Hypo: You Are Gay

[Aloysius]

btw, I should note that nothing I found in this thread would make me accuse anyone of being homophobic... though I do believe quite a few people are wrong to suggest that such a drug should be endorsed if it were made possible or available.  alcoholism and disability are also analogies that I would have an issue with as well.  But I've explained my disputes with those things already, generally speaking I do not think it's fair to accuse people posting in this thread of being homophobic based solely upon the posts made in this thread.  the pejorative nature of that word means for me I would reserve it for those who are truly deserving of the label, and I find its general overuse unfortunate because it does nothing but polarize people even further.

[Lilllabettt]

these semantics over the term "homophobia" I find to be rather pedantic... I find it dubious that people with phobias would be offended by the use of the term homophobia... and if they were offended, I'd say they're wrong to be offended.  

 

interesting.

would you say people with intellectual disabilities are "wrong" for being offended by the term "retarded"? 

 

 

 

 

[that] meaning was appropriated and used in the word 'homophobia' to highlight the fact that inherent to the hatred of homosexuals there is a general fear associated with it as well, usually driven by the repressed closet homosexuals who tend to be the most vocal condemners and vitriolic/bigoted haters of homosexuals,

 

You are highlighting a dumb and insensitive move on the part of people who coined the term homophobia. phobia has as much to do with hatred and bigotry as being "retarded" has to do with being stupid. 

[Aloysius]

except "retarded" is not considered an acceptable term for anyone, it has a insulting connotation when directed at people with mental disabilities just as it does when stated in a colloquial way, making both usages wrong.  the term "phobia" is not considered insulting in any way, shape, or form when applied to someone with a phobia.  no one is associating those with phobias as having ignorance or bigotry.  they are associating the ignorance and bigotry of those who hate homosexuals with a deeper fear that they have.  phobia is a colloquial way talking about intense fear, and there is nothing wrong with using it in that context.  the fact that hatred of homosexuals tends to stem from a deeper fear is something that is quite apparent when one looks at some of the more vitriolic homophobes in our society.

 

of course someone with a phobia doesn't have ignorance and fear... there is absolutely no connotation being asserted about that. what is being asserted is that those with bigotry and ignorance often have those things as an extension of a fear.  I really don't think the word games attempting to link "phobia" to "retarded" are in any way justified, they're an over-extension of political correctness that seems to stem way less from an actual offense coming out of people with phobias and far more from out of the polarized discourses related to homosexuality in general.

[franciscanheart]

What Al said (in his last post).

[Lilllabettt]

except "retarded" is not considered an acceptable term for anyone, it has a insulting connotation when directed at people with mental disabilities just as it does when stated in a colloquial way, making both usages wrong.  the term "phobia" is not considered insulting in any way, shape, or form when applied to someone with a phobia.  no one is associating those with phobias as having ignorance or bigotry.  they are associating the ignorance and bigotry of those who hate homosexuals with a deeper fear that they have.  phobia is a colloquial way talking about intense fear, and there is nothing wrong with using it in that context.  the fact that hatred of homosexuals tends to stem from a deeper fear is something that is quite apparent when one looks at some of the more vitriolic homophobes in our society.

 

of course someone with a phobia doesn't have ignorance and fear... there is absolutely no connotation being asserted about that. what is being asserted is that those with bigotry and ignorance often have those things as an extension of a fear.  I really don't think the word games attempting to link "phobia" to "retarded" are in any way justified, they're an over-extension of political correctness that seems to stem way less from an actual offense coming out of people with phobias and far more from out of the polarized discourses related to homosexuality in general.

 

 

the reason "retarded" is not considered an acceptable term for people with mental retardation is because people began using the word "retarded" to mean "stupid."

 

the same way that people use phobia in homophobia to indicate prejudice, hatred, ignorance, etc. 

[Aloysius]

meh, I don't at all buy the connection you're making, the idea that being called a "homophobe" is the same kind of insult as being called "retarded" is perfectly surrealistic in my view, and the connection the other way is equally as strange and disconnected from actual semantic realities as to make me roll my eyes and ignore the argument, but go right ahead with your crusade against the word homophobia.  I very much doubt it'll ever catch on or that there will be in any way a general semantic shift in the word "phobia" to make it pejorative in the way "retarded" was.  the first time someone sincerely calls someone an "arachnophobe" in a way that tries to insinuate that they are bigoted and hateful towards spiders, I'll eat my hat and concede your point.

