Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room A Decision

Who ever came up with the term "homophobe"? As a prefix, homo- means same, so homophobia is an unreasonable fear of sameness? As a noun, homo means mankind or human being. Thus, I guess homophobia is an unreasonable fear of humans. There simply is no logic for this made-up word to mean what it does in "common" usage, i.e., a homophobe is not anyone who says or thinks anything that is not in complete agreement with the gay/lesbian community.

The English language is not evolving. Entropy increase.

i think ib means homosexuality, not homophobia. homophobia is what some people feel towards homosexuals--fear. i find it ironic that ib mistakenly uses this word and calls it a terrible affliction when actually the word describes his own attitude towards homosexuality.

am i the only one baffled by ib's castigation of me? perhaps, ib, you aren't familiar with the term "gay bashing" as it is conventionally used by gay people. it's not "vicious labeling." it is a description of an attitude towards gay people, which you evidently share. homophobia is another description of the same thing.

i'm not familiar with Proverbs, so that is lost on me, too.

Proverbs 20:3 "It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife; but every fool will be quarreling."

It must have missed something. I can't recall ANYTHING wrong with Pique's attitude in this thread. I guess I'll have to reread this thread. :rolleyes:

I was neither questioning lb's use of the word nor asking for a definition. As you can see from my earlier post, I know how the word is used and I am sure the lb does, too. (Yes, the original quote from Bernard did say homosexuality.) I was simply pointing out the illogic of the derivation.

It's one of those words, like racist or sexist, that is used, frequently with no real basis, to throw the other person on his/her heels; just another ad hominem which lacks clarity.

p.s.
i just want to say i think i've used a lot of restraint in this thread. if i wanted to resort to name calling i can think of a lot of choice ones for people who would keep homosexuals separated from their civil rights.

I think pique has been very polite as well. Perhaps lb is looking at remarks she has made in other threads? She really has never been impolite, she's quick witted and has a bit of a sharp tongue, I like that in a woman. Provided she's not my wife!

Actually, everyone has been very polite. Maybe the discussion got heated but everyone played nicely.

Derick

P.S. Jolly WHERE'S MY MONEY??????????????

lb, what are you talking about? I never said homophobia was a gift from god. And I never never, said OCD and turrets syndrome were from god either. Please re-read my post.

Oh, and also, what do you mean that homophobia should be dealt with on a personal level not legislated? Are you talking about hate-crime laws? I think this is less about criminalizing homophobia than it is about meting out a more severe punishment for crimes, (i.e., not homophobia) that are motivated by a group hatred. Personally, I've not made up my mind about hate-crime legislation. Part of me doesn't think it is necessary. It seems to me that most reasonable people, when they hear that a person killed someone because they were homosexual, sympathize with the victim. If there is already punishment for bludgeoning or murder, I do not see that extra punishment is the answer. But I'm not decided yet.

The discussion has been for the most part first rate. What I have learned is a great deal about some of you. I’d generally feel more comfortable in the company of those with more liberal political views than those whose moral outlook is tied to a specific scripture. On the subject of homosexuals I find myself in most sympathy with George and pique.

I remember saying that homosexuals are special people. So are the mentally ill, the physically handicapped, those with horrific chronic physically disabling diseases, the artistic idiot savants and the truly psychic. I guess I’d have to throw in the truly mystical as well. Each of these types of people are uncommon enough that their differences are noticed as uncommon by the vast majority of common types of people.

A note of very important clarification: when I suggested that the pedophiles were behind the radical gay agenda, I did not mean to imply that pedophiles and homosexuals were the same. They are not. I didn’t make my statement rashly. One of my friends, Ed Eichel, knows far more about this than I do. He’s written at length on the subject, knows first hand its international scope and how powerful, well connected and rich the international pedophilia network is. It was planned as long ago as the end of WWII to push a gay civil rights agenda in the West, hoping that society would get so used to the normalcy of homosexuality as to eventually permit open pedophilia. Doing up children as sexy in the media is no accident. It is part of the plan. As has been stated, most pedophiles are heterosexual or just interested in children no matter what gender they are. Homosexuals as far as I know are rarely predators. All pedophilia is predatory. Pedophiles have more in common with rapists and other socio-sexual deviants than with any homosexuals I have ever known or heard of. Pedophiles are not special people, they are the lowest criminal class who may not even deserve to be called people. Their behavior cannot be altered by any known means save lobotomy. Recidivism among them is higher than for any other common criminal activity including drug addiction. Since there is no cure, these predators must be eliminated from society. Since most of them deep down inside feel that they have a right to prey on children, we have a right to prove them wrong by mercilessly hunting them down, rooting them out and killing every last one we can lay our hands on! Since that is not going to happen, the best we can do is lock them up with those who once were their victims and as the saying goes, “let nature take its course.”

They shoot mad dogs don’t they? Some humans are worse than mad dogs.

