The word "Homophobia"

[Leonhard]

Homophobia. Just hear that word. A homophobe. He's a homophobe. You're homophobic.

What do you see when you hear that word? Is it - as some on this website have insisted - merely a person who doesn't think marriage could be between two people of the same gender?

Clearly not. There's a bitter attack in that word.

A homophobe is not merely a person with outdated views - according to the current view of the world - A homophobe brings to my mind the image of someone who kinda sneers a bit when he finds out his coworker is gay, or at least becomes highly uncomfortable. The kind of guy who makes crude back office jokes about Paul being a

Moderator Notice

inappropriate word

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

. Who believes, and espouses, false myths like homosexuals having an average lifespan of 35 years "Its more dangerous than smoking." A person who warns his sister about their gay neighbor because "They recruit little children you know, that's how it works." A man who gets angry when a discussion about homosexuality comes up, especially if its about figuring out if you're gay... because deep down he fears he might be.

A ludicrous vision? Of course. I don't think I've seen any person who was the perfect homophobe, but I've seen people who acted, and spoke homophobic things. Homophobic, as in that vision above. I would have no trouble in calling out a Christian as being homophobic with that definition. It described all the prejudices, negative stereotypes, stigmas oriented unfairly towards homosexuals, as well as disproportionate revulsion.

It can be a person who just referenced the long-debunked studies of homosexual life expectancy done by Paul Cameron as William Craig Lane did when answering one persons email. That was homophobic. Even if I respect William Lane Craig in his other works, that slip-up misrepresented homosexuals in a poor way.

However society, and when I mean society, I mean the LGBT, use homophobia very differently. A homophobe, by their term, is anyone they don't like and who disagrees with their views on sex and marriage between people of the same sex.

So now this otherwise useful term, that I've used, means the same as describing people who hold a traditional view of marriage. Or who simple consider same-sex coitus to be sinful. Or those who choose voluntarily to live celibately for those reason.

I don't think this is merely an evolution of language, nor that 'homophobe' 'homophobic' 'homophobia' is merely now what the word 'racist' is. And that this was an inevitable situation. Its clear that the LGBT communities have had a heavy hand in pushing the term 'homophobe' out to its widest possible definition. Its a word that helps their cause by othering the opposition, and aligning them with the irrational by default. I'd go so far as to say there's even some ableism implied in the term, in as much as it antagonizes people with real phobias rather than postmodern ones.

What do I believe 'we' as Christians should do? Give up and give in?

I think its usually enough to insist that we're not homophobic. Clarifying its original definition is usually sufficient in any debate. If a person demands the newer interpretation then ask for the dictionary. The Oxford dictionary aligns with our interpretation of the word. If they keep pressing, they come off as pedantic. There's no reason to keep running along with that.

Words matter. What you call something, says something about how you want to approach them. There's a reason pro-lifers call themselves pro-lifers, and the opposition tries to call them anti-abortionists. There's a reason why pro-lifers call the opposition abortionists, and they themselves want to be call pro-choicers. One is a negatively laddened term, the other is something emphasing something positive.

In case you're wondering, when discussing with abortionists, I use their preferred term and call them pro-choicers. Its hard to have discussions with people you disagree with, and starting off by treating the other party with dignity is the best bet.


TLDR; for the LGBT supporters here. If you can't use homophobe, what should you use?

Traditionalist.

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, when I first starting hearing the word "way back when", it reeked of desperation to declare "we are normal - you're the ones with the problem".

Especially when a phobia is defined as a type of anxiety disorder, usually associated with a persistent fear of an object or situation the affected person will go to great lengths to avoid, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed.

I can believe something is wrong or abnormal without it being a phobia.

[Starlight]

The term "racist" is a wide term encompassing a huge range of people, from my grandmother who doesn't like brown-skinned immigrants moving into her street, to people in the KKK who put on white robes and hung black people, to people that have theories about white racial superiority. In the same way the term "homophobe" covers a wide range of people that your post aptly describes with all your various anecdotes falling under the general and wide umbrella of homophobia.

You say "The Oxford dictionary aligns with our interpretation of the word." Well here's it's definition: "Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people." I can also personally attest that that is what 100% of gay people I have heard or seen ever using the word were using it to mean. It is widely used by gay people in an exact parallel way to how 'racist' or 'sexist' is used. It is used to refer to any discrimination or prejudice against gay people from the small to the large. It covers the co-worker who sneers at gays, it covers the one who makes crude jokes, it covers the religious person who marches against same-sex marriage, it covers the bakery who doesn't want to bake cakes for people who are gay, and it covers the gunman who deliberately shoots people who are gay.

