Hypo: You Are Gay

[Nihil Obstat]

:huh: Homophobia is a real word. We all know it's not a real phobia. We all know homophobia = prejudice.

Is it homophobic, as Catholics, to say that homosexual attraction is intrinsically disordered?

[franciscanheart]

Is it homophobic, as Catholics, to say that homosexual attraction is intrinsically disordered?

Let's be clear: we are talking only about saying, "Homosexual attraction is intrinsically disordered."

That phrase specifically, in my opinion, is not homophobic. But then, I'm a faithful Catholic...

[Nihil Obstat]

Let's be clear: we are talking only about saying, "Homosexual attraction is intrinsically disordered."

That phrase specifically, in my opinion, is not homophobic. But then, I'm a faithful Catholic...

So where are people crossing the line, in your opinion?

[Aloysius]

I still can't see anything wrong with this thought experiment, basically "what if X Men the Last Stand happened in real life"... I think people are wrong to support the drug, I also think the drug itself is extremely implausible given the hypothetical scenario offered because sexuality doesn't work that way (ie you cannot just isolate "attraction" and reverse the polarity [of the neutron flow]... the attraction is an intertwined deep-seated aspect of the entire person not just some surface level desire like a desire for alcohol might be)... but as a hypothetical thought experiment it's interesting enough.  I have found it difficult expressing exactly what my problem is with it, I have settled on the idea that I do not think we should bio-engineer sexuality along our moral system... I think I'll even generally agree with John Ryan that doing so would be a "bestial affront to our human dignity" even though I disagree with him on the morality of homosexual activity (not to speak for him, but I believe I remember him saying it was not immoral in his opinion).  

 

I don't really go towards the idea of it being like laying down one's cross per se, though that is an interesting direction to take it in.  my problem with it is more fundamental, and I think the idea of supporting such a drug is wrong along the same lines as imagining that such a drug would even plausibly exist is wrong--imagining that such a drug could plausibly exist represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of sexuality IMO, and in the same way IF the drug could exist, supporting its use I believe would also represent that same fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of sexuality.  because of this, a marriage based on the use of that drug would be problematic in my opinion.  it remains difficult for me to fully articulate why this is... because one must affirm the fact that homosexual attraction is wrongly ordered while doing so, but even if it is wrongly ordered, the nature of the overall deep-seated sexuality of a person is, while intertwined with that misdirected sexual desire, still something much more complex and understanding it fully would help us to better affirm the dignity of persons with that sexuality.  

while attempting to disconnect the attraction as if it's just some surface level part of a person that a switch could be flipped to change them, as is often done in the insistence on using terms like "SSA" instead of "homosexuality", I think people actually inadvertently do the exact opposite of what they intend.  they completely miss the complexity of the person that they're trying to affirm by disconnecting that attraction from them.

 

in the end, humanity will all be redeemed through Christ, and in a complex and mysterious way, that means the redemption of all things, the complete destruction of the hegemony of sin, and for those attractions to sinful things that are intimately connected to such things as someone's fundamental sexuality, the complete redemption of the whole person.  sexuality is an intricately deep aspect of a human person, and that too will be redeemed in ways we cannot even possibly begin to imagine.

[Lilllabettt]

:huh: Homophobia is a real word. We all know it's not a real phobia. We all know homophobia = prejudice.

 

uh well "retarded" is also a real word. with an actual medical definition.

 

I think the point is homophobia is a "real word" that is disrespectful of people who have a condition that actually qualifies as a phobia. Cuz a phobia does not spring from ignorance or hatred or evil. It's not a shameful thing. Which I would argue homophobia is never referred to in a non-shaming way. 

 

Like person x's crushing anxiety about leaving the house is not in anyway related to person y's violent hatred of homosexuals. and its kind of rude to link them linguistically. 

[Lilllabettt]

:twitch:

 

is there something objectionable about being grouped with disabled people?

something objectionable about the suggestion of having a disability?

[franciscanheart]

uh well "retarded" is also a real word. with an actual medical definition.
 
I think the point is homophobia is a "real word" that is disrespectful of people who have a condition that actually qualifies as a phobia. Cuz a phobia does not spring from ignorance or hatred or evil. It's not a shameful thing. Which I would argue homophobia is never referred to in a non-shaming way. 
 