Now then about special people: What we, as the most tolerant and open society yet to exist, and this is really true, must decide is how we are going to protect these people’s basic human rights. Pique used civil rights, as under a civil code, whereas I’m speaking more broadly about human rights. Our decisions will determine what we think of as being truly human, in some cases perhaps humane or humanitarian are better words.

One of the things we must NOT expect is freedom from the rights of others to make jokes at their expense. Sorry, this to me is at the root of political correctness, what is unreasonable, inhuman and blurs the truth. Political correctness is humorless. It has changed even the most casual humorous remark into a threat to someone or some group and in the process has increased rather than decreased hostility generally. For with every joke, in order to be funny, there must be a grain of truth.

I happen to be legally blind. I do not take offense when someone points out that something I’m desperately looking for happens to lie right under my nose. I also love any opportunities I have, and I do have them, to find something a normal fully sighted person can’t find. I then have the right to ask with a smirk, “hey, what’s the matter with you, you blind?”

As I’ve said in a few other posts, I have more than usual contact with a number of Jewish people. There are as everyone knows many jokes about Jews that turn on their extreme thriftiness;

Q: Why did the Jews wander around for 40 years in the desert?
A: Someone dropped a quarter.

The reason this is funny is that many Jews by their own admission are excessively thrifty where others would be extravagant.

There have been many other groups that have had jokes made about them. Four of the most clever I know of describe the people from the British Isles. See if you don’t see why these are funny:

The Scotsman keeps the Sabbath and everything else he can get his hands on.
The Welshman prays on his knees and on his neighbors. (requires a subtle play on the words pray and prey)
The Irishman doesn’t know what he believes and will fight for it.
The Englishman is a self made man and worships his creator.

Alas there have been far too few jokes about Swedes, Danes, Norwegians and Fins and probably far too many about Poles. Here’s a Polish joke:

Two Poles.

Get it?

OK, so humor is one concern, or the loss of it so that WE DON’T HURT OTHER PEOPLE’S FEELINGS! There are plenty of people out there who not only deserve to have their feelings hurt, for what they have done, or not done, but who would benefit enormously from having their feelings hurt. Saving people’s feelings at the expense of valuable practical instruction in the ways of life is for children not adults, to wit, political correctness is merely a means to turn a sanguine healthy adult nation into a bunch of whimpering children, more precisely spoiled brats. The government isn’t so much “big brother” as “big mother.” Think about it.

I have a few more things to get off my chest too.

Let me pick on the Christians for a change, the fundamentalist kind will do nicely.

As the Dr. Laura letter correctly pointed out, the asinine and blatantly false notion that the King James Version of the Bible, or any other version for that matter, is the authoritative Word of God needs to be as thoroughly diminished in our society as is possible. People like Jerry Fallwell are buffoons who don’t even deserve the time of day. But why not? This country is chalk full of buffoons of every kind and description. The fundamentalist notion was historically based on a political rebellion, within a religious entity that is still around (the Roman Catholic Church), that took place within 16th century Europe. Granted, this is America and one can jolly well believe what one wants to, even if it is demonstrably incorrect, provided one does not force one’s beliefs on another. Only problem is, many people were raised in fundamentalist homes where they were taught from the time they could read that this nonsense was so. Those who are brought up believing the Bible is the inerrant Word of God find it very hard to give up what they were taught. The same is just as true of political leftists by the way.

My personal belief is that if an entity worthy of being worshipped as God really exists, God would have to be fundamentally so different from a human being and far greater than the distance between one of us and an ant, or maybe a microbe as it to be unimaginable that God would put words into one finite and obviously self-contradictory book.

Now I have no doubt that God exists, and I have no doubt that God may have influenced the Bible, but it is quite a leap to suggest that the Bible is or ever could be the inerrant Word of God. If I were picking on the Catholics I’d poke fun at their notions of the importance of papal succession, papal or even magisterial authority, a celibate priesthood, or the idea that the Mass is some sort of recreation of Judaic or pagan sacrifices, even though I personally feel these have more legitimacy than the fundamentalist reliance on their Bible.

These are mere fetishes that cover and obscure the truth put forth by these religions, to wit, a belief in the life, reputed words, deeds, death, resurrection and much else of one extraordinary man who we now call Jesus Christ, from whose appearance on this earth most of the wide commercial world still reckons time. Ever look up the word “cult?” Christianity is the foremost cult in all the world.

Say what you like, religion is one man’s word against another’s about matters that are beyond being mysterious. “They don’t know what they believe and will fight for it.” Nay, they know what they believe and will KILL for it, despite any rational proof that anything they say is true.

The Jews say Jesus was born, lived and died as a Jew. They are generally, with the exception of a few astute rabbis, unaware that Jesus fulfilled their own prophets and further that what their own prophets foretold how the nation of Jews would react to him. However they do not think that Jesus was special in any way. So far it is not possible to prove otherwise.