Traditionalist

What a pathetic and fake claim.

Going back thousands of years, there's been LGBT people and customs in basically every culture in the world. As someone reminded me today, one of the oldest theories about the idea of "soulmates", which was discussed by Plato nearly two and half millennia ago, talks of gay, lesbian and straight soulmates. Cultures have celebrated and recognized LGBT people throughout the ages.

It's been only recently, only since about 1100AD, that Christianity really cracked down harshly on gay people, banning their unions, executing them, imprisoning them. Islam too, since its inception in the 7th century, has been pretty horrible to gay people. Those two relatively modern religions stand out in history, for their barbaric and horrible atrocities perpetuated on gay people, overthrowing the traditional and longstanding acceptance of them and replacing it with persecution, discrimination, and disenfranchisement. And wherever they have spread in the world, in their colonial and evangelical ambitions they've overruled the local cultures' acceptances of LGBT people and replaced them with their imported novel Christian/Islamic values.

A hundred and twenty years ago or so, the British used the fact that the King of Uganda was in a gay relationship as an excuse for overthrowing the native rule of that country and taking it over and imposing their values. Now in "Christian" Uganda, being gay is punishable by death. That's not traditional values - that's colonial values.

A hundred and seventy years ago, when the British colonists arrived in New Zealand, they found the local people happily practiced homosexuality. Did they respect their practices as "tradition"? No. They decided to replace them with their colonialist morality.

And the story is the same all over the world. Cultures everywhere had LGBT people and had a huge array of customs to accommodate them, ranging from the ability to change social gender through to formal marriage ceremonies. They are fascinating and dazzling in their diversity.

And in place of all that, you want to enforce the modern colonialist Christian view? And you have the gall to pretend you're the traditionalist? Pathetic. Be anti gay if you like, and try to enforce your views on other peoples lives if you like, but don't try to back up your horrible views with fake claims to tradition.

[Adrift]

It can be a person who just referenced the long-debunked studies of homosexual life expectancy done by Paul Cameron as William Craig Lane did when answering one persons email. That was homophobic. Even if I respect William Lane Craig in his other works, that slip-up misrepresented homosexuals in a poor way.

Do you have a link to this? Also, that strikes me as, at most, simple ignorance, not homophobia. Craig actually seems relatively accepting of homosexuality, asserting that the act itself is the sin condemned in the Bible, not homosexual desire. That's rather "progressive" thinking for many Evangelicals. For instance, I, personally, hold that even the desires are misplaced, and ought to require prayerfulness, and daily renewal of one's mind.

Also, I think the word itself is a misnomer. For many people, the visceral aversion that one might have towards homosexuality is the same one might have for incest or eating disorders like pica. It's a natural reaction to something that's inherently unnatural (in the sense that God ordained a certain orderliness for humans). Of course, that does not give anyone the right to insult people, or start false rumors about them, and certainly the church should embrace sinners as a place of love and healing.

I think the word homophobe/homophobic should be dropped completely, as it's not clinically accurate of anyone (though that's unlikely to happen).

[Adrift]

The term "racist" is a wide term encompassing a huge range of people, from my grandmother who doesn't like brown-skinned immigrants moving into her street, to people in the KKK who put on white robes and hung black people, to people that have theories about white racial superiority. In the same way the term "homophobe" covers a wide range of people that your post aptly describes with all your various anecdotes falling under the general and wide umbrella of homophobia.

You say "The Oxford dictionary aligns with our interpretation of the word." Well here's it's definition: "Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people." I can also personally attest that that is what 100% of gay people I have heard or seen ever using the word were using it to mean. It is widely used by gay people in an exact parallel way to how 'racist' or 'sexist' is used. It is used to refer to any discrimination or prejudice against gay people from the small to the large. It covers the co-worker who sneers at gays, it covers the one who makes crude jokes, it covers the religious person who marches against same-sex marriage, it covers the bakery who doesn't want to bake cakes for people who are gay, and it covers the gunman who deliberately shoots people who are gay.



What a pathetic and fake claim.

