Why Homophobia Fails

[ApologiaPhoenix]

A debate on homosexual marriage takes place on Unbelievable? What's my take?

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:


What were my thoughts on the debate on homosexual marriage on Unbelievable? Let's talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Recently on Unbelievable?, host Justin Brierley had a debate on homosexual marriage between Peter Tatchell and Peter D. Williams. Tatchell has been a lifelong advocate of what he prefers to call "gay rights." Peter D. Williams is an apologist who works with Catholic Voices. There will be a link to the program at the end.

To begin with, this is a debate I thought was an absolute trounce on the part of Williams. Williams knew the material that Tatchell was citing and what the problem was with it. Furthermore, Williams himself never appealed to Scripture to defend his case so it wasn't just "The Bible says so." (I have heard some apologists say they think homosexuality is wrong just because the Bible says so. I really don't think this is the way to go. It's not that X is true because the Bible says so. The Bible says X because it is true.)

I could tell the way the debate was going to go when right at the start Tatchell started talking about homophobia. Williams was right when he said that this is more often a way of shutting down debate. It becomes more about the motives of the person presenting the argument rather than the argument itself.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that Williams really did have a hatred towards homosexuals and homosexuality. Let's suppose that he was filled with nothing but vitriol towards them and thought that they were less than human in any sense of the word.

Question. Does that make his arguments against homosexual marriage wrong?

No. It just makes him a jerk. He could be entirely right in his opinion and entirely wrong in his attitude. It would not work against his argument to say that he was a jerk. You still have to deal with what is said and the claim about someone being homophobic does not do that.

Furthermore, let's think about this. What does the term mean? Phobias are not funny things. They're terrifying things. I have a phobia of water for instance. My wife and I honeymooned at Ocean Isle Beach and it took a lot for her to get me into the water. I got out into the ocean deeper than I ever had before. Most noteworthy was she got me into the pool about 5 feet deep and away from the edge.

There was a part of me that was inside screaming "My wife is trying to kill me!" while I was doing that, but the rational side of me was saying "My wife loves me and if anything does happen, she's fully capable of saving me." I did trust her. It took a lot, but I trusted her.

Now let's suppose someone was walking by who saw this and said "Wow! Look at that! The little wimp is afraid of water!" Now some of you might think that fear is bizarre, but there would not be sympathy for someone who holds that kind of attitude. I can assure them they would need to pray for God to have mercy if my Mrs. had heard that because she sure wouldn't.

Phobias are not terms you should use to mock or denigrate someone and yet that is exactly what the term homophobia is. It is the idea that the only reason Christians are against homosexuality is because they are afraid of it or homosexuals. Does that mean I have kleptophobia because I'm opposed to theft? Do I have nymphophobia if I am opposed to sex outside of marriage? Do I have homocidophobia if I am opposed to murder? Could it actually be that I might have moral reasons for objecting to homosexuality?

The next term Tatchell used regularly was discrimination. This is playing the victim card because who wants to be on the side of the discriminators. The reality is that we all do discriminate on various topics. We discriminate on who we're friends with, who we do business with, who we marry, and who we have sit our kids.

The law itself discriminates. You have to be a certain age to drive. You have to be a certain age to vote. You have to be a certain age to drink alcohol. If you want to carry a gun, you have to show that you are qualified to do that. This is discrimination and it is good discrimination.

Williams made the point that Tatchell is not denied any right. He is wanting different rights. He's correct. No one has the right to marry someone of the same sex. Instead, everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and even then there's some discrimination, such as that you can't marry a close family member.

Williams is also right when asking "Why not polygamy?" We could go further and ask "Why not NAMBLA?" or "Why not incest?" Now for polygamy Tatchell was of the opinion that no one would want that. He can say that, but I'm pretty sure the Mormon church here in America would certainly get a "new revelation" if polygamy became allowed.

One important aspect of the debate was that marriage sets a normative route for society that shows what is needed for the ideal raising of children. It doesn't mean that all marriages have children or will have children, but it means that children are ideally raised by a mother and a father both. Of course, there are some tragedies that happen, such as the death of a spouse, that leave some single parents, and these can do very admirable jobs, but I am sure most would say it would be a whole lot easier if the other spouse was around.

