Dr. Peterson and the Use of the Word 'Homophobia'

[Nofear]

The word is used a lot in the BYU thread, for example. Arguments for continued use or arguments against?

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/03/why-i-object-to-the-word-homophobia-introduction.html
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/03/why-i-object-to-the-word-homophobia-conclusion.html
  or
https://publicsquaremag.org/editorials/2300/

For the opposing view there is lots to find here of varying relevance (and they are talking about it a lot, though use of the word homophobia as appropriate is taken for granted).

https://www.facebook.com/groups/mormonsbuildingbridges/

This images captures some of the common sentiment (though also not directly relevant):

Anyway, what think you?

 

PS: For the record, I side with Dr. Peterson. But, I'm largely supportive of things like the Heterodox Academy or the thinking of Jonathan Haidt.

[Sunslight]

I've been accused of being homophobic. What bothers me is that why have we become a society that panders to immorality? Speaking strictly from a church doctrinal perspective, the homosexual lifestyle/pathway (speaking strictly of behaviors, not attraction itself) is diametrically opposed to the plan of happiness. There are many things that are opposed in like manner to the plan of happiness. Many many things and ways man can sin. The lifestyle choice of the LGBT who act upon their desires though leads exactly opposite of God. As saints, if we warn against it we are shunned, ridiculed, censored, and labeled as homophobic which is meant to label one as a hater. 

There is a specific word used in Scripture, by God himself, in speaking of this and other abominable immoral sins. That word is "whoremonger". The Greek definition means anyone who has sexual relations outside of marriage. And marriage, historically, is defined as only lawful between a man and a woman.

Now, we do not call God homophobic. And yet, God has always decreed that the sexually immoral will be in the lake of fire and brimstone. He is not saying that those who suffer from temptations, attractions, etc, will be there, but actually the ones who give in to their temptations and partake of the whoremonger behaviors of the which homosexual behavior is defined as such. And so too are all who engage in sexual behavior outside of marriage. I too was one who was in this group destined for the lake of fire. But through repentance and the atonement I am set free. So too can all other whoremongers be set free. 

We should be frank and tell it how it really is and stop pandering to the devil's agenda. All forms of whoremongering, which include homosexuality leads one into the lake of fire and brimstone. We cannot justify immoral behavior. No justifying will redeem us or change God's decrees and judgments. In olden days they would stone the whoremongers. In today's world the prophets are the ones taking the metaphorical stoning. We should be aware not to oppose God's decrees and judgments or we too will be amongst those cast into the lake of fire with the Devil and his Angels. We need to view what's eternally at stake here. We should decry all immorality in whatever form it takes. If itcdoesnt lead to an eternal companion in eternity we should sound the warning. Isn't that What God does? Will we censor God? Or have we already tried?

[JAHS]

I pretty much agree with what he is saying. For the most part homophobia is an incorrect term to use. I think most people don't fear or hate homosexuals, they simply cannot relate to the condition of being homosexual. 
It goes against their own natural instincts and therefore hard for them to understand and accept the existence of the condition.  

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

I've been accused of being homophobic. What bothers me is that why have we become a society that panders to immorality? Speaking strictly from a church doctrinal perspective, the homosexual lifestyle/pathway (speaking strictly of behaviors, not attraction itself) is diametrically opposed to the plan of happiness. There are many things that are opposed in like manner to the plan of happiness. Many many things and ways man can sin. The lifestyle choice of the LGBT who act upon their desires though leads exactly opposite of God. As saints, if we warn against it we are shunned, ridiculed, censored, and labeled as homophobic which is meant to label one as a hater. 

There is a specific word used in Scripture, by God himself, in speaking of this and other abominable immoral sins. That word is "whoremonger". The Greek definition means anyone who has sexual relations outside of marriage. And marriage, historically, is defined as only lawful between a man and a woman.

Now, we do not call God homophobic. And yet, God has always decreed that the sexually immoral will be in the lake of fire and brimstone. He is not saying that those who suffer from temptations, attractions, etc, will be there, but actually the ones who give in to their temptations and partake of the whoremonger behaviors of the which homosexual behavior is defined as such. And so too are all who engage in sexual behavior outside of marriage. I too was one who was in this group destined for the lake of fire. But through repentance and the atonement I am set free. So too can all other whoremongers be set free. 