The Moslems relegate Jesus to their list of prophets with Mohammed (peace be upon him) as the greatest prophet of Allah, the only one true God. Their biggest problem however is that they too are fundamentalists to an uncommon degree. They believe that their holy book really is the Word of God and that God emphatically says that no non-Muslim should be allowed to live; convert or die is their message. You will not hear any Moslem of any rank or prestige in Islam say a word against Bin Laden, Yasser Arafat or any of the rest of them because to do so would be to open themselves to personal attack from other Moslems as infidels to the one true faith. I frankly find the hardest facts concerning Islam to run quite counter to all my generally friendly dealings with Arabs and other Moslem people. I have never felt more satisfied then when I was invited to share a meal in the home of a Moslem friend. Few have the natural gift of hospitality as they do.

I am a skeptic on one hand and deeply mystical on the other. The greatest truth I know of, aside from mathematics, is in music, specifically the classics. There is wonder and great truth in a simple Bach prelude.

As a skeptic, I like to poke fun at those who are so sure of their ideas as never to admit the possibility of something quite different being the basis of their reality. One of my favorite targets is science, which as currently practiced has turned into another religious faith. As a mystic, I like to accept the mysterious for what it is and just let myself enjoy it. As the person who must live in the here and now, neither skeptical nor mystical, I must reckon with rational methods of obtaining some sort of reliable useful truth for living and enjoying this human life.

When I said I would prefer people KNOWING right from wrong, I wasn’t making a pitch for any particular religion. Morality in the truest human sense is not written in any book. What is really right and really wrong are written in the human heart. What is moral is what is useful and safe, not only for oneself but for everyone else in society. Those without such a rational moral compass are in some sense aliens; there used to be tribes of headhunters, cannibals, who prized deceit and betrayal as moral goods, others who practiced weird forms of frenzied eroticism often involving murder. What did their societies accomplish? Nothing worthwhile in the long term scheme of things. Upon contact with more advanced societies, their cultures became extinct, their practices were eliminated, they were assimilated or died out. Despite the conceits of some anthropologists to the contrary, It was a good thing for us and for them that this was so.

Now, what if I were to suggest that something similar might as easily happen to us, not as a nation, nor even as a civilization, but as an entire planet? What if a superior race, not only technologically but morally superior to us were to appear and take an interest in this planet? These beings would superficially look like us, perhaps a bit taller and more majestic in appearance, but human in form, with one important difference; vastly longer lifespans. What if they had known us from a long time ago? What if they had in fact been our real creators, made us in their image and likeness, and had fashioned not just us but manipulated virtually every other species on earth, not just single species either but entire ecosystems? What if they had not done this but one time but many dozens of times in the history of the planet? What if they suddenly came back and dismayed by how we had ravaged “their” planet, decided it was time to give us the choice, assimilate or perish? What if in addition to all this they had a science that was capable of bridging the gap between what we often think of as materiality and spirituality? Is this any more far fetched than the discredited but hotly defended theory of evolution? No my friends, a science, so called, that believes this is the only and best answer to the questions who are we, why are we here and where are we going, isn’t much of a science, just another religion.

What humanity needs is a true science, a deep skeptical probing science that boldly says, “I don’t know” when faced with the biggest mysteries that are all around us, a science that dares probe into the spiritual and mystical as well as the material.

Any comments?

david, what an epistle!

one comment, since i am on deadline and have no business being here:

if you haven't already, please read "the cosmic serpent." i forget the name of the anthropologist who wrote it, but it is readily available by title at amazon.com. i'd love to know what you think of this book.

David, your post is amazing.
You ask for comments, and I'm not sure where to start. There is so much that I agree with in what you've written, and so much insight.

I suppose my comment is on the views you have expressed about science. Contrary to what I sense from you, mysticism and science are not inapposite. A wise friend told me long ago that people become what they need to become. People become therapists because they need help (the wise friend happened to be a therapist). People become firemen because they need to rescue other people. People become scientists because they need to understand. They need to understand how the universe works. Or they need to understand how a single cell becomes a person. Or they need to understand why are we and not the monkeys here running the earth into the ground. Whatever it is, they don't understand and they need to understand.

When I talk about science, I am talking about an endeavor far beyond the fact memorization many of us were subjected to in high school and college. I'm talking about those who do true research into the UNKNOWN for a living (a poor one, scrabbling for grant money, in most cases). And the best scientists are also mystics. They wonder, imagine, hypothesize, and try to understand. At some level, aren't we all scientists? Aren't you a scientist?

It's frustrating to not have the answers, or to have only incomplete information. For example, evolution cannot really be observed on the time scale we live, only the results that are evolution are evident. Science is about trying to set up explanations for our world in a way that can be disproven. You can never really know that something is true (although you can feel it), but you can know what is not true.

Enough rambling, back to my motorcycle maintenance correspondence course.