Going back thousands of years, there's been LGBT people and customs in basically every culture in the world. As someone reminded me today, one of the oldest theories about the idea of "soulmates", which was discussed by Plato nearly two and half millennia ago, talks of gay, lesbian and straight soulmates. Cultures have celebrated and recognized LGBT people throughout the ages.

It's been only recently, only since about 1100AD, that Christianity really cracked down harshly on gay people, banning their unions, executing them, imprisoning them. Islam too, since its inception in the 7th century, has been pretty horrible to gay people. Those two relatively modern religions stand out in history, for their barbaric and horrible atrocities perpetuated on gay people, overthrowing the traditional and longstanding acceptance of them and replacing it with persecution, discrimination, and disenfranchisement. And wherever they have spread in the world, in their colonial and evangelical ambitions they've overruled the local cultures' acceptances of LGBT people and replaced them with their imported novel Christian/Islamic values.

A hundred and twenty years ago or so, the British used the fact that the King of Uganda was in a gay relationship as an excuse for overthrowing the native rule of that country and taking it over and imposing their values. Now in "Christian" Uganda, being gay is punishable by death. That's not traditional values - that's colonial values.

A hundred and seventy years ago, when the British colonists arrived in New Zealand, they found the local people happily practiced homosexuality. Did they respect their practices as "tradition"? No. They decided to replace them with their colonialist morality.

And the story is the same all over the world. Cultures everywhere had LGBT people and had a huge array of customs to accommodate them, ranging from the ability to change social gender through to formal marriage ceremonies. They are fascinating and dazzling in their diversity.

And in place of all that, you want to enforce the modern colonialist Christian view? And you have the gall to pretend you're the traditionalist? Pathetic. Be anti gay if you like, and try to enforce your views on other peoples lives if you like, but don't try to back up your horrible views with fake claims to tradition.

This is so historically inaccurate it's hard to know where to even begin. First, you're importing 21st century concepts of homosexual identity into ancient peoples. That's wrong from the start. Ancient homosexuality was more often about dominance and submission, and was often forced on very young participants who were slaves or from the lower classes. For all intents and purposes, what you're extolling in the Roman world is rape.

Second, Rome and other ancient cultures had its own naysayers about homosexuality long before Christianity came onto the scene. This was brought to your attention over a year ago, but apparently you're still doing your same old song and dance routine.

[MaxVel]

The term "racist" is a wide term encompassing a huge range of people, from my grandmother who doesn't like brown-skinned immigrants moving into her street, to people in the KKK who put on white robes and hung black people, to people that have theories about white racial superiority. In the same way the term "homophobe" covers a wide range of people that your post aptly describes with all your various anecdotes falling under the general and wide umbrella of homophobia.

So, like 'racist' and 'sexist', it's become so broad as to (a) lack any precision or accuracy in describing the person who it's attached to, and (b) put them, no matter how mild their actual view, in the same group as the most extreme. It's another 'othering' word, used to relegate any and all beliefs the user disagrees with into the realm of irrationality, without the need to actually demonstrate that they are.

You say "The Oxford dictionary aligns with our interpretation of the word." Well here's it's definition: "Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people." I can also personally attest that that is what 100% of gay people I have heard or seen ever using the word were using it to mean. It is widely used by gay people in an exact parallel way to how 'racist' or 'sexist' is used. It is used to refer to any discrimination or prejudice against gay people from the small to the large. It covers the co-worker who sneers at gays, it covers the one who makes crude jokes, it covers the religious person who marches against same-sex marriage, it covers the bakery who doesn't want to bake cakes for people who are gay, and it covers the gunman who deliberately shoots people who are gay.

It's also used against the person who has reasoned and carefully thought out disagreements with gay marriage; the person who has concerns about some aspects of the 'gay rights movement'; the person who sincerely thinks that the Bible teaches homosexual behaviour is a sin; and the Christian who wants to, but can't quite reconcile his religious beliefs with the prevailing moral climate.

The problem with your position is that the suffix -phobia has a meaning that goes against your interpretation of the word 'homophobia':
Wikipedia:

A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation the affected person will go to great lengths to avoid, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed. If the feared object or situation cannot be avoided entirely, the affected person will endure it with marked distress and significant interference in social or occupational activities

When people see a word that ends with the suffix -phobia, they will think of all sorts of other irrational and unreasoning fears, since other phobias are just that. So the use of homophobia is an attempt to portray any and every view that disagrees with LBGT mores and social actions as unreasoning and irrational, without actually showing that to be the case.