We should be frank and tell it how it really is and stop pandering to the devil's agenda. All forms of whoremongering, which include homosexuality leads one into the lake of fire and brimstone. We cannot justify immoral behavior. No justifying will redeem us or change God's decrees and judgments. In olden days they would stone the whoremongers. In today's world the prophets are the ones taking the metaphorical stoning. We should be aware not to oppose God's decrees and judgments or we too will be amongst those cast into the lake of fire with the Devil and his Angels. We need to view what's eternally at stake here. We should decry all immorality in whatever form it takes. If itcdoesnt lead to an eternal companion in eternity we should sound the warning. Isn't that What God does? Will we censor God? Or have we already tried?

this is pure garbage and shameful that someone would even entertain ideas like this.You condemn others for the exact same thing you did? you know another word that exists in the scriptures? starts with with an H

[Sunslight]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

this is pure garbage and shameful that someone would even entertain ideas like this.You condemn others for the exact same thing you did? you know another word that exists in the scriptures? starts with with an H

You think it's pure garbage to call out God on the fate of the whoremonger eh?

In some degree, almost all of us have tasted of whoremongering. It consists of everything from lusts, pornography, bad or impure thoughts to actual fornication and adultery. It's not being a hypocrite to admit one has partaken of such immorality and then repented and then warn others. A hypocrite is one who does the very thing he preaches against.

Please don't call me a hypocrite again.

[Scott Lloyd]

I’ll repeat the gist of a comment I made in response to Dr. Peterson’s blog post:

When I took high school debate, one of the things I learned is that an essential part of a case is defining of terms. From this I drew an axiom that I would express in this manner: He who controls the vernacular dominates the discourse. 

I see that played out with manipulative terms like homophobe and it’s variants. 

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

You think it's pure garbage to call out God on the fate of the whoremonger eh?

In some degree, almost all of us have tasted of whoremongering. It consists of everything from lusts, pornography, bad or impure thoughts to actual fornication and adultery. It's not being a hypocrite to admit one has partaken of such immorality and then repented and then warn others. A hypocrite is one who does the very thing he preaches against.

Please don't call me a hypocrite again.

hyprocrite, You condemn others for precisely the same thing you did.Heb. 13:14, God will judge whoremongers and adulterers, and unless you have a God complex, that isn't you so drop the everybody but me can't repent mentality. Not that I am interested in your opinion because I am not but where do you get the idea that whoremonger has anything to do with homosexuality? or is that another one of your ideas that starts with the letter D

Edited March 10, 2020 by Duncan

[Sunslight]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

hyprocrite, You condemn others for precisely the same thing you did.Heb. 13:14, God will judge whoremongers and adulterers, and unless you have a God complex, that isn't you so drop the everybody but me can't repent mentality. Not that I am interested in your opinion because I am not but where do you get the idea that whoremonger has anything to do with homosexuality? or is that another one of your ideas that starts with the letter D

Do a research on the the word and find out. In the past it meant a far more encompassing thing than it does now.

[Daniel2]

In my experience, most liberal-leaning people most commonly use the word 'homophobia' the same way they do 'racism' or 'sexism'; 'homophobic being the adjective akin to 'racist' or 'sexist.'  When used in this more general fashion, it isn't meant to describe an actual 'fear' of homosexuals, but rather, a bias against same-sex relationships, whether driven by culture, belief, religion, personal experience, etc.

There are some uses that do imply an actual underlying concern, or fear if you will, that they or others may "become gay" through exposure to LGBT individuals.  In this context, studies do show credence and validity to the fact that many individuals who are proactively and vocally critical of same-sex relationships, behaviors, and even legal rights often harbor or are struggling against their own attractions to members of the same sex.  This isn't always so, of course, but when it is, a 'phobia' or fear of giving in to their gay desires doesn't strike me as too far off the mark.

Sometimes I also hear 'homophobic' used to imply a 'hatred' of gay people.  

With all of the above things in mind, however, I personally find it best, most useful, and most productive to avoid the use of both 'homophobia' and 'homophobic,' because they clearly carry with them an unsavory/negative connotation and usually close both minds and discussions.  Sometimes I have employed the use of the terms 'anti-gay' or 'anti-LGBT,' as in 'anti-gay legislation' (akin to 'anti-Mormon,' though the employment of 'anti-[anything]' clearly has its own limits and using it before a group isn't positive, either).

