There has been some discussion here on First Thoughs on the use of the term anti-abortion instead of pro-life in the mainstream media to refer to the view that abortion is murder. Terms are important. However, while Ryan Sayre Patrico and Nicholas Frankovich disagree as to whether we should fight the term anti-abortion or not, overall, those opposed to abortion have done a good job pushing the media to use its self-defined designation to refer to its position.
I am not so sure this is the case with respect to the issue of gay rights. Here, gays and lesbians have largely defined the terms of the argument. Take the terms gay and lesbian themselves, for example. These are almost unquestioningly used today to refer to particular categories of people. They make the tacit argument that someone who engages in homosexual relations is a different kind of person from those who engage in heterosexual relations. R. V. Young rightly argues that this is a distinctly twentieth century meaning of the term. However, alternative terms have rarely been
proposed, and none have stuck. Another example is the term homophobia. While it is a mental health term that should be used to denote an irrational fear of homosexuals, it is used by gay activists, as Chris Kempling argues in his fascinating article at the Catholic Education Resource Center, to refer to “the unwillingness to approve of homosexuality.” Kempling continues: “Even toleration without approval is defined as homophobic. So if you have a moral objection to homosexuality, you are ‘mentally ill’ and require re-education.”
One of the reasons that opponents of abortion have developed terms to refer to their own position is that it is a battle over innocent lives, and can be understood as following the divine command to protect the poor and the helpless. This is not the case in opposing those who engage in homosexual activity. Yet, as Kempling goes on to point out, gay activists are increasingly focusing on “re-educating children in public schools.” And Carson Holloway argues in today’s “On the Square” piece that the success of the same-sex
marriage movement would constitute a “complete repudiation not only of the traditional definition of marriage, but of the social authority of tradition as such.”
While still showing respect to all people as beings created in the image of God, to what extent should those who view homosexual relations as wrong and harmful, develop alternative terms to refer to those who engage in such relations and to the issues surrounding so-called gay rights? For example, to what extent should we use the phrase “men who engage in homosexual relations,” or some much more concise phrase, instead of the term gay or homosexual? What other terms or arguments should be redefined?
June 11th, 2009 | 12:32 am
Buggery.
June 11th, 2009 | 1:21 am
For what you advocate, look for words that carry the full emotional weight of the concept, so that people will understand not only what you mean but also why you care.
For what you oppose, look for words that are more neutral, so as to be as charitable as possible to those who disagree.
June 11th, 2009 | 3:30 am
This is, I believe, a critically important aspect of the debate. The question being, is one able to transform an act or behaviour into an identity? They are very different categories of things. “I am gay.” vs. “I choose to pursue/indulge my attraction to those of my same sex.”
One cannot argue with a person’s identity. Yet we as free temporal persons, are never, properly speaking, identical to our behaviour. Such would be a woefully unmerciful condition. Adam and Eve do not become “Apple-eaters” they remain children of God.
Mr. Mattix hits the center of the argument in that this is a question of “rights.” No society grants rights to a group of people who feel compelled to participate in a certain behaviour, but if those that participate in such a behaviour define it as their very identity, then we are on a different playing field entirely. And so the words matter.
A person who prefers the term “gay” is preferring to conflate behaviour and identity. A person who applies a phrase such as “those who have same-sex attraction” are decidely separating the person from the behaviour – which is proper and in keeping with the classical understanding of the human person, which has prevailed throughout human history.
And then there is the other side of the coin – if one’s behaviour is equated to one’s identity and that is the foundation of a demand for rights (really priveleges) then who else deserves such rights based on the argument that they are compelled by their behavioral-identity to act in a certain way? Apple-eaters Unite! and what, storm back into the Garden?
I think most who self-identify as gay would object to the scarlet ‘A’ which Hester Prynne was made to wear. And yet they would seem to gladly wear one of their own choosing – publicly identifying (falsely) person and practice.