When I see someone use 'homophobe', or 'racist', or 'sexist', or 'bigot', it's more often than not an indication that they have no rational argument and just want to shout down and shut anyone who disagrees.

What a pathetic and fake claim.

How mean-spirited and petty. Leonhard is trying to have a sincere discussion with you. He is one of the more thoughtful, empathetic and kind-hearted Christian posters here.

[Sparko]

Don't listen to Starlight. He is just a heterophobe.

[RumTumTugger]

Don't listen to Starlight. He is just a heterophobe.

I'd call him Truthphobic

[RumTumTugger]

Don't listen to Starlight. He is just a heterophobe.

I'd call him Truthphobic. or even factphobic since he refuses to accept any truth or fact that does not already agree with his world view.

[Leonhard]

The term "racist" is a wide term encompassing a huge range of people, from my grandmother who doesn't like brown-skinned immigrants moving into her street, to people in the KKK who put on white robes and hung black people, to people that have theories about white racial superiority. In the same way the term "homophobe" covers a wide range of people that your post aptly describes with all your various anecdotes falling under the general and wide umbrella of homophobia.

Any particular view can be racist if it includes views that judge the value of a person, or attributes negative stereotypes to them etc, on account of their race. It has to go beyond ethnicity though. To your list could be added the theories that the Chinese are inherently better at math, and semitics better at business.

You say "The Oxford dictionary aligns with our interpretation of the word." Well here's it's definition: "Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people." I can also personally attest that that is what 100% of gay people I have heard or seen ever using the word were using it to mean. ... It covers the co-worker who sneers at gays, it covers the one who makes crude jokes, it covers the religious person who marches against same-sex marriage, it covers the bakery who doesn't want to bake cakes for people who are gay, and it covers the gunman who deliberately shoots people who are gay.

Some here are not like the others, and there's at least one strawman.

The bakery you're referring to, was an explicitly Christian bakery that sold wedding cakes. They were sought out by a lesbian couple despite this, asked to bake a wedding cake for them, and the bakers refused on religious grounds as they didn't support same-sex marriage. Not merely because they were gay. Likewise homosexual artists have refused to print t-shirts with the logo "Lev: 20:13" or "Marriage: One man, one woman." on it. Only a thin veneer of law actually separates those two cases, as both involve a company denying service out of moral reasons. On a fun note the lesbians sued the Christian couple, among other things, for weight gain. The charge was a ridiculous 150k$, mostly for emotional damages. While we punish bakers in Denmark for not serving ethnic immigrants, the charge is much less (1k$ or the like).

A religious person marching against same-sex marriage? I don't think we have to kid ourselves. Anyone writing against the redefinition of marriage, holding up the traditional Christian definition, are homophobes. By the wide definition the LGBT employ. I'm a homophobe, and I've been called that multiple times without hesitation.

What a pathetic and fake claim.

Woaw, is that really the best you can do?

Going back thousands of years, there's been LGBT people and customs in basically every culture in the world. As someone reminded me today, one of the oldest theories about the idea of "soulmates", which was discussed by Plato nearly two and half millennia ago, talks of gay, lesbian and straight soulmates. Cultures have celebrated and recognized LGBT people throughout the ages.

I'm surprised you didn't bring up anodynes from Shakespeare about "The love that dares not mention its name." Really though your view here is bit anachronistic. The kind of gay relationships you'd find in say feuderal japan, and Greece, was usually between a sensei (or didaskolos if you're Greek), and their apprentice. Sure you can find some excentric cases, such as an emperor who kept both wives, as well as the odd homosexual lover. Outside of the aristrocracy, its a highly undocumented term. Plato himself came out fairly strongly against in in The Republic (link).

I've seen people strain out homosexuality out of the Edda prose. Quite a Herculean task as there isn't any there. At they can say that there are words that could have similar meanings, though they're never used in that context... but could have been used in other contexts in other poems we don't have. The fact of the matter though is that in Denmark, as in most European countries, to say nothing of the US, for most of the formative period of its civilisation (the vikings were never civilized impressive though they were)... throughout that entire period of Judeo-Christian culture, that formed the bedrock of our modern day civilisation, through out all that ,marriage had a meaning that was different than how it is used today.