In good faith efforts to engage in respectful dialogue with those who's beliefs differ than mind and who's values don't support same-sex relationships, I find it best to use the term 'non-gay-affirming,' or 'non-supportive of same-sex relationships.'  I feel it's the most accurate while trying to acknowledge the sincerity of the individuals' well-intended beliefs.  

In my experience, the vast majority of Latter-day Saints aren't 'homophobic' in the sense that I described in either of the first three paragraphs of this post (though I've interacted with a handful of individuals who I certainly believe have been).  Most members want to be loving and supportive of their non-member friends, while hoping that their LDS family and ward members continue to espouse and uphold LDS doctrines as currently taught.  Almost every Latter-day Saint I know in my personal life, from my many neighbors, coworkers, extended family and friends, are respectful, supportive, polite, and kind in accepting and showing interest in my husband and I and our relationship, as they would and do for any other non-member family they know and interact with, just as I love and respect them, their families, and their activity in The Church.

The doctrines of the LDS Faith, however, are clearly (currently) non-gay affirming (insofar as same-sex relationships are concerned), and the LDS church is trying, sometimes succeeding and sometimes stumbling, to be as loving and inclusive as it can be, given the constraints of it's current doctrinal stance.  I am appreciative that LDS leaders' rhetoric about same-sex relationships and gay and lesbian individuals has changed since the days of Kimball, McConkie, et. all., though I note that not all members have followed their example (as some posts in this very thread demonstrate). 

I've made my own share of stumbles on occasion, so its my sincere hope that we can all continually strive to move past incendiary labels and arrive at a more respectful level of dialogue.

Edited March 10, 2020 by Daniel2

[Meadowchik]

Do you take it on faith that homosexuality is bad? I think it's fair to call that one form of homophobia.

[Meadowchik]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ll repeat the gist of a comment I made in response to Dr. Peterson’s blog post:

When I took high school debate, one of the things I learned is that an essential part of a case is defining of terms. From this I drew an axiom that I would express in this manner: He who controls the vernacular dominates the discourse. 

I see that played out with manipulative terms like homophobe and it’s variants. 

What is a word for the irrational rejection of homosexuality or homosexuals?

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

What is a word for the irrational rejection of homosexuality or homosexuals?

Intolerance. Hatred. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Do you take it on faith that homosexuality is bad?

No.  Neither does the Church.

I think homosexual behavior is "bad."  But my assessment of that issue is reasoned.

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think it's fair to call that one form of homophobia.

No, it's not.  There are plenty of things that I think are "bad."  But that does not mean I hate or fear them.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

HIs reasoning laid out in his two parts is actually congruently a good case against the term anti-Mormon, which he has employed often.  No one actually opposes Mormons--the adherents of the religion--well at least no more than there are people who hate people who are gay (and really far less).  So if he were wanting to be accurate and consistent I think that term should be not only considered a nonsense term but one he no longer employs.  It could be he has stopped using the term, since I'm not sure I see it as prominently encouraged by him as it used to.

[Duncan]

24 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

Do a research on the the word and find out. In the past it meant a far more encompassing thing than it does now.

I did, none of which had anything to do with homosexuality and that's why I ask you, you seem to think it means homosexual sex but if you can find that in the scriptures then please show us

[MiserereNobis]

59 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

I've been accused of being homophobic. What bothers me is that why have we become a society that panders to immorality? Speaking strictly from a church doctrinal perspective, the homosexual lifestyle/pathway (speaking strictly of behaviors, not attraction itself) is diametrically opposed to the plan of happiness. There are many things that are opposed in like manner to the plan of happiness. Many many things and ways man can sin. The lifestyle choice of the LGBT who act upon their desires though leads exactly opposite of God. As saints, if we warn against it we are shunned, ridiculed, censored, and labeled as homophobic which is meant to label one as a hater. 

There is a specific word used in Scripture, by God himself, in speaking of this and other abominable immoral sins. That word is "whoremonger". The Greek definition means anyone who has sexual relations outside of marriage. And marriage, historically, is defined as only lawful between a man and a woman.