The key point was in the idea of which sex it is that is not needed to raise a child. For me, this is the main point. Allowing homosexual marriage will be saying that men and women are really interchangeable. There is no difference between the two. Which sex will be the one to be cast aside? It's very easy to tell you that. Fathers will be seen as superfluous.

Being a man means something. It matters. Being a woman means something. It matters. I am thankful God made me a man and when the Princess and I have children some day, as we hope to, I will be very pleased that I get to be a father and she gets to be the mother of my children and we will both play our essential roles in their proper raising.

Let's hope the society in the U.K. recognizes what marriage really is, the union of a man and a woman, and let's also hope that here in the states we do the same thing. For those of us who are married, let's start living the joyful life of marriage for a watching world. The reason other people lessen marriage is because we did it ourselves in the first place.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The debate can be found here:

http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={45A7CC8B-2EE9-4394-B030-54C00AA7CA39}

[lao tzu]

Ten percent of married, heterosexual couples are mutually infertile. Three percent of the population is homosexual. Opposition to same sex marriage based on contravention of its normative role in the upbringing of children is innumerate.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Let's see. Some couples are willingly infertile and some percentage of the population is homosexual, therefore a mother and father are not ideal for children?

How does that work?

[lao tzu]

Let's see. Some couples are willingly infertile and some percentage of the population is homosexual, therefore a mother and father are not ideal for children?

How does that work?

By doing the math, of course. Well, that, and actually addressing the argument rather than wandering off on your own. If ten percent of heterosexual couples having no natural children has no meaningful impact on whatever normative values may accrue from heterosexual marriage and child rearing, then it is innumerate to suggest that whatever fraction of the three percent of same sex couples who choose to marry will do so, either.

But not, by a long shot, as innumerate as suggesting that allowing same sex marriages will somehow stop biological mothers and fathers from raising children. Allow me to suggest you change your early morning posting policy. Coffee first, then TWeb.

As ever, Jesse

[ApologiaPhoenix]

A couple not having children says nothing about which couples are best suited to raise children. If you think a mother and father are not ideal, then by all means tell me which sex you think is superfluous in the raising of children.

[Pilgrim]

The only nuance I would bring to the conversation is the difference between hate and fear. A phobia, technically defined, is not a hatred of something but rather a fear of it. Baring that the exact same logic you apply follows through: Just because you think something is wrong does not imply that you are afraid of that thing in the phobic sense. To assert such a thing blindly every time someone finds a thing objectionable is indeed to simply raise the emotional level of the debate in order to shut down the conversation. It is also a subtle form of poisoning the well in that even if you were afraid of the thing that does not mean that your moral objection to a thing is therefore by definition wrong.

[Chrs]

To assert such a thing blindly every time someone finds a thing objectionable is indeed to simply raise the emotional level of the debate in order to shut down the conversation.

Yeah, not really my thing.

Although, I should probably note the definition of homophobia refers to the fear or hatred of homosexuals - in the same way xenophobia refers to the fear or hatred of foreigners - and xenophobia isn't a new word. It is true that it has the same root to other phobias but it does have a different meaning.

[GK Kirbyton]

Great article Mr. Phoenix! I have apiphobia (fear of bees) {I hate those flying devils.} so I understand you predicament completely. I was always annoyed how language was turned inside-out by supporters of homosexual marriage (gay meaning homosexual male instead of happiness, "homophobia", "partner" instead of husband and wife). I did a presentation today on how John Milton saw that language has fallen since the fall, and not using language morally or rationally prevents healthy human interaction. So my question/potential-next-topic is: can this misuse of language be extended to other areas of apologetics? How and why?

[Chrs]

gay meaning homosexual male instead of happiness

That was an extension of the world's original meaning, and was originally intended as a method of insulting a homosexual male's masculinity.

"homophobia"

A perfectly legitimate prefix to "-phobia" - similar to Xenophobia. Although - I will admit it is overused. This isn't even a redefinition this is a new word, so I don't know what you're complaining about.

"partner" instead of husband and wife

...Again, a perfectly legitimate use of the word. Like Significant Other.