Like person x's crushing anxiety about leaving the house is not in anyway related to person y's violent hatred of homosexuals. and its kind of rude to link them linguistically.

Homophobia doesn't necessarily imply a violent hatred of homosexuals. Edited September 8, 2014 by franciscanheart

[Lilllabettt]

Homophobia doesn't necessarily imply a violent hatred of homosexuals.

 

 

right. just ignorance and prejudice.

people with phobias are not ignorant or prejudiced. They have an anxiety disorder. 

[Maggyie]

Franciscan your beliefs are not unusual in the LGBT community but you're incorrect. For instance the AP recently updated their stylebook to remove the use of the word homophobia outside its proper, medical context. It's an inaccurate term usually used as an insult which stigmatizes people who are already marginalized by mental illness. It's insensitive to use it as an insult or as a synonym for bigot or ignorant.

[Aloysius]

these semantics over the term "homophobia" I find to be rather pedantic... I find it dubious that people with phobias would be offended by the use of the term homophobia... and if they were offended, I'd say they're wrong to be offended.  the word "phobia" has a colloquial meaning in addition to a medical meaning... that colloquial meaning was appropriated and used in the word 'homophobia' to highlight the fact that inherent to the hatred of homosexuals there is a general fear associated with it as well, usually driven by the repressed closet homosexuals who tend to be the most vocal condemners and vitriolic/bigoted haters of homosexuals, as they're projecting their fear of giving in to their own homosexual desires into an outward hatred.  but even for people who are not themselves repressed/closeted, there is a general fear driving those who are truly ignorant or bigoted towards homosexuals... hence the colloquial usage of the term "phobia"... sorry, but people with psychological phobias don't get to claim the term "phobia" exclusively, it can be used colloquially or metaphorically in many contexts.

[Aloysius]

btw, I should note that nothing I found in this thread would make me accuse anyone of being homophobic... though I do believe quite a few people are wrong to suggest that such a drug should be endorsed if it were made possible or available.  alcoholism and disability are also analogies that I would have an issue with as well.  But I've explained my disputes with those things already, generally speaking I do not think it's fair to accuse people posting in this thread of being homophobic based solely upon the posts made in this thread.  the pejorative nature of that word means for me I would reserve it for those who are truly deserving of the label, and I find its general overuse unfortunate because it does nothing but polarize people even further.

[Lilllabettt]

these semantics over the term "homophobia" I find to be rather pedantic... I find it dubious that people with phobias would be offended by the use of the term homophobia... and if they were offended, I'd say they're wrong to be offended.  

 

interesting.

would you say people with intellectual disabilities are "wrong" for being offended by the term "retarded"? 

 

 

 

 

[that] meaning was appropriated and used in the word 'homophobia' to highlight the fact that inherent to the hatred of homosexuals there is a general fear associated with it as well, usually driven by the repressed closet homosexuals who tend to be the most vocal condemners and vitriolic/bigoted haters of homosexuals,

 

You are highlighting a dumb and insensitive move on the part of people who coined the term homophobia. phobia has as much to do with hatred and bigotry as being "retarded" has to do with being stupid. 

[Aloysius]

except "retarded" is not considered an acceptable term for anyone, it has a insulting connotation when directed at people with mental disabilities just as it does when stated in a colloquial way, making both usages wrong.  the term "phobia" is not considered insulting in any way, shape, or form when applied to someone with a phobia.  no one is associating those with phobias as having ignorance or bigotry.  they are associating the ignorance and bigotry of those who hate homosexuals with a deeper fear that they have.  phobia is a colloquial way talking about intense fear, and there is nothing wrong with using it in that context.  the fact that hatred of homosexuals tends to stem from a deeper fear is something that is quite apparent when one looks at some of the more vitriolic homophobes in our society.

 

of course someone with a phobia doesn't have ignorance and fear... there is absolutely no connotation being asserted about that. what is being asserted is that those with bigotry and ignorance often have those things as an extension of a fear.  I really don't think the word games attempting to link "phobia" to "retarded" are in any way justified, they're an over-extension of political correctness that seems to stem way less from an actual offense coming out of people with phobias and far more from out of the polarized discourses related to homosexuality in general.

[franciscanheart]

What Al said (in his last post).

