Dictionary corner(ed)
Where's Samuel Johnson when you need him? Lexicographical ground war has broken out on this blog over the meaning of the term 'homophobia'. I inadvertantly started things off a few weeks ago when writing about the Presbyterian General Assembly's tussle with the term.
The Assembly, wisely in my view, resisted the opportunity to accept this proposed definition: 'an irrational fear or hatred of homosexual persons'. I suggested that this definition is too narrow; not all anti-gay discrimination, for example, is based on fear or hatred, and it's not clear that people are necessarily 'irrational' when they engage in homophobic behaviour (any more than people are necessarily 'irrational' when they engage in racist or sectarian behaviour). A more careful definition of homophobia would encompass language, actions or attitudes that harm, abuse, demean, dehumanise, or discriminate against lesbian and gay people.
Even this is a flawed account, of course, since a fully developed understanding should describe, for example, how homophobia can be internalised by gay and lesbian people themselves (just as some women have internalised sexist understandings of their place in society), how homophobia can be institutionalised; how an individual's 'aversion' to gay people, because of their sexuality, can be laced with homophobia; and how homophobia can impact an entire culture. It is easy to concentrate on tragically visible examples of homophobia, such as an attack on a gay person's home, but homophobia is present in much less obvious cases too. I'd be interested in hearing some of your suggested definitions or revisions.
Some years ago, published . Their 'pyramid anaysis' of sectarianism could usefully inform any attempt to understand homophobia: at the top are extreme examples (like paramilitary violence); at the bottom are the 'uncommitted majority' who perceive themselves as far removed from sectarianism but whose behaviour (e.g., silence, political apathy, looking away, avoidance) is part of a system that makes extreme violence possible. Homophobia, like racism or sexism, functions with similarly systemic dynamics.
One final thought on this. I sense that some people of faith are uncomfortable with the term 'homophobia' because they are concerned that their own religious views may be categorised as homophobic. One definition of homophobia being suggested by the campaign, for example, is this: 'personal homophobia is prejudice based on a personal belief that lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are sinful, immoral, sick, inferior to heterosexuals, or incomplete women and men.'
Take the belief that people with a homosexual orientation are 'disordered', or that same-sex affection is 'unnatural'. A person of sincere religious commitment might hold those beliefs and argue that they are not homophobic beliefs: they are based on his or her reading of sacred texts, and the religious believer would certainly not condone the abuse of gay and lesbian people. An application of the Leichty-Clegg model to this situation would question whether those beliefs nevertheless contribute to a culture of disparagement or dehumanisation in respect of lesbian and gay people. These are serious questions for serious people.
Comments
And a serious effort at answering the question from you, Will.
We all have some latent sectarianism to deal with, and some latent homophobia too. Even churches, which are supposed to be full of loving people, need to hear this ... and do something about it.
I just hope we can have a sensible conversation about this without commenters getting aggressive or side-tracked into silly diversions from the main point here. PLEASE guys, lets not go weird again ...
Here's my definition: HOMOPHOBIA, AN IRRATIONAL INSECURITY ABOUT BEING HETEROSEXUAL.
A good analysis, William - I would have been interested in the dialogue at Church House too I'm sure, had I been able to be in the gallery this year. Anyone see anything wrong with my definition?...
Homophobia: A prejudicial unease with relating to homosexual people.
William,
Thanks for your definition.
First, I totally agree that the religious believer would certainly not condone the abuse (either verbal or physical) of people invoved in homosexual relationships.
*Before I proceed I am assuming that everyone understands that this is my position also*
So to tease out your definition - let's think about the sincere believer who reads the Bible and comes to the understanding that ALL sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sinful - it is sinful if it is same-sex or male/female sex.
Whether or not this contributes to "a culture of disparagement or dehumanisation in respect of lesbian and gay people" (topic for another day!) they are convinced that if they are to be true to God they should hold this view.
Is this person homophobic?
I would suggest that following 'End Homophobia's' definition (and maybe William's?), such a person would be classified as homophobic and could be liable for police investigation if they were to express their beliefs in public in the UK.
Would you agree and if so would you support the investigation of such a person? (see my earlier posting for examples of police investigations)
My contention is that the move to widen the definition of homophobia is to silence those that would hold such beliefs (or anyone else who disagrees with same-sex sexual affection.) This is worrying on a number of counts:
a) laws estatblished to protect people from verbal/physical abuse are being used in ways not intended (see my previous posts)
b) we should defend others' rights to disagree with our own point of view, and not silence them
A society cannot be considered a tolerant one unless it allows people to disagree.
Regards,
ceejay
P.S.
I'm interested in proper discussion of these issues and not playground name-calling. Unlike Arnie, I'll not be back if things go the same direction as before...I can go plenty of other places to be verbally abused...
Thanks to Will for that excellent piece on homophobia, and thanks to Ceejay for your response which carres us into some interesting areas for reflection. Ceejay, you ask if a religious believer is engaging in homophobia by believing that heterosexual monogamous marriage is the only proper context for sexual intercourse. I think that would be low-level case of homophobia (low on the pyramid Will described), since it amounts to heterosexism, the claim that a heterosexual life is normative and all other forms of sexual life are, in that sense, sub-normal. Thanks Ceejay for your willingness to discuss these difficult questions with a good spirit, that's appreciated.
Just a quick point about the police, in reply to Ceejay's earlier comment. I don't think it follows that the police would be arresting everyone who has a homophobic belief or any kind. I wouldn't expect the police to arrest everyone who holds a racist-like belief or a sexist belief. The police would only become involved if someone made statements that incite others to commit crimes, such as a racist-motivated attack or a homophobic hate-crime. No one is suggesting that it should be illegal to hold homophobic beliefs, or racist beliefs, or sexist beliefs as such.
Hats off to William for a serious contribution with no hint of personal abuse and hear hear to Keiron and Ceejay - lets have no more of it.
William, a thought provoking and of course provocative contribution, as usual; will revisit.
Thanks and regards
PB
i agree with david ... a view which claims that only one type of life is acceptable is a prejudiced view.
and theres no point just claiming that because that view is in the bible its somehow not prejudiced. there are racist and sexist views in the bible too. some racists are christians and defend their racism with chapter and verse.
im a christian too, and a woman. and for generations woman have been told, in one way or another, that our gender excludes us from leadership or other roles in church and society. that has mostly changed now, but the same arguments are now being used to exclude gay people. and its not right.
David
Good to see you back on the blog and some interesting points you raise.
Silas- I am afraid events have overtaken your prefernces on how the police should be treating this matter.
They have already "interviewed" Sir Iqbal Sacranie, a female commentator on (I think) ´óÏó´«Ã½ Five Live and an elderly English couple, all of whom publicly questioned homosexuality without hinting at incitement. There are more examples I believe.
PB
Sir Iqbal Sacranie isn't female PB. The SIR bit gives that away. He's a leading Muslim cleric and head of the Muslim Council of Britain.
The police investigated his rearks that homosexuality was a harm to society because a member of the public asked them to look into the remarks ina formal complaint. The police looked into the comments to make sure they did not constitute incitement to violence and have taken no further action. That seems perfectly appropriate to me.
Silas,
Your comments reflect what most people would expect - that people who hold beliefs which consider sex outside of marriage as sinful (whether heterosexual or homosexual) would not be investigated/prosecuted by the authorities.
However, the police do follow up alleged instances of homophobia which could not seriously be classified as inciting others to commit hate crimes.
Examples:
- (Yes it is from Wikipedia - remember "like a curates egg"!)
Interesting to note Outrage's support of Mr Hammond and how this conflicts with End Homophobia's proposed definition.
Even if people don't agree with what these people were saying, surely they should be able to hold such views without fear of police action?
Deirdre,
What do you think of the following statement -
a view which claims that a particular type of lifestyle is unacceptable is a prejudiced view.
Would you agree or disagree with this?
Can think of some types of lifestyle which are unacceptable to you (not necessarily regarding sexuality)?
If so, how have you determined that the lifestyles are unacceptable and are you being prejudiced in doing so?
Regards,
ceejay
I had a look at that link about the Christian couple being investigated by the police.
1. They weren't investigated for a homophobic statement. That's not illegal. they wrote to the council and used language (which hasn't been made public as yet) which gave rise to concerns in the council that a hate crime may have been committed.
2. Hate crime legislation is another subject altogether. No one is suggesting that every homophobic comment should be illegal, any more than a sexist joke should be made illegal. I don't want to send people to prison for making sexist jokes, but i think we should be prepared to recognise a sexist joke for what it is.
