Beth W. at church gave me a photocopy on Wednesday of a page 28 of the August 2004 issue of the Journal of Psychosocial Nursing (huh?) from the article "Homophobia: A Challenge for Psychosocial Nursing". The good author defines "homophobia" for us:
Homophobia results in the belief that GLBT [that's Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender for you unsophisticates] individuals are sick, immoral, or inferior to heterosexuals.
Interestingly, these people might go beyond simply shying away from the GLBTs and actually initiate "name-calling, harrasment, discrimination...hate crimes, or murder." Now personally, I would think that any murder is a "hate crime" (1 John 3:15) but that's not my focus here. Would it be considered "name calling" or "harrasment" to call someone a "homophobe" simply based on a religious belief that homosexuality is immoral? I'm sure not, of course.
We are also told that it is a "myth" that "homosexuality is a 'preference' which can be altered, as opposed to an 'orientation,' which is no more or less fixed than heterosexuality...." According to our author, "attempting to make someone who is homosexual become heterosexual is...unethical...."
Now the question we have ask is, who gets to set the moral standards here? Is the Journal of Psychosocial Nursing the guide on morality and behavior? Are they allowed to "name call" (ie, "homophobe") but I am not? And why do they get to decide.
In the end we also must ask, what immoral behavior has "science" not sought to excuse, and since when was ethics the purview of science?
4 comments:
I recently saw a lesbian complaining online about how she would never "choose" to be a lesbian -- she can't help being what she is! But then, what is she, really? She is someone who is admittedly -- insistently! -- ruled by her lusts.
Her beef was with the SF ruling that annulled all those gay "marriages." So, wait a minute -- people who insist that they are ruled by their lusts and cannot be any other way, also want to insist that they should have access to a way of life that specifically circumscribes lust, and requires that it be controlled?
She also wanted to know why heterosexuals "hate" her and her partner. What homosexuals either fail to realize or will not admit is that what they are engaged in is (and has long been known to be) perversion -- that they are engaging openly in acts that Christians consider to be on par with wife-beating, incest, polygamy and bestiality. These things are repulsive, repugnant, and yes, moral and self-controlled individuals recoil at such; I suppose if someone reacted to you in that fashion it would look like hatred, although the two are not necessarily the same.
The "homophobe" label troubles me because it is a lie. You and I are not "homophobes" -- we do not fear homosexuals or homosexuality. The term itself is an attempt to characterize anyone who recoils at perversion as fearful (hence cowardly) and irrational, neither of which is the case. It's slander of a dangerous kind.
(Haven't signed in yet, posting as Mike)
I don't know where they get the word "homophobe". There's really no phobia at all involved.
This new feature of blogger which randomly links blogs together is an interesting one. As I noticed referrals to my blog from the blogs of 15 year old girls my curiousity was piqued. Then I clicked through a referral from your blog.
As a "conservative Christian" your writings, while troubling, aren't surprising. I'm more worried about Beth W. For some reason, I would hope related to her profession (and not merely journal reviews on homophobia), she's read an article from a professional journal addressing an issue she or a coworker may come across during her work in a health care delivery context. How does one, as a professional treat a homosexual, despite their personal views on his or her lifestyle?
I'll assume from your review of the article that you wouldn't hold issue with Beth sharing her thoughts that a lesbian under her care is living an immoral life? If the logical construct extends to other subsegments of society, Beth the vegan can scold meat-eaters, Beth the caligynephobic, harass supermodels, Beth the pacifist brow beat members of the NRA?
Let's hope Beth understands the cooperative nature of society and her role in it as a professional caregiver.
Oddly, I don't think the editorial staff at The Journal of Psychosocial Nursing have been mulling over an article entitled, "Christianphobia: A Challenge for Psychosocial Nursing." Perhaps one day when evangelical non-Christians cause "name calling" and "harrasing" Christians to become a clinical issue they'll have to consider such an editorial choice.
Jason, you paint a touching tale, however you assume too much. Beth is a dangerous Christian librarian rather than a dangerous Christian health care worker. Immoral lesbians are safe from her judgmental gaze as they seek health care, they'd just better be careful when they try to check out a book...
Post a Comment