[Credo in Deum]

I'm a semanticsphobe. True story.

[Lilllabettt]

meh, I don't at all buy the connection you're making, the idea that being called a "homophobe" is the same kind of insult as being called "retarded" is perfectly surrealistic in my view, and the connection the other way is equally as strange and disconnected from actual semantic realities as to make me roll my eyes and ignore the argument, but go right ahead with your crusade against the word homophobia.  I very much doubt it'll ever catch on or that there will be in any way a general semantic shift in the word "phobia" to make it pejorative in the way "retarded" was.  the first time someone sincerely calls someone an "arachnophobe" in a way that tries to insinuate that they are bigoted and hateful towards spiders, I'll eat my hat and concede your point.

 

 

don't you think the principle matters? words matter. no? semantics is the study of meaning. 

[Aloysius]

I think the "principle" is surreal and pedantic, and generally incorrect.  There is no pejorative being placed upon the idea of having a phobia, none.  The term homophobia is asserting that people with ignorance and bigotry also have a deeper fear that drives it, which is correct in my opinion.  No one is directing the notion of ignorance and bigotry semantically towards people with phobias, hence your principle is incorrect, it is an attempt to overextend the logic of political correctness far beyond anything it should ever be applied to.

[franciscanheart]

While attempting to disconnect the attraction as if it's just some surface level part of a person that a switch could be flipped to change them, as is often done in the insistence on using terms like "SSA" instead of "homosexuality", I think people actually inadvertently do the exact opposite of what they intend. They completely miss the complexity of the person that they're trying to affirm by disconnecting that attraction from them.

In the end, humanity will all be redeemed through Christ, and in a complex and mysterious way, that means the redemption of all things, the complete destruction of the hegemony of sin, and for those attractions to sinful things that are intimately connected to such things as someone's fundamental sexuality, the complete redemption of the whole person. Sexuality is an intricately deep aspect of a human person, and that too will be redeemed in ways we cannot even possibly begin to imagine.

This, with a more solemn nod to the piece addressing the disconnection of sexuality from the person. Misunderstood or not understood at all, too many attempts to separate the "good person" from the "disordered inclination" distract from the reality of that person's sexuality, how deeply and intricately it is woven into every part of their life, and ultimately robs that person of respect and dignity, though it may be unintentional and (more often than not) unnoticed. (But that's another topic for another night...)

[Vincent Vega]

these semantics over the term "homophobia" I find to be rather pedantic... I find it dubious that people with phobias would be offended by the use of the term homophobia... and if they were offended, I'd say they're wrong to be offended.  the word "phobia" has a colloquial meaning in addition to a medical meaning... that colloquial meaning was appropriated and used in the word 'homophobia' to highlight the fact that inherent to the hatred of homosexuals there is a general fear associated with it as well, usually driven by the repressed closet homosexuals who tend to be the most vocal condemners and vitriolic/bigoted haters of homosexuals, as they're projecting their fear of giving in to their own homosexual desires into an outward hatred.  but even for people who are not themselves repressed/closeted, there is a general fear driving those who are truly ignorant or bigoted towards homosexuals... hence the colloquial usage of the term "phobia"... sorry, but people with psychological phobias don't get to claim the term "phobia" exclusively, it can be used colloquially or metaphorically in many contexts.

 

Hey, remember that thing about how you're the best poster on phatmass?

 

Thanks for pointing that goofiness out. It's like how people say "Anti-Semitic doesn't make sense, because Arabs are Semitic too!" Yeah, don't be obtuse. That's not what it means. Sometimes when you put two words together, they make a whole new word (!).

[franciscanheart]

is there something objectionable about being grouped with disabled people?
something objectionable about the suggestion of having a disability?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ... Oh wait: that's a serious question?

:rolleyes:

Yeah, Lilllllllllabettttt: I totally meant to imply by my :twitch: smiley that I am SO OFFENDED that you should suggest that I'm like a disabled person.