I have friends who are asatru (Nordic Gods), forming societies like Forn Sidr. They perform midsummer blots (sacrifices to the gods... usually baked goods, some meat, mead, etc...) Most of what they do is ad hoc make believe, inspired from the sagas and history but only in imitation (they stop short of actually replicating human sacrifice... and the vegans among them aren't fond of animal sacrifice). What they do reflects more how they romanticize the vikings, than what we actually know.

Like it or not, there's far more Athens and Jerusalem about the US, Russia and Europe, than whatever was there before Christian missionaries visited.

It's been only recently, only since about 1100AD, that Christianity really cracked down harshly on gay people, banning their unions, executing them, imprisoning them.

Homosexual acts were condemned by the Church Fathers before that, to say nothing of Judaism.

Discipline, and law, that's a different question. If you want me to say that secular governments shouldn't make laws condemning homosexual acts, I agree. No less a person than St. Thomas Aquinas argued that prostitution shouldn't be illegal, since the laws against it would not prevent it, and it would only create harm for those engaging in these acts. A greater evil than not doing anything.

Now in "Christian" Uganda, being gay is punishable by death. That's not traditional values - that's colonial values.

I am against colonialism.

A hundred and seventy years ago, when the British colonists arrived in New Zealand, they found the local people happily practiced homosexuality. Did they respect their practices as "tradition"? No. They decided to replace them with their colonialist morality.

I am not against missioning.

Not in general at least. Specific cases can differ, as things might have been done that shouldn't have been done. But the fact that the countries were missioned and they changed their values. That's fine. You don't mind that either when the change in values goes along your preference. What I am against is countries being forced to change.

Are you against the western world withholding aid from African countries if they don't change their policies with regards to condoms, etc...?

In Denmark it was simpler. The mother of Harald Bluetooth, future viking king, had converted to Christianity, and she in turn taught him the faith, and eventually he converted as well (perhaps also for political reasons since Germany had become too powerful). After that followed a long period where danish customs were slowly assimilated and incultured into the Catholic Church. The monks faithfully penned down a lot of the viking legends and Nordic mythos.

The largest loss of danish culture came later, when the country turned protestant.

And you have the gall to pretend you're the traditionalist? Pathetic.

I am a traditionalist. My Forn Sidr friends aren't, as much as they'd like to be.

Be anti gay if you like,

What is anti-gay about me? This term makes it out that I'm against them personally, or I'd not want them. I have a feeling I personally know more gay people than you do. It would be quite an ironic term to use against me.

and try to enforce your views on other peoples lives if you like,

While I believe laws are there to keep an orderly society. I don't see a need to make laws making the lives harder for homosexuals for any reason. I also don't see why some of the priviledges of marriage, such as visitation rights, etc... can't be made available to them, as I could see the same being done simple for two people who are not sexual, but live together in an intimate friendship.

The only thing I believe is that the contract a homosexual couple engages in, isn't marriage.

but don't try to back up your horrible views with fake claims to tradition.

What's traditionally danish about gay marriage? Or just take America, the countries are settled by travellers from Europe with their footing in the Judeo-Christian history. Want to refer to the natives? You can, of course. They had various practices like that, among other less noble ones. But like it or not, there's hardly anything Mayan about Mexico, nor is there any Navaho about New York.

How America was settled is a very tragic story. With a lot of powerful people shoving ethics aside and subjugating vast amounts of people using their superiority. A fantastic book on this subject is Guns, Germs and Steel. Like it or not, and I think its a tragic loss, most of that culture just didn't get to become part of the cultural landscape as it should have been. If that had been the case, then I wouldn't have said these things.

[RumTumTugger]

Woaw, is that really the best you can do?



I'm surprised you didn't bring up anodynes from Shakespeare about "The love that dares not mention its name." Really though your view here is bit anachronistic. The kind of gay relationships you'd find in say feuderal japan, and Greece, was usually between a sensei (or didaskolos if you're Greek), and their apprentice. Sure you can find some excentric cases, such as an emperor who kept both wives, as well as the odd homosexual lover. Outside of the aristrocracy, its a highly undocumented term. Plato himself came out fairly strongly against in in The Republic (link).

