I'm a baseball fan, the Atlanta Braves to be precise, and, as you may have heard, their pitching coach was just suspended for two weeks without pay for making, among other things, "homophobic" remarks to some heckling fans while the Braves played a game in San Francisco.
While I won't quibble with his punishment which, if for no other reason than the stupidity of responding to hecklers, seems just, I would like to dwell for a moment on the word "homophobe".
What, exactly, is meant by this? Why is a racist not called a "negrophobe"? Or a miscongynist, a "gynophobe"?
Could it be that revulsion at homosexuality is so natural, so reflexive, particularly among heterosexual males, that it requires something more than a traditional descriptive in order to discredit it effectively? That is, might resistance to the normalization of homosexuality be so strong that to fight that resistance it must be labeled something more than just a garden variety bigotry, it must be called instead a psychological disorder, in fact, a phobia?
Just wondering.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think this one is tougher for men, to be honest. The relationships among/between homosexual men seem to be the ultimate example of "raw" human sexuality. Even the way gay women relate to each other doesn't affect us the way promiscuous gay men do. For the Christians among us, neither is consistent with God's plan for human relations regardless of who's involved, but above all I feel great sadness for those trapped in the lifestyle. Imagine having desires that can never be fulfilled and pondering a life without the kind of relationship that brings joy within the context of God's plan. The liberal strategy pf calling it a phobia (what you were really addressing) is pitiful more than offensive and, in any case, won't relieve those in the lifestyle from the pain they live with. In fact, it will only prolong it, the saddest part of all.
ReplyDeleteWell said Lavender and, frankly, nothing with which I could disagree.
ReplyDelete