I would assert that maintaining the falseness of this identification is the only way that someone in this debate can claim to “still show respect to all people as beings created in the image of God.”
God is certainly greater than His actions. And like Him, we are more than our behaviour, more than our inclinations, more than our temptations, more than our sins, more also than our best efforts and successes. We are persons, each with our own moral failings and struggles, no doubt. In keeping with the rich intellectual legacy of JPII, let us hold high a proper and robust understanding of the human person – irreducible.
June 11th, 2009 | 11:23 am
Actually, the first ones to brand me gay were bullies on the schoolyard. So if you don’t like the term? Tell your kids to stop insulting other kids by calling them gay, homo, fag, queer, etc. Also, if being gay isn’t part of a person’s identity, then why did the Vatican recently decide that homosexuals cannot enter the priesthood?
June 11th, 2009 | 12:58 pm
@ Mark H:
Why do you assume factors that are “part of a person’s identity” are the only reasons for being denied the priesthood? Being Methodist, or 6 years-old, or a coke head, or on the run from the police are factors which are not “part of a person’s identity,” yet they would keep that person from entering the priesthood.
June 11th, 2009 | 4:00 pm
Mark H, what you say about discouraging children from insulting others in this way is good, and it is worth reinforcing.
Your question about the Vatican’s statement about the priesthood is a good one, and I think quite a lot of people are confused about it. I don’t think Adam S’s explanation quite covers it. The trouble is that merely having persistent same sex desires is now, according to the Vatican, an obstacle to becoming a priest.
This is not to say that extant priests who have these desires are invalid or even illegitimate. It has rather to do with those who feel called to ordination today.
As far as I understand it, the reasoning goes like this. First, you have to take for the sake of argument the premise that same sex sex is somehow wrong. This is not a premise I am at present prepared to defend, but it is certainly held to be true by the Catholic Church. But this in itself would not be enough to bar someone from entering the priesthood. The fact that someone has sinful desires (and even regularly acts on those sinful desires) tells us nothing about who the person is. Everyone has such desires. The additional issue with the Roman church, however, has to do with the political movements going on both in society and within the church towards a teaching that same sex sex is not wrong at all but a proper way of consummating a perfectly beautiful love between two persons. This prominence of this political movement, combined with the initial premise that same sex sex is wrong, leaves the church in a position where it becomes quite difficult to teach a consistent message about human sexuality. Now, you might disagree with that message, but it is surely understandable why the authorities within the church would consider consistency important.
The other point to make is that sexual ethics have a distinctive character to them that other areas of ethics do not. This is because sex *is* the consummation of the most intimate of human relationships. Somewhere in the City of God, Augustine talks about ancient cynics who believed that licit sex ought not to be treated as different from other human activities. It need not (so said these cynics according to Augustine) be conducted behind closed doors, so long as it is within a legal marriage. Augustine notes that the cynics simply could not sustain this practice. The human condition seems to have been hardwired to believe that sex is somehow special, sanctified. The reason I’m making this last point, though, is *only* to say that we need to be especially careful when drawing parallels between sexuality and other activities. And not attending to the special, intimate character of sex can lead us into unfortunate errors.
June 11th, 2009 | 4:22 pm
Mark,
In fact I do demand that my children speak of others’ actions rather than brand them personally. A particularly suitable example is in the case of a lie. The child’s reponse is to call the person a liar. In fact what is more accurate and helpful is to identify the offense, the untruth. Far better and more accurate to say “That is a lie.” or perhaps more charitably, “That is not true.”
In civil discourse, in any discourse seeking the true, the good, and the beautiful (even in the smallest ways, like kids on the playground) it is far better to identify a fault, than identify the person as identical with their fault. Satan does this. He is both tempter and accuser. “This is what you want… Now this is what you are.”
Such clarity between person and practice is demanded if we are to come anywhere near the summons to love the sinner, hate the sin.