I've seen people strain out homosexuality out of the Edda prose. Quite a Herculean task as there isn't any there. At they can say that there are words that could have similar meanings, though they're never used in that context... but could have been used in other contexts in other poems we don't have. The fact of the matter though is that in Denmark, as in most European countries, to say nothing of the US, for most of the formative period of its civilisation (the vikings were never civilized impressive though they were)... throughout that entire period of Judeo-Christian culture, that formed the bedrock of our modern day civilisation, through out all that ,marriage had a meaning that was different than how it is used today.

I have friends who are asatru (Nordic Gods), forming societies like Forn Sidr. They perform midsummer blots (sacrifices to the gods... usually baked goods, some meat, mead, etc...) Most of what they do is ad hoc make believe, inspired from the sagas and history but only in imitation (they stop short of actually replicating human sacrifice... and the vegans among them aren't fond of animal sacrifice). What they do reflects more how they romanticize the vikings, than what we actually know.

Like it or not, there's far more Athens and Jerusalem about the US, Russia and Europe, than whatever was there before Christian missionaries visited.



Homosexual acts were condemned by the Church Fathers before that, to say nothing of Judaism.

Discipline, and law, that's a different question. If you want me to say that secular governments shouldn't make laws condemning homosexual acts, I agree. No less a person than St. Thomas Aquinas argued that prostitution shouldn't be illegal, since the laws against it would not prevent it, and it would only create harm for those engaging in these acts. A greater evil than not doing anything.



I am against colonialism.



I am not against missioning.

Not in general at least. Specific cases can differ, as things might have been done that shouldn't have been done. But the fact that the countries were missioned and they changed their values. That's fine. You don't mind that either when the change in values goes along your preference. What I am against is countries being forced to change.

Are you against the western world withholding aid from African countries if they don't change their policies with regards to condoms, etc...?

In Denmark it was simpler. The mother of Harald Bluetooth, future viking king, had converted to Christianity, and she in turn taught him the faith, and eventually he converted as well (perhaps also for political reasons since Germany had become too powerful). After that followed a long period where danish customs were slowly assimilated and incultured into the Catholic Church. The monks faithfully penned down a lot of the viking legends and Nordic mythos.

The largest loss of danish culture came later, when the country turned protestant.



I am a traditionalist. My Forn Sidr friends aren't, as much as they'd like to be.



What is anti-gay about me? This term makes it out that I'm against them personally, or I'd not want them. I have a feeling I personally know more gay people than you do. It would be quite an ironic term to use against me.



While I believe laws are there to keep an orderly society. I don't see a need to make laws making the lives harder for homosexuals for any reason. I also don't see why some of the priviledges of marriage, such as visitation rights, etc... can't be made available to them, as I could see the same being done simple for two people who are not sexual, but live together in an intimate friendship.

The only thing I believe is that the contract a homosexual couple engages in, isn't marriage.



What's traditionally danish about gay marriage? Or just take America, the countries are settled by travellers from Europe with their footing in the Judeo-Christian history. Want to refer to the natives? You can, of course. They had various practices like that, among other less noble ones. But like it or not, there's hardly anything Mayan about Mexico, nor is there any Navaho about New York.

How America was settled is a very tragic story. With a lot of powerful people shoving ethics aside and subjugating vast amounts of people using their superiority. A fantastic book on this subject is Guns, Germs and Steel. Like it or not, and I think its a tragic loss, most of that culture just didn't get to become part of the cultural landscape as it should have been. If that had been the case, then I wouldn't have said these things.

Starlight is a master at ignoring any truth or fact that does not agree with his world view and will take any dishonest handling of history and facts over true scholarship if it does so. He'll probably come up with a wikpedia article or 2 to try and prove his point

This is also the man that thinks it would be moral to kill a 3 month old baby and gets upset with killing of whales.

[eider]

Homophobia. Just hear that word. A homophobe. He's a homophobe. You're homophobic.

What do you see when you hear that word? Is it - as some on this website have insisted - merely a person who doesn't think marriage could be between two people of the same gender?

Clearly not. There's a bitter attack in that word.

A homophobe is not merely a person with outdated views - according to the current view of the world - A homophobe brings to my mind the image of someone who kinda sneers a bit when he finds out his coworker is gay, or at least becomes highly uncomfortable. The kind of guy who makes crude back office jokes about Paul being a fudge packer. Who believes, and espouses, false myths like homosexuals having an average lifespan of 35 years "Its more dangerous than smoking." A person who warns his sister about their gay neighbor because "They recruit little children you know, that's how it works." A man who gets angry when a discussion about homosexuality comes up, especially if its about figuring out if you're gay... because deep down he fears he might be.