3. The police looked into the matter of the Christian couple's letter to the couple and decided that no crime had been committed.
4. It is entirely appropriate that the police should take a look at a complaint concerning an alleged hate crime, even if they determine after a brief enquiry that no crime had been committed (as in this case).
5. Until we know what that couple actually wrote, it's impossible for any of us to evaluate the language they used. For all I know, they could have used languuage we would all have found appalling. we just don't know. Which makes it a poor example for our discussion.
Dave
Sorry my friend you are mistaken in the way you have read my comment. Sir Iqbal and the female commentator were two different people in a list.
Some of these "interviews" were quite lengthy with copious "advice" and stated threats of prosecution.
Silas says nobody is suggesting it should be illegal to hold dissenting views, but if the police want to "interview/advise" you anytime you express them there is not much of a difference.
I suggest if you have any further problem with these actions of the police, you take it up with Silas, not me, it is he who said he was concerned about the possibility of this type of thing.
Finally Dave, please tone down your sarcasm, we are trying to have a serious discussion here and as you can clearly see we are all agreed it is totally counterproductive.
PB
Dave
Ref entry 11.
I'm afraid I am not at all convinced by your arguments there.
I imagine if you tried the same with the other three cases Ceejay has given us your arguments will look even weaker.
PB
Dave,
Surely any of our definitions of homophobia must, at the very least, incompass hate crime? Therefore, if the police are investigating an alleged homosexual hate crime they are investing a form of homophobia.
If you don't go for that argument, perhaps the case of Lynette Burrows is more clear as the police were investigating an alleged 'homophobic incident'.
Regards,
ceejay
At the risk of joining in ...
I think it would help this discussion if we kept the focus on the original topic, which is homophobia, not hate crimes.
Some hate crimes are homophobic, but not all homophobia contitutes a hate crime. For example, I tell my sone to stop using homophobic language like 'fag', because that language is hurtful to gay people and is disrespectful. It's homophobic, but it's not a hate crime.
I thought we were trying to agree some kind of definition of homophobia, rather than getting side-tracked into related but different issues.
Reply to no. 16
I cannot tell you how angry I am that someone today can still be arguing that homosexuality is a form of mental illness. It is also frankly annoying that the person making that argument should try to appeal to outdated science to do so. Whatever the definition of homophobia, I think it's clear that this post fits the definition.
- The Kinsey Report has been overtaken by many other, more accurate studies of sexuality. The most recent studies challenge the 10 per cent claim in Kinsey; most suggest something like 2-3 per cent of the population is gay.
- It's simply untrue that most modern studies of homosexuality point to a "disordered cultural influence" as the primary cause. That kind of language if moralistic, and as such would not be acceptable in a scientific analyis.
- This post makes the rushed claim that the "scientific community" still avoids saying that homosexuality is innate. In fact, there are a wide variety of views as to the genesis of homosexuality, including a growing body of opinion suggesting that homosexuality is an innate condition. For an examination of the most recent research in ths area, see: "Born Gay?: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation" by Glenn Wilson and Qazi Rahman. This text also makes a strong argument for innateness.
- The post also claims that we can all name people who have "left homosexuality". Again, some studies have examined conversion therapies, which attempt to change a person's sexual orientation. Two recent studies in the British Medical Journal looked into those kinds of therapies and concluded that "that previously widespread treatments which were intended to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals were ineffective; indeed they resulted in increased levels of social isolation and shame. Commonly used treatments included behavioural aversion therapy with electric shocks, oestrogen therapy, religious counselling, electroconvulsive therapy, and psychoanalysis - all were equally ineffective. The study draws the conclusion that it is harmful to apply medical diagnoses to human conditions that are disapproved of morally or socially."
Those studies are here:
- There are some bigger questions here. Homosexual orientation is a fact: people in our society are lesbian and gay and have those orientations. How they got those orientations is not relevant to how we treat homosexual people. One gay person may have been born gay, in the sense that his biology predisposes him to homosexual attraction. While another gay person's homosexuality may be the result of mainly environmental factors. I don't really care how someone got to be gay. They are still gay. Anyone who wishes to condemn their lifestyle is making a moral or religious judgement, not a scientific judgment. The real question is how heterosexual people can learn to deal with the existence of people who are not heterosexual. Maybe conversion therapies should be tried on heterosexuals who struggle with the existence of gay people?
