« No is Non | HomePage | Homosexualism v Homosexuality »
Friday, April 22, 20051114177200
Homosexualism v Homosexuality
(This post continues a discussion on Samizdata. Like at CCK, Samizdata's comment system works... sometimes.)
The reason I'm using "homosexualism" and not "homosexuality" is that the latter is so vague as to be meaningless. As John Derbyshire wrote, homosexuality sometimes is used to include
- homosexualism (male preference for sex with men over men)
- ephebophilia/pederasty (male perference for sex with youths)
- monasticism/faute-de-mieux (male sex with men as a substitute for women)
Monasticism clearly existed then, as it exists now in prisons. Likewise, we have detailed descriptions of ephebophilia from the Greeks (such as the Ganymede story).
Some quote from Leviticus
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.
(or more literally)
And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman
as the very preceeding verse is a condemnation of rival religion ceremonies
You shall not offer any of your offspring to be immolated to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am the LORD
And the very next condemns an obvious form of substitution
You shall not have carnal relations with an animal, defiling yourself with it; nor shall a woman set herself in front of an animal to mate with it; such things are abhorrent.
The context argues against knowledge of homosexualism. Additionally, as Hebrew boys became "men" at a young age, Leviticus 18:22 may be intended as a double-condemnation of monaticism and ephebophilia. Whatever its meanings, there's no evidence in the chapter that shows knowledge of homosexualism.
08:40 Posted by Dan tdaxp in Faith, History, Homosexuality | Permalink | Comments (8) | Email this | Tags: homosexualism, derbyshire
Comments
Homosexualism vs. Homosexuality - Human beings possess ONLY ONE FORM of sexuality: Heterosexuality. We are all heterosexual by nature and design. Homosexual, bisexual or multisexual sexual practices DO NOT constitute a person's sexuality, but rather are an unnatural use of sexual organs, i.e., an aberrant form of sexual behavior or conduct. Hence, this sexual behavior or conduct should rightly be referred to as "homosexualism," rather than "homosexuality." The same could be said of "bisexualism," or "multisexualism."
The use of the term "homosexuality" conveys the false impression that those engaging in homosexual practices do so because they were born with a "homosexual" sexuality. Therefore, homosexuals are not responsible for their behavior or conduct, but rather merely acting according to their nature. This, of course, is completely false, since homosexual practices are an individual's free choice, never an imperative or mandate of nature. Indeed, homosexualism is a choice against nature.
Homosexual behavior or conduct is not an immutable characteristic or part of a person’s nature. It is erroneous and misleading, therefore, to refer to homosexual behavior or conduct as "homosexuality." It should properly be referred to as "homosexualism."
The suffix "ity" means an "attribute, a cause or quality of being"; it refers to a "characteristic or state of being," whereas the suffix "ism" means an "attitude, idea, or concept"; it refers to a behavior or a practice. That is why we do not say "cannibality," but rather "cannibalism."
One thing is clear: our terminology must communicate concepts with clarity and precision if we are to establish and develop a constructive and productive dialogue with our confused and disoriented contemporary society. Without clear and precise terms, persuading contemporary society will be a very difficult, self-defeating task.
Posted by: Dr. Carlos Diaz Lujan | Monday, January 30, 2006
Heterosexualists continue to deny the existence of homosexuality -- why? Their belief that nurture always usurps nature, or is stronger, leads them to believe that [homosexual/ity-homosexual/ism] will continue to exist until it is nurtured away. If nature were the dominant force of the two, and if heterosexuality were the only "natural" form of sexuality, homosexualism would have disappeared long ago (assuming that nature is superior.) Thus, even if there is only "homosexualism" -- it is by nature stronger than "heterosexuality"!!!
How freakin' hilarious.
Posted by: Curtis Gale Weeks | Monday, January 30, 2006
Curtis,
The question isn't so much the continued existence of homosexualism so much as its sudden emergence. It is absent from the historical record -- a record full of all sorts of other activities, even related ones -- until modern times.
Ephebophilia and faute-de-mieux are of course separate.
Indeed, the reason I am using "homosexualism" instead of "homosexuality" is that by incorporating both pederasty and faute-de-mieux, it is worthlessly vague. I'm not sure why you are using "heterosexualism," other than to score debating points.
Your last two sentences appear to be a non sequitur.
Dr. Lujan,
Thanks for the post. Your other writings also look quite interesting. Do you have a CV?
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Monday, January 30, 2006
"it is worthlessly vague"
Dan, try thinking in terms of Magic Clouds...
Or, consider White Noise, and the insularity our modern society forces us to choose...
But to ground it down into your present terminology is to make "heterosexuality" hopelessly vague, since pederasty etc etc and so many forms of heterosexuality also exist. And if you insist on using "faute-de-mieux" for your arguments, I will be forced to use it as well: *Brokeback Mountain* and many non-cinematic examples in our society would support the theory that situational heterosexuality occurs. If social norms "imprison" gays in the heterosexual model -- they fear to do otherwise -- they may marry women and have children.
Posted by: Curtis Gale Weeks | Monday, January 30, 2006
Curtis,
Clearly there may be a form of "heterosexual faute-de-mieux," or even "pedophilia faute-de-mieux," or "pederastia faute-de-mieux," &c. Indeed, it seems as pedophilia and pederasty have been with us for all history, "heterosexual faute-de-mieux" may be as old as homosexual fuate-de-mieux."
(This avalanche of terms demands a blog post! :-) )
(I criticized your use of heterosexualism partially because guest-blogger Aaron had previously used a term, but was unable to define it in a worthwhile manner. Thank you for the explanation.)
But to rephrase my earlier point, the main question is why homosexualism has suddenly appeared. That is currently exists is undeniable. /Why/ it now exists, and formerly didn't, is much more questionable.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Tuesday, January 31, 2006
that is absolute bollocks, we cannot choose our sexual orientation! you homophobic bastards better sort yourselves out!
Posted by: laura | Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Laura,
The debate is real. Many neutral and even pro-gay groups claim sexual orientation is a choice. The pro gay rights movement began claiming it was a choice and to interfere with it would to be like the Gestapo.
Do you have studies or sources you wish to discuss? If you do it would be great to discuss the issue with you and try to discover the truth together.
I myself and I know TDAXP are not homophobic. We favor complete civil rights for gays including but not limited to the right to vote, to live with speak, the right to live with who ever they wish for as long as they wish, and the right to marry or not marry one person of the opposite sex not of their family.
The debate begins at the point should new "rights" be created. As a heterosexual I cannot marry anyone I wish (family) and can only marry one person