A ludicrous vision? Of course. I don't think I've seen any person who was the perfect homophobe, but I've seen people who acted, and spoke homophobic things. Homophobic, as in that vision above. I would have no trouble in calling out a Christian as being homophobic with that definition. It described all the prejudices, negative stereotypes, stigmas oriented unfairly towards homosexuals, as well as disproportionate revulsion.

It can be a person who just referenced the long-debunked studies of homosexual life expectancy done by Paul Cameron as William Craig Lane did when answering one persons email. That was homophobic. Even if I respect William Lane Craig in his other works, that slip-up misrepresented homosexuals in a poor way.

However society, and when I mean society, I mean the LGBT, use homophobia very differently. A homophobe, by their term, is anyone they don't like and who disagrees with their views on sex and marriage between people of the same sex.

So now this otherwise useful term, that I've used, means the same as describing people who hold a traditional view of marriage. Or who simple consider same-sex coitus to be sinful. Or those who choose voluntarily to live celibately for those reason.

I don't think this is merely an evolution of language, nor that 'homophobe' 'homophobic' 'homophobia' is merely now what the word 'racist' is. And that this was an inevitable situation. Its clear that the LGBT communities have had a heavy hand in pushing the term 'homophobe' out to its widest possible definition. Its a word that helps their cause by othering the opposition, and aligning them with the irrational by default. I'd go so far as to say there's even some ableism implied in the term, in as much as it antagonizes people with real phobias rather than postmodern ones.

What do I believe 'we' as Christians should do? Give up and give in?

I think its usually enough to insist that we're not homophobic. Clarifying its original definition is usually sufficient in any debate. If a person demands the newer interpretation then ask for the dictionary. The Oxford dictionary aligns with our interpretation of the word. If they keep pressing, they come off as pedantic. There's no reason to keep running along with that.

Words matter. What you call something, says something about how you want to approach them. There's a reason pro-lifers call themselves pro-lifers, and the opposition tries to call them anti-abortionists. There's a reason why pro-lifers call the opposition abortionists, and they themselves want to be call pro-choicers. One is a negatively laddened term, the other is something emphasing something positive.

In case you're wondering, when discussing with abortionists, I use their preferred term and call them pro-choicers. Its hard to have discussions with people you disagree with, and starting off by treating the other party with dignity is the best bet.


TLDR; for the LGBT supporters here. If you can't use homophobe, what should you use?

Traditionalist.

Hi.........
When you're drowning folks in waffle, it's usually drizzling drivvle.

Here is an Oxford dictionary definition........ it's the second def I saw. I didn't use the first because that was the wiki def, which folks can tend to dismiss. OK?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...ish/homophobia
British & World English
homophobia
Definition of homophobia in English:
homophobia
Pronunciation: /ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə/ /ˌhəʊməˈfəʊbɪə/
noun
Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.

See? Simple.
If the cap fits..........

[RumTumTugger]

Hi.........
When you're drowning folks in waffle, it's usually drizzling drivvle.

Here is an Oxford dictionary definition........ it's the second def I saw. I didn't use the first because that was the wiki def, which folks can tend to dismiss. OK?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...ish/homophobia
British & World English
homophobia
Definition of homophobia in English:
homophobia
Pronunciation: /ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə/ /ˌhəʊməˈfəʊbɪə/
noun
Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.

See? Simple.
If the cap fits..........

It doesn't eider. A view is not a person. Just because we dislike a view you hold does not mean we dislike you or are prejudiced against you as a person. Leonhard is pointing out the misuse of homophobia or homophobic against those who voice a dislike of a worldview held by others. Until you and others like you admit there is a difference between a view and a person; the true intolerant hypocritical bigots will be shown for who they are.

[Jedidiah]

. . . snip . . ."Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people." . . . snip

Using this definition I am not a homophobe, nor are most Christians I am familiar with. We condemn the practices, but not the people. I do not have any friends at this time who are open homosexuals, but I have in the past. Thus the word is primarily used in a condemnatory manner, not as you describe it.

[Adam]

That me's, all right, just adding the further words at the end:
"who are proud of being such and who force other people to bow to their proclivities and accord them special privileges."