Now, we do not call God homophobic. And yet, God has always decreed that the sexually immoral will be in the lake of fire and brimstone. He is not saying that those who suffer from temptations, attractions, etc, will be there, but actually the ones who give in to their temptations and partake of the whoremonger behaviors of the which homosexual behavior is defined as such. And so too are all who engage in sexual behavior outside of marriage. I too was one who was in this group destined for the lake of fire. But through repentance and the atonement I am set free. So too can all other whoremongers be set free. 

We should be frank and tell it how it really is and stop pandering to the devil's agenda. All forms of whoremongering, which include homosexuality leads one into the lake of fire and brimstone. We cannot justify immoral behavior. No justifying will redeem us or change God's decrees and judgments. In olden days they would stone the whoremongers. In today's world the prophets are the ones taking the metaphorical stoning. We should be aware not to oppose God's decrees and judgments or we too will be amongst those cast into the lake of fire with the Devil and his Angels. We need to view what's eternally at stake here. We should decry all immorality in whatever form it takes. If itcdoesnt lead to an eternal companion in eternity we should sound the warning. Isn't that What God does? Will we censor God? Or have we already tried?

Oooo, how exciting! We're getting a hellfire, damnation, and brimstone post! It even includes the word whoremonger!

Of course, telling someone "hey you whoremonger, you're going to burn in a lake of fire and brimstone for eternity" usually isn't a very effective tactic to elicit change in their perspective or behavior....

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Intolerance. Hatred. 

That's not specific to homosexuality.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I did, none of which had anything to do with homosexuality and that's why I ask you, you seem to think it means homosexual sex but if you can find that in the scriptures then please show us

You're a gem, Duncan.  I mean it.  Thanks.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

HIs reasoning laid out in his two parts is actually congruently a good case against the term anti-Mormon, which he has employed often.  No one actually opposes Mormons--the adherents of the religion--well at least no more than there are people who hate people who are gay (and really far less).  So if he were wanting to be accurate and consistent I think that term should be not only considered a nonsense term but one he no longer employs.  It could be he has stopped using the term, since I'm not sure I see it as prominently encouraged by him as it used to.

Excuse me? No one actually opposes Mormons? I don’t know how you arrived at that. 
 

And “anti-Mormon” can be taken to denote opposition to a religion or faith tradition as logically as it can opposition to a person or persons. 

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.  Neither does the Church.

I think homosexual behavior is "bad."  But my assessment of that issue is reasoned.

No, it's not.  There are plenty of things that I think are "bad."  But that does not mean I hate or fear them.

Thanks,

-Smac

What would you call the irrational rejection of homosexuality?

[Sunslight]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Oooo, how exciting! We're getting a hellfire, damnation, and brimstone post! It even includes the word whoremonger!

Of course, telling someone "hey you whoremonger, you're going to burn in a lake of fire and brimstone for eternity" usually isn't a very effective tactic to elicit change in their perspective or behavior....

People shouldn't read the Scriptures then. That's pretty much it's entire content!

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That's not specific to homosexuality.

In context it could be. 

[Sunslight]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I did, none of which had anything to do with homosexuality and that's why I ask you, you seem to think it means homosexual sex but if you can find that in the scriptures then please show us

Do me a favor and look up the word "whoremaster" in Webster's 1828 dictionary. In fact I will do it for you. It says.

"WHOREMASTER, noun [supra.] One who practices lewdness."

Further, "lewdness" is defined as.

"1. The unlawful indulgence of lust; fornication, or adultery."

So, whoremongers (same word as whoremaster) are those who practice the unlawful indulgence of lust, fornication and adultery.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

No.  Neither does the Church.

I think homosexual behavior is "bad."  But my assessment of that issue is reasoned.

No, it's not.  There are plenty of things that I think are "bad."  But that does not mean I hate or fear them.

What would you call the irrational rejection of homosexuality?

I don't understand the question.  Are you asking me to give you an example of "irrational rejection of homosexuality"?  Of a specific person exhibiting what could objectively be characterized as "homophobia"?

Thanks,

-smac

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In context it could be. 

Having a word that is more clear is, surprisingly, more clear.

Trying to remove clarity is what seems manipulative.

I remember when people would not even talk about gays or acknowledge their existence. Do you?