- And, while we're talking about science and sexuality. Take a look at this study in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, by Prof. Henry E Adams of the University of Georgia, which examined homophobic men who said they were exclusively heterosexual were shown gay sex videos. Four out of five became sexually aroused by the homoerotic imagery, as recorded by a penile circumference measuring device - a plethysmograph. Prof. Adams says his research shows that most homophobes "demonstrate significant sexual arousal to homosexual erotic stimuli", suggesting that homophobia is a form of "latent homosexuality where persons are either unaware of or deny their homosexual urges".
The article is: 'Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?' by Henry E. Adams, Ph.D., Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D. and Bethany A. Lohr, University of Georgia, in Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp 440-445.
Jason
As I expected, the emotion attached to this subject has clouded your understanding of what I was saying.
I purposely never mentioned conversion therapies because they are so controversial. I was talking about gay men who have voluntarily left homosexuality behind. Totally different thing.
Reference Born Gay, I am aware of the study. The reason I said the scientific community are still not claiming people are born gay is because; Peter Tatchell does not accept the study as accurate and the amount of ongoing research on the matter also shows that many other scientists do not thnk it is the final word either. Outrage are continually saying they are not convinced by such studies.
Are you aware of how well Born Gay has done in peer reviews? For the record, the authors have declined to state their sexuality while giving interviews about their book, a common issue in such studies.
Reference mental illness; It is an incontrovertible FACT that most 19th and 20th century psychologists considered homosexuality a mental illness. It is also fact that the gay lobby began overturning this through political lobbying. I have asked you to show me where any professional guild changed their stance on this because of research, which you have not done.
Has this change in policy been made because the research up until now has been refuted or because of political lobbying?
Your statement that "homophobes" are aroused by gay videos in my mind confirms what I was saying; sexuality is not fixed but fluid and humans are born asexual with the potential to change to any sexuality - and back again.
PB
NEWSFLASH:
´óÏó´«Ã½ CENSORS ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITTANICA QUOTES ON HOMOSEXUALITY ON THIS BLOG
For the record guys, in point 16, now deleted, I gave a summary of the nature of sexuality, homosexuality and the history of pschologist's views on homosexuality according to my Encyclopaedia Brittanica CD Rom.
I did this because I believed the underlying tension in defining "homophobia" is to due conflicts in our understanding of homosexuality.
I also gave a reasoned response to Jason from Belfast who misunderstood quite a bit of what I quoted before I wrote this entry and it remains to be seen if it will be deleted as well.
It all adds a new angle to Ceejay's concerns that the promotion of a concept of homophobia is being used by the police to clamp down on freedom of discussion on this subject, does it not. ;-)
PB
Furthermore Jason,
You have also misunderstood my quotation of Kinsey. I did not say that Kinsey found 10 per cent of the population to be gay (he said 4 per cent).
What I said was that Kinsey found 10 per cent of the male population had been exlcusively gay for three years of their lives. Again you totally picked this up wrong.
I am sure Kinsey never thought his research would be definitive but it is still seriously quoted today (even on Wikipedia entry on homosexuality).
Is anyone really saying he was totally mistaken when he found so many gay men leaving homosexuality behind after three years?
He must have had some evidence to make such claims.
Just so you dont misunderstand, I have never seen anyone suggest he was linking this to conversion therapy.
May I suggest that If you allowed your anger to subside before writing you would not make so many mistakes in understanding what you are reading.
PB
I read PB's original comments and I think the Beeb are right to remove them. The Beeb has responsibilities for what goes on its website, and they are absolutely right to remove such outrageously abusive language. As for PB's comments about science: it shows the danger of undigested knowledge. Things are simply not as simple as he would make it seem.
On the Kinsey stuff - kinsey didn't find evidence of people who were homosexual becoming heterosexual. He found evidence that heterosexual males often experiment sexually, particularly in their late teens and early twenties. And he found evidence that homosexuals, because of social pressure, often marry and try to live their lives as heterosexuals (which is why we see stories of so many married men 'coming out' in their thirties and forties).
PB,
Was your posting deliberately taken off?
How do you know that it wasn't a mistake?
If deliberate, what was the reason given?
Regards,
ceejay
Jason
As you are obviously so angry I feel I owe you some feedback. Most communication is non-verbal, so you really dont know who or what I am.