[Lilllabettt]

except "retarded" is not considered an acceptable term for anyone, it has a insulting connotation when directed at people with mental disabilities just as it does when stated in a colloquial way, making both usages wrong.  the term "phobia" is not considered insulting in any way, shape, or form when applied to someone with a phobia.  no one is associating those with phobias as having ignorance or bigotry.  they are associating the ignorance and bigotry of those who hate homosexuals with a deeper fear that they have.  phobia is a colloquial way talking about intense fear, and there is nothing wrong with using it in that context.  the fact that hatred of homosexuals tends to stem from a deeper fear is something that is quite apparent when one looks at some of the more vitriolic homophobes in our society.

 

of course someone with a phobia doesn't have ignorance and fear... there is absolutely no connotation being asserted about that. what is being asserted is that those with bigotry and ignorance often have those things as an extension of a fear.  I really don't think the word games attempting to link "phobia" to "retarded" are in any way justified, they're an over-extension of political correctness that seems to stem way less from an actual offense coming out of people with phobias and far more from out of the polarized discourses related to homosexuality in general.

 

 

the reason "retarded" is not considered an acceptable term for people with mental retardation is because people began using the word "retarded" to mean "stupid."

 

the same way that people use phobia in homophobia to indicate prejudice, hatred, ignorance, etc. 

[Aloysius]

meh, I don't at all buy the connection you're making, the idea that being called a "homophobe" is the same kind of insult as being called "retarded" is perfectly surrealistic in my view, and the connection the other way is equally as strange and disconnected from actual semantic realities as to make me roll my eyes and ignore the argument, but go right ahead with your crusade against the word homophobia.  I very much doubt it'll ever catch on or that there will be in any way a general semantic shift in the word "phobia" to make it pejorative in the way "retarded" was.  the first time someone sincerely calls someone an "arachnophobe" in a way that tries to insinuate that they are bigoted and hateful towards spiders, I'll eat my hat and concede your point.

[Credo in Deum]

I'm a semanticsphobe. True story.

[Lilllabettt]

meh, I don't at all buy the connection you're making, the idea that being called a "homophobe" is the same kind of insult as being called "retarded" is perfectly surrealistic in my view, and the connection the other way is equally as strange and disconnected from actual semantic realities as to make me roll my eyes and ignore the argument, but go right ahead with your crusade against the word homophobia.  I very much doubt it'll ever catch on or that there will be in any way a general semantic shift in the word "phobia" to make it pejorative in the way "retarded" was.  the first time someone sincerely calls someone an "arachnophobe" in a way that tries to insinuate that they are bigoted and hateful towards spiders, I'll eat my hat and concede your point.

 

 

don't you think the principle matters? words matter. no? semantics is the study of meaning. 

[Aloysius]

I think the "principle" is surreal and pedantic, and generally incorrect.  There is no pejorative being placed upon the idea of having a phobia, none.  The term homophobia is asserting that people with ignorance and bigotry also have a deeper fear that drives it, which is correct in my opinion.  No one is directing the notion of ignorance and bigotry semantically towards people with phobias, hence your principle is incorrect, it is an attempt to overextend the logic of political correctness far beyond anything it should ever be applied to.

[franciscanheart]

While attempting to disconnect the attraction as if it's just some surface level part of a person that a switch could be flipped to change them, as is often done in the insistence on using terms like "SSA" instead of "homosexuality", I think people actually inadvertently do the exact opposite of what they intend. They completely miss the complexity of the person that they're trying to affirm by disconnecting that attraction from them.

In the end, humanity will all be redeemed through Christ, and in a complex and mysterious way, that means the redemption of all things, the complete destruction of the hegemony of sin, and for those attractions to sinful things that are intimately connected to such things as someone's fundamental sexuality, the complete redemption of the whole person. Sexuality is an intricately deep aspect of a human person, and that too will be redeemed in ways we cannot even possibly begin to imagine.

This, with a more solemn nod to the piece addressing the disconnection of sexuality from the person. Misunderstood or not understood at all, too many attempts to separate the "good person" from the "disordered inclination" distract from the reality of that person's sexuality, how deeply and intricately it is woven into every part of their life, and ultimately robs that person of respect and dignity, though it may be unintentional and (more often than not) unnoticed. (But that's another topic for another night...)