But if the other in the conversation refuses to recognize the distinctions between person and practice – thereby refusing to dislodge his actions from his very identity – then it is not surprising that he cannot fathom another’s ability to separate the two in him. That is, another’s authentic charity toward him, and at the same time the clear identification of a disordered behavior. If one self-identifies with one’s actions, such a distinction cannot but feel like violence done to their espoused identity.
Such disordered behaviours have we all – most of us strive mightily under Grace to maintain the separation between our sin and our selves. It is the deceiver who would foist this cruel identificatory punishment upon man. God maintains the distinction, and calls us back to himself through Christ’s very identification with our sin – He who knew no sin, became sin for us… The creator of the world identified himself with sin, so that we might recognize our dignity in his image, and not so identify ourselves.
Only recently – in the past century or so – has our culture so vehemently called us to self-identify wholly with our behaviour, the fruits of which are terrible indeed.
Peace and Good.
June 11th, 2009 | 6:17 pm
Adam, I think you’re missing the point of the Vatican’s position. According to their position as I understand it, it isn’t just the act which constitutes an obstacle but the desire as well. The phrase used, I believe, is “persistent homosexual temptations.” Your radical separation between doing and being doesn’t particularly help here.
Nor do I think it particularly helps on the playground. If by some chance we all agreed to abide by your rules of speech, not only would little boys easily come up with equivalent taunts of their peers, they would also be heard in a way indistinguishable from how they are heard today. “Liar liar pants on fire,” does not have its particular impact because the act of lying is referred to with a substantive. It has its impact because the children chanting it make it quite clear that they are shaming the one who told the lie.
June 11th, 2009 | 7:28 pm
Ah, but there are gay and lesbian folks who identify as gay or lesbian who are not engaged in sex acts.
You do need to get way over the fact that gay and lesbian are not words under your control: when a minority of identity decides it will no longer cooperate with being defined by the majority, the majority loses that fight, because the minority has far more at stake than the majority does in that battle. Trying to keep on fighting it is a big waste of time and effort.
And just because certain forms of expression are tied to sincerely held religious beliefs does not per se insulate them from being accurately critiqued as bigoted. Rarely are such expressions *solely* rooted in such beliefs – often, the beliefs co-exist with cultural assumptions and expectations that may be bigoted nevertheless. One reason this may be suspected is that the expressions would likely be different if they were based solely on such beliefs.
June 11th, 2009 | 8:04 pm
“While still showing respect to all people as beings created in the image of God, to what extent should those who view homosexual relations as wrong and harmful, develop alternative terms to refer to those who engage in such relations and to the issues surrounding so-called gay rights?”
Were the old terms not respectful, in discouraging actions considered to be depraved? Can one really be respectful towards those in a lifestyle involving a sin that “cries to heaven for vengeance”?
The problem here is that mainstream conservatives generally accept the idea that their predecessors were wrong in their expressly condemnatory treatment of homosexual acts and homosexuals. However, they can’t accept the idea that their contemporary opponents, who have successfully stigmatized conservatives’ predecessors, are right.
We don’t want to sound like constipated hypercalvinists or St. Peter Damien. Yet when we say “we must show respect to the imago dei…” don’t we sometimes really mean we must not look bad on TV, risk our social friendships, or endanger our partisans’ transitory electoral prospects?
Something like 37-42 percent of Americans still support anti-sodomy laws. I’m not one of them, but I ask: Why aren’t their voices heard?
In the comments here we see someone prissily invoking the bullies of his childhood to try to shut us up. (Really, get over it!)
Aren’t we shutting up our predecessors and those to our “right” we consider to be unsavory?
It’s obvious now that a moderate and ginger treatment of the homosexual movement has only resulted in we moderates being tarred as homophobes and in the further destruction of public decency. Is there any reason to continue such ineffective near-silence?
June 12th, 2009 | 1:49 am
Just some quick thoughts:
SMatthewStolte – I appreciated your comments, but I was not directing my earlier remarks toward the Church’s position regarding seminary admission policies, but rather more to the content of the original post, “The Rhetoric of Gay Rights.” However, I do think the separation between doing and being does indeed help, and it is exactly where the Vatican’s statement places the question.
