Whenever someone uses the slippery word “homophobia”, we know immediately that rational thought has been abandoned in favour of a treasured but meaningless cliché. The OED defines homophobia as “an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people”. My daughter suffered from arachnophobia, leading to numerous pranks involving rubber spiders finding their way into her glass of water; the resultant shrieking was gratifying to no-one but the perpetrator – usually her brother. That was (she has overcome it now) a true phobia.
I don’t know anyone who is homophobic; I am not denying the possibility of the existence of such a phobia, but I’ve never encountered it. I suppose it could be treated in much the same way as arachnophobia, by systematic desensitization: first the sufferer would be invited to look at a photograph of a homosexual, then be placed in the same room at opposite ends, later a “good morning” could be exchanged and finally the whole thing would end with a hug.
That is absurd because, of course, it isn’t what Desmond Tutu and his ilk mean by “homophobia.” In Tutu’s view a person who is “homophobic” is anyone who doesn’t agree with him about the morality or immorality of homosexual activity, regardless of whether the disagreement is founded in rationality or revelation.
For Tutu, it’s all about emotion; if fact, it almost appears as if he experiences an extreme and irrational aversion – a phobia – to anyone who disagrees with him about homosexuality – including God.
From here:
“I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place,” Archbishop Tutu said at the launch of the Free and Equal campaign in Cape Town.
“I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this.”
It may not be very charitable, but my immediate reaction to reading this was be careful what you wish for…
Few are suggesting that God hates anyone and God certainly isn’t afraid of anyone.
The weapon of political correctness is semantics, and the ammunition is words.
Sorry to say it, but I believe homophobia does exist; however, I agree with Gordon Arthur. I think that your systematic desensitization would have to be a tad more dramatic than your example given above, but I do not wish to get into that.
I remember sitting in Vancouver Cathedral in 2000 or 2001 and listening to Peter Elliott [who is probably hetero-phobic] waxing poetic about “Me and Desmond” this and “Me and Desmond” that, until I finally felt an overwhelming need for fresh air and got up and left mid sermon.
I spent quite a lot of time in Africa years ago and that included S. Africa under apartheid. My views on “Desmond” are expressed here in a 2005 article [http://www.jesusofnazareth.ca/dtutu.html], however, I do not believe that Tutu needs to worry, because he’s going straight to the hot place. He certainly has/had some deep feelings years ago and you really have to wonder who decided to give him a Nobel Peace Prize. Same one who picked Yasser Arafat and Obama I expect…
“Homophobia” is a term invented by homosexual lobbyists in order to mess with people’s minds (there are books written by them in which such tactics are explicitly advocated).
There is no practical difference between avoiding doing, saying, or thinking anything which these lobbyists might label homophobic, and being unable to object to any demand whatever made by that group.
Which is the purpose of it, of course; to silence opposition, and make people ashamed of a virtuous repulsion to this evil.
I always thought Tutu looked bogus. I am sad to find that I was right. Just another black power politician, whose God is really the secular world.
And this is why God allows times like these; that men must decide whether to follow Christ when it gets unpopular, and those whose real allegiance is elsewhere is unmasked.
I don’t think that’s entirely fair: Tutu did a lot of good work while he was Archbishop of Cape Town. He just seems to have lost the plot since he retired
I don’t know if you read my 2005 article; however, I struggled to be fair to Tutu; didn’t even touch upon his lavish lifestyle and expensive commitment self and family.
I’d challenge you to back up that ‘lot of good work’ statement, but recommend much research first.
Prejudice and perhaps phobias, are strange things: Tutu’s is about color.
Interestingly, some of the worst homophobic people I have met have themselves been GLBT; a case of unrequited self-hatred I suppose…
What’s the difference between a “making people ashamed of a virtuous repulsion to this evil” and a phobia?
Indeed, Terry. The deliberate changing of words’ meanings (it means “fear of likeness”, as I’m sure you know) for purely political ends, has a cold, Orwellian chill, which is only to be expected from our would-be Stalinist rulers.
A few weeks ago my children and I were visiting some friends and the topic of homosexuals came up. My own son said that I was homophobic, to which I corrected him rather sternly and said that a phobia is a fear and that I do not fear homosexuals. My own daughter than said that I hate them, to which I replied (again sternly) that I do not hate homosexuals but that I do disagree with them and that disagreement is not hatred.
Our friends who are supporters of the homosexual agenda than went silent on the entire issue.
I suppose the point that I am trying to make is that when people attempt to control the conversation by high-jacking and deliberately abusing words we need to respond forcefully and impose the needed corrections. Basically the concept of a good defense is a strong offence. Take back control and do not back down.
That’s not quite how language works. Language evolves. Sometimes a word can evolve to mean something quite different from what the etymology would suggest, Sometimes a word can evolve to mean the very opposite of what it used to mean generations earlier. That’s just the way of language.
Why do you think that your children disagree with you on this, and that your friends stayed silent?
Yes, meanings can change. The word “gay” for example. It was used in reference to homosexuality since at least the 1930s, at least in some circles if not in society generally. It retains its older meanings as well, although that usage is usually avoided as the later meaning has become more prevalent in society.
The meanings of “phobia” and “hatred” have not changed over many generations, as far as I can determine. Just because someone who is younger has been influenced to use the terms incorrectly does not mean others have to accept a distorted, misplaced labeling.
Disagreement, or even dislike, is not a diagnostic criteria for phobias in the DSM-IV-TR or otherwise. It is simply disagreement, or dislike.
Why do his children disagree with him? Gee, why did the Red Guards under Mao disagree with their parents?
Why did his friends go silent? Probably to avoid further discussion.
Hello Vincent,
I think you are jumping to conclusions a bit too quickly.
My children do not disagree with me on this. They had misinformation from the homosexual agenda supporters, information such as “anyone who is against homosexual rights is hateful”. So I pointed out to them that it is possible to disagree with someone and not hate that person.
As to why my friends went silent I will say this. They had to accept that my position was well founded and they were unable to argue against it. So for your benefit I will reiterate it:
Phobia is a fear, and I do not fear homosexuals. Therefore it is not accurate to label me as homophobic.
I do not agree with the homosexual agenda, and it is entirely possible to disagree with someone and not hate that person. So please do not portray my disagreement as being hatred. (For if you do than you will be bearing false witness against me.)
Kindest regards,
AMP
Your entire point is about making sure that you having a problem with homosexuality — and opposing any kind of equality legal framework — is not seen as hatred? Okay. I don’t think you hate gays. I do think that that’s not much help to gays though.
AMP, I do not think that you got that control back; even if you had it in the first place. I doubt that you have changed your children’s perspective either.
Likewise we should be looking at Welby’s announcement of “anti-bullying” for gays… a very well protected and powerful lobby. How is this not an attempt to chill opposition to putting gays everywhere in cofe posts?