Are you serious? :|

No, I'm not suggesting that having a disability or being related to someone with a disability is a bad thing. I do mean to imply with my :twitch: smiley though that your attempt to compare homosexuality to my neighbor's missing leg illustrates a profound misunderstanding of homosexuality.

And because I would like some fragment of this post to survive the beating, I'm going to post my more serious response below. But thanks for the laugh!

[franciscanheart]

is there something objectionable about being grouped with disabled people?
something objectionable about the suggestion of having a disability?

Basic and personal reproductive problems/issues aside, every single lesbian I know is just as capable of conceiving a child as the straight friends we each keep. Amazingly, the same is true for my gay guy friends. We might have a bit less fun conceiving, but it's still physically possible.

[Socrates]

While I doubt the OP had any purpose other than to stir up the usual "gay drama" (and it appears he was quite successful), I'll bite and add my typically un-pc $.02 worth.

 

If we take this imaginary scenario at face value (the drug is safe with no side effects), then there would be absolutely no moral problem whatsoever with a homosexual person taking the drug.

 

Any actual moral issues would result from serious dangers and side effects from the drug (which in this scenario do not exist,as GtF explained).

 

There's nothing wrong with trying to correct a disorder (and, yes, politically incorrect as it may be, homosexual tendencies are disordered).  For this reason, it's not inherently immoral for a person to choose to undergo "gay to straight" therapy.  (I'll leave it to others to debate the effectiveness of said therapy.)

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say that persons with SSA would be morally required to take the drug, but they shouldn't be prohibited either.

 

Legitimate drugs/medications exist to treat or control all sorts of psychiatric/chemical/physical disorders, and the Church does not condemn all such drugs categorically.  We're not the Christian Scientists.  If it were possible to use a drug to fix disordered sexuality, it would not be any different.

 

And the objections about this hypothetical drug (which in the scenario, only changes one from "gay" to "straight") taking away free will are nonsensical.  It's not as though straight people are free from sin or immune from temptation.

 

 

All that said, I believe the scenario in the OP is extremely unlikely, and probably always remain purely hypothetical (i don't think homosexuality has a single physical cause which can be cured simply by taking a drug).  It's about as realistic as an X-Men adventure.

[Maggyie]

Okay Al. It's a little off topic and didn't mean to make us wander so far. Just know that the tide is turning on the use of that term, the progressive phrasing is "hetero-normative" or simply "anti-gay." It's not just the Associated Press moving away from it, it's other thought leaders too. Plenty of my coworkers use the word retarded as a perjorative because they haven't been educated about the English language and what's appropriate. When I explain to them it's wrong they get defensive in the same way and claim I'm being too PC for words.

It will probably take them awhile to realize it's just not ok anymore, in spite of the fact they grew up calling people that and nobody thought twice. Especially since people with brain diseases of all kinds are pretty much despised in this country.

On topic... I guess one reason I'm on a different page is that I don't view sexuality as so deeply tied to identity or the human person (alert more bad Catholic stuff ahead). I don't want to downplay the spiritual element of sex or how deep seated it is, but I feel like with all our Theology of the Body stuff etc we make it something it's not.

What I mean is, it's ultimately a biological process like digestion or respiration. Animals have sex but since they don't have souls we don't try to assign a sexuality category to them and make it part of their identity and "selves." We don't make it more than it is. My understanding is human sexuality is actually pretty fluid and attraction in general is largely socially controlled where most people are successfully trained to view certain body types as attractive. There are different times in peoples lives where the intensity of their attraction to one sex or another is higher or lower. Whether they are conscious of it or not. I don't mean bisexual either I just mean people are at different places in the scale at different times.

Perhaps it's easy for me to say that I don't think sexuality is an enmeshed part of identity since my attractions are pretty normative for my religion/family/community. And I don't mean to say it's not deep seated, I would say it's deep seated like breathing. Something fundamental to the human experience, to life itself but not something that attaches itself to a person as a Person. Therefore I wouldn't view it as an affront to human dignity. But again this is a perspective of bad Catholic thoughts.

I really get the feeling John Ryan is coming at this from a free will perspective where the drug robs people of their agency. I can see that too. I mean the whole concept is pretty frightening I just don't see where it would be immoral to take it per se.