I have met and known a fair few gay people and have liked them all. I have personally gone out of my way publicly in the media on two occasions to defend gays and lesbians who were being abused and attacked, and my name is on public record for it. I do not tell gay jokes or find them funny.
I do not believe gay people are any more sinful than me. I never "condemn" gay people or their lifestyles. Nor do I believe most gays can wake up one day and choose to leave homosexuality behind.
(I know that does not give me full marks on Mr Crawley's or model [or yours?], but that is not my standard).
And I apprecite these issues can cut very deep wounds and that I am not always sensitive to that.
However none of that means I should be censored if I wish to discuss and ask serious questions about sexuality. You may not "care" about that but there is a heck of alot of research going on into it and I find it of interest and significant, as do many others - tolerance?
Peter Tatchell makes a strong argument that gay people should feel secure that they are owed full rights regardless of the latest research. That is a very strong argument in this day and age, I believe.
Best
PB
Ceejay - Nobody contacted me with any explanation so yes it could have been a mistake but I think if you look at the emotional backlash you could imagine some of the complaints people many have made to have it removed.
Any comment moderator???
To give the moderator their due, they did put my entry no 16 up in the first place after perusing it, so you can guess that Dave is slightly overegging it just a tad when he says it was "outrageously abusive language" or it would never have been published at all. Right Dave? ;-)
More likely someone complained about it and the moderator wanted to be safe rather than sorry and pulled it, and in today's climate I can understand that. After all, look at all the people you, Ceejay, listed above whom the police have "interviewed" about these types of public discussions in recent times.
Also in the Beeb's favour is the fact that it has allowed all the main points of the article to now have been reproduced in the subsquent comments. From memory, the main thing missing is where I discussed how these factors might influence how we relate to gay people.
Lastly, just for the record, I will mention again three sources which hold that people are born asexual and that sexuality is ultimately fluid, as this has been hotly contested.
1) Peter Tatchell (check out "gay gene" on his website).
2) Encyclopaedia Brittanica
3) John Wright, Libertarian, US talkshow host and active advocate for gay rights who contributes on this blog and his own.
4) Slightly different category here, but I repeat; Alfred Kinsey found 10 per cent of the male population aged 16-55 were exclusively gay for only three years in their life. Don't anybody contest this again please, it is a factual statement about his research.
Any other informative, cool-headed views welcomed with an open mind.
Best
PB
William
I understand this term "internalised homophobia" you mention was first coined and promoted by gay activists and not mental health professionals.
How many studies do you know of which support the hypotheses that social disapproval causes any of the higher levels of distress in gay people?
I understand many studies sadly show a disproptionate amount of sexual abuse in the childhood of gay men and that this is a significant explanation for distress in later life.
You are obviously well up in this field, your thoughts and/or corrections on this matter are appreciated.
Best
PB
Correction in 23
Should read that people are born without sexuality (not asexual) and that sexuality is fluid.
PB
Wow, this is all getting crazy, isn't it. Ok, PB, you are clearly a bit obsessed with the whole gay thing - fair enough, each to their own. We have given up on trying to write a definition of homophobia, and now most of the comments are on whether homosexuality is fluid or innate. any chance we can finish one topic before starting the next one? I think it was PB who suggesting that we should draw a line somewhere and try to comeup with our orn definition of homophobia, right PB? And I thought he made some good points early on about that topic, but now we've got distracted into other things. They are related topics, I'm sure, but they are different. Theres a difference between trying to define racism and trying to explain the nature of race differences or the origin of race itself. Right? Same thing applies to this conversation.
As for those 'authorities' - peter tatchell isnt a scientist, he's a gay activist. He's entitled to his view on the science of sexuality, but I wouldn't take his comments very seriously. John wright? Never heard his show - give us a link? - but he's no expert on the area either. And Encyclopedia Britannic? That's not exactly the journal Nature, is it? It's a compendium of views and studies, and by its nature its out of date on most science by the time its published. If we're gonna take an interest in any science topic, it would be better to go to the up to date science sources, guys, and not pay too much heed to campaigners, pundits and dictionary entries. End of rant.
Allen
I agree with almost everything you said and I think you are making fair points, in a fair manner - wouldnt call it a rant.
Just a word on authorities I actually didn't call them authorities, I called them sources.
I used them as they came to hand as evidence that liberals and gays and general adademia considers these points I am making valid points and that I am not a lone mad nazi homophobe crackpot, as some seem to be suggesting.
Obession, mmm. I do like to look into subjects for a time to get an understanding and then move on and this is a case in point.
John Wrights link is in his name elsewhere on this blog.
FYI Guys, if you want to see how this discussion could be handled without venom or high blood pressure, check out the discussion after Peter Tatchell's article "Born Gay" on the Guardian Website.
Many of the issues are logically discussed by people much better informed and articluate than I - from all perspectives. They do give plenty of abuse, but it is actually quite hilarious - and you can tell underneath it all they respect other people's rights to express their views.
Thanks all and God bless ye!
PB
Allen,
Dont really directly disagree with anything you said, wouldnt call it a rant either, to be fair on you.
However, I deliberately used the term "sources" rather than "authorities"; there is a difference.
I used them simply to show that these views are held by a wide spectrum of people, gay and straight but pro-gay.
Ref Brittanica, srtricly speaking you are of course correct. But of course, just because research is "old" does not mean it is invalid or had been refuted; and if you notice, nobody is refuting it here.
For the record, Born Gay, was a collation of all research to date on homosexuality, plus new research.
And even non-scientists like Peter Tacthell are sceptical about it because so many people he lists (including his own boyfriend) turned heterosexual. It sort of makes it hard to believe the title of the book, doesn't it? That is the implication of what Kinsey and Brittanica have said too.
I dont see anyone refuting the points.
Best
PB
PS I fully accept that pre-natal factors can give someone a pre-disposition to homosexuality, but not that it is deciding.
William
Do you think Leichty and Clegg would have approved of their model being used to "disparage" the identification and professional treatment of an identifiable group in society who had sadly been victims of a disproportionate amount of sexual abuse in their childhoods?
In my understanding it would not be the first time the gay lobby had been willing to sacrifice the health of their grassroots on the altar of its ideology.
Best
PB
Also William
You talk about "his or her readings of sacred texts" in delegitimising the traditional beliefs of religious believers. But, as a theological academic, is this not a serious distortion of facts?
It presents the two interpretations sacred texts (pro and anti- homosexuality) on an equal footing as though they had an equal weight of tradition, legitimacy, history and logic behind them.
However I cannot think of one serious Judeo-Christian theologian in almost 6000 years of faith who seriously considered the bible accepted homosexuality - is this not really only a development of the late 20th century?
If there are any you are talking REALLY fringe, I would imagine. Certainly, none of the founders of any of today's Christian denominations fall into this category (unless you are talking churches that founded in recent years primarily to embrace this teaching, and certainly some scholarship there is terrible).
As a theological academic, I feel you could do a lot more to broaden and not narrow your audience's understanding and tolerance of views here.
The only logic I have seen in trying to legitimise homosexuality from the bible is basically to say that the biblical writers had never seen monogomous, caring homosexuality before and their writings dont apply. (studies and observations of the gay scene would say that strictly speaking, strict monogomy has always been very much the exception rather than the norm in homosexuality).
By this same token we could say in the near future that the biblical writers had never seen caring monogomous relationships between men and trees or men and children and that these therefore may also be acceptable.
From Adam and Eve through to the marriage of Christ and his bride, all teaching on marrige is heterosexual in context; if such variations had been possible in God's mind surely he would have hinted at it? Homosexuality is always mentioned in the context of it being sinful, and it is mentioned quite a bit ( I see myself no less sinful). I have yet to see an argument on this that would convince the average jury in a court. I believe I have read Matthew Paris (gay columnist) scorning such pro-gay theology on a rational level.
I have met and liked too many homosexual people NOT to challenge you about the full spectrum of research and views and allows gay people to think more freely about their lives. This blog in its entirety appears to demonstrate there is great fear about a free and open discussion of these matters.
I can understand that bearing in mind how personal it is, cutting to the very soul, and also resulting in persecution not too difficult to compare to that of Christians in most of the world today.
But I just cannot believe that any of us are ultimately going to be helped if this juggernaut continues on by running down obvious questions and dissent about its destination, even when that dissent is voiced by members of the gay lobby itself.
It could of course be argued that this is a serious form of prejudice, deliberately narrowing minds to fact, discussion and dissent, even within the gay lobby itself.
Sincerely, and thanks for the opportunity to converse.
PB
Homophobia: The profound inability of one human being to empaphise with another. Immutability of thought manifest in the intentional and unintentional degredation of others, particularly homosexuals.