plug_1 at robinson-west.com
Tue Jan 6 14:18:19 PST 2009
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 10:11 -0800, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> Thus spake Jeme A Brelin circa 01/06/2009 04:50 AM:
> > "Homophobia" does not mean "an irrational fear of homosexuality" any
> > more than "hydrophobia" means "an irrational fear of water". This is a
> > misapplication of linguistic etymology when cultural or usage-based
> > etymology is more appropriate.
> Actually, both the American Heritage and Merriam Webster cite: "fear of"
> and "irrational fear of", respectively. So, although there is a more
> sophisticated psychological definition, it is reasonable to use the word
> according to those two dictionaries.
> > "Homophobia", as we all know as speakers of modern American English, is
> > any attitude or position that rejects, denigrades, or discredits
> > homosexual relationships or the people who engage in them.
> But the prevailing opinions are that the rejection, denigration, and
> discreditation are mostly due to an underlying fear of some sort.
> The flaw in Michael Robinson's rhetoric doesn't lie in the definition of
> the word, the flaw lies in his assertion that his "disagreement" is in
> any way principled. His lack of principle shows through in his
> discussion of endorphins. His claim is that gay people have so
> fundamentally a different physiology that they cannot develop
> endorphin-based psychological bonds whereas heterosexual people can.
> If his objections were _principled_, he'd either admit that they _may_
> develop such bonds but that they shouldn't by some moral code or another
> _or_ cite biological evidence that homosexuals do not exhibit such a
> hormonal response. If he chose the former, he'd have to resolve all the
> myriad contradictions in his moral code, pointed out by others on the
> list. If he chose the latter, he'd have to do some significant research
> (that he is probably unqualified and incapable of doing) to demonstrate
> his point biologically.
> Since he will take neither principled path, his disagreement with
> homosexuality is unprincipled prejudice, probably based on fear, thereby
> making him a homophobe.
You insist that there are contradictions in my moral code
but astonishingly, you don't name them. The Leviticus
issue is a non issue, I accept the moral teachings of Leviticus,
not the individual laws. What a dissenting priest says about
homosexuality doesn't count, Catholicism is not a democracy. What
someone who claims to be Catholic, like David Mandel claims, who says
something that isn't in line with official doctrine
is irrelevant to what the moral teachings of the Catholic church are.
This homosexual sex is fine priest was a heretic.
The church teaches the faithful to be accepting of homosexual persons.
That doesn't mean that the faithful accept the lifestyle that includes
homosexual sex. Homosexual sex is contrary to nature and to the
advancement of society. Homosexual sex does not produce offspring
safely. It does not provide the best environment for raising children.
Is it true that 30% of black homosexuals are HIV positive? How about
the statistic that says most new cases of HIV infection are to gay men
under the age of 25? If bearing children is defined as a right
and extended to gay couples, do their have to be surrogate
mothers who disappear after the child is born? I don't support
surrogate parents as a way to "make reproduction less
discriminatory." There is nothing discriminatory about the fact that
it takes a man and a woman to produce a baby.
If homosexuals form the same physiological bonds that heterosexuals do
from sex, why is it that so many gay relationships are marked by
constant cheating and short duration? I don't think 2 years is a very
long relationship, and yet most gay relationships end that quickly or
sooner. I have never seen a homosexual couple last more than 20 years.
I have seen heterosexual couples make it 50+ years.
More information about the PLUG-talk