Sure, the uses of words change but you're being ridiculous if you think it's "the supports of homosexual marriage turning language inside-out" - we'll just ignore the hundreds of other ways that English has changed over the last, say, 100 years, shall we?

Also, you're a tribes player - cool.

ETA: Something about this thread is breaking the formatting of the website. No idea what, I'll look into it.

[GK Kirbyton]

Sure, the uses of words change but you're being ridiculous if you think it's "the supports of homosexual marriage turning language inside-out" - we'll just ignore the hundreds of other ways that English has changed over the last, say, 100 years, shall we?

Not saying all changes with language is a bad thing. Changes to fit someone's politics or controversial lifestyle is not okay. Even the agnostic George Orwell was concerned about political control of the English language. and before you say "Looks who's talking, religion can adversely affect language too", my point is that fallible men (both Christian and non-Christian) are capable of devaluing words to the point where thought, kind, and constructive are obscured at best, removed at worst. The use of "homophobia" instead of merely using "anti-homosexual" is just one example of this. Again, I'm not saying all changes of language are bad, but those changes that are based mostly on emotions or flawed reasoning shouldn't be supported.

Also, you're a tribes player - cool.

Aw yeah, as soon as my gaming clan buys some servers for Tribes:Ascend and college is over for the summer I'll be playing it alot more. My in game name is TheJollyRoger. Maybe we can do a pwn fest some time.

[Chrs]

Not saying all changes with language is a bad thing. Changes to fit someone's politics or controversial lifestyle is not okay. Even the agnostic George Orwell was concerned about political control of the English language.

Language is certainly a powerful tool and, yes, Newspeak (or equivalent) is certainly undesirable. On the other hand, if you're going to judge changes in language you're going to need some way of measuring a changes' effect on the English language - I would suggest that it be to do with the language's overall ability to communicate concepts, broadly speaking. Not being a linguist, I don't really have a method of judging that past simply discussing the concepts behind it.

Let's consider "Homophobia" and "partner" (as I previously mentioned, "gay" wasn't "made" to mean homosexual by homosexuals, and as such is not particularly relevant.) Does the word "homophobia" adversely effect the ability to use English to communicate? I would state no - it's the addition of a new word which doesn't alter or remove the meaning of any other word. Perhaps it's not the most effective method of communicating the concept (although, given it's resemblance to the word xenophobia I'd say it's sufficiently clear what it means) but neither is it a net loss to the English language.

As for "partner", I don't see why the evolution of the word partner to mean Significant Other isn't just a slightly less formal version of "spouse" - it's genderless just as spouse is. I don't see why this is a negative change - indeed, it adds meaning - a genderless, non-sexuality specific word for... well, a partner or Significant Other is kind of necessary. What else would you have them call their partners, if there was not a word for it?

Aw yeah, as soon as my gaming clan buys some servers for Tribes:Ascend and college is over for the summer I'll be playing it alot more. My in game name is TheJollyRoger. Maybe we can do a pwn fest some time.

I don't so much pwn people as fly incredibly fast at/into/away from things, but sure

[Darth Executor]

Sheesh, isn't that argument dead yet? While technically true (in that it will require additional legislation/whatever to pass in order to be true) it lacks any actual substance.

I agree with Chrs, and furthermore I would argue that the right has stupidly allowed the left to dishonestly frame the issue as a ban on gay marriage when all that is happening is that the state will not sanction it. That is not a "ban". If it was a ban government agents would swarm your private gay wedding and haul you off to jail. No rights are being violated because the idea that the state owes you formal recognition of your personal relationships is absurd. The left claims it wants people to stay out of their bedroom but for some reason insists on inviting the federal government in it every chance they get.

[Jedidiah]

A perfectly legitimate prefix to "-phobia" - similar to Xenophobia. Although - I will admit it is overused. This isn't even a redefinition this is a new word, so I don't know what you're complaining about.

I agree that it is a perfectly legitimate word, but I seriously doubt that it refers to anything real in 99% of the examples of it's usage.

[Jedidiah]

What does any of this have to do with "homophobia"?

[Chrs]

Conversation between myself and AP moved to this thread

I'll get you a reply either when I get back this evening or tomorrow, if I'm too tired.