And for your second paragraph your hypotehtical established in your first sentence is immediately done away with – such boys on the playground would then certainly not be abiding by the proper separation of act from actor. I know it sounds awfully formulaic, but perhaps think instead of Christ writing in the sand…
Liam – certainly there are those who identify themselves as gay or lesbian who are not actively pursuing or participating in sex acts. The curious thing is why one would yet *identify* themselves as such, as gay. Is it only a conversational simplification? Conflating one’s sexual attraction with the very core of one’s identity seems to be standard practice, but it is rooted in an utterly reductive sense of what personhood entails.
Secondly, words do matter, and my words are indeed under my control. Were they not, it would be the height of tyranny. Alas, such may be already upon us.
What exactly is a “minority of identity?”
And in this case everything is at stake – we are all in this together, minority, majority, individuals, familes, and communities. Try raising children in our current culture, and then tell me that parents don’t have as much, if not more at stake in this conversation than those with same-sex attractions.
I am not sure what you are envisioning to be the “it” that we are fighting, but if you mean the cultural devolution which (among other things) makes ‘identity’ thoroughly fungible yet demands that societies confer “rights” based on such self-applied identities, where do I sign up for that battle?
Lastly, it is unfortunate to fall back on a accusation of bigotry, rather than engage the content of the conversation. The accusation of bigotry only holds when one persists in a belief in the face of evidence to the contrary. Are you prepared to state clearly that those who hold to the traditional, classical conception of the human person – as posessing an identity apart from his actions – are bigots?
That is where the argument quoted in the original post comes into clear view: such identification of a person with their actions or inclinations would effectively be “a complete repudiation… of the social authority of tradition as such.”
Unfortunately our soundbite society unwittingly accepts ad hominem attacks of “bigot” as if it were an effective rebuttal. When most often such attacks demonstrate that the issuer is fully exposed to the truth of his opponents argument.
In the end, my response to Mr. Mattix is, “Yes, we should use the proper phrase, rather than the labels “gay” and “homosexual” since such labels falsely obscure (or obstinantly deny) the distinction between the person and their actions or inclinations.
We are all worse off in a culture that consistently equates what you do with what you are.
June 12th, 2009 | 1:59 am
just one last little item:
Mr. Mattix asks: “What other terms or arguments should be redefined?”
It is not so much a term, or an argument, but I wish we could re-appropriate the rainbow as a Judeo-Christian symbol. I mean come on – they went into the ark two by two for a reason.
peace & good.
June 12th, 2009 | 8:51 am
Adam
Please tone down the tyranny talk. It’s not helping anyone.
As for why this usage persists, you will need to use your empathic imagination harder than you are. You would have to try to step out of where you are, where cultural assumptions and expectations naturally coincide with yours, and thus where usage is not necessitated by circumstance and human interaction. If you have ever once wondered whether someone who has not disclosed their sexual orientation is straight or gay, then you might see how natural this circumstance is.
“Minority of identity” was a malapropism of mine. What I meant to convey was a minority status bases on relatively fixed core characteristics of the human person. Even many practioners of reparative theraphy don’t claim that change of sexual orientation in exclusively homosexual (as opposed to bisexual) people is anything to be expected, and if sexual orientation is not genetic strictly speaking (the scientific jury is still out on that), there is growing scientific evidence that it is fixed very early on in human development, perhaps frequently in the womb after conception.
And yes, each of us is in control over our own words. But we are not in control of the words of others. A minority that refuses to cooperate with the word choices of the majority is not going to be rolled, no matter how much we whine about it. I think it’s time to get well over that.
Also, I was not accusing bigotry. I was being descriptive of how bigotry can coincide with sincere religious belief. I was engaging in descriptive rhetorical analysis, not prescriptive accusation.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact