution to this problem. Stop using your religion as a justification to violate the rights of others, and the term will stop applying to you.
www.nomblog.com/9837/
Good point: you don't want to be labeled as homophobic, stop dehumanizing people just because they make you think of buttsechs. Too bad it flys over the heads of some people. One guy, bman (9th commenter), compares marriage license to...
So...the whole reason for marriage is to create children. It's okay if the couple doesn't have children, even for the rest of their lives, but it's not okay for homosexuals to marry, because they can't (biologically) have children...
In other words, homosexual couples who could adopt or have a surrogate are less valuable then straight couples who do not want to have children for whatever reason.
...Okay, if you'll forgive me for digressing a bit more, I have two questions, if the whole reason for marriage is to procreate:
A. How come it's possible to procreate outside of marriage?
B. Shouldn't adoption be outlawed. You're taking care of a child that already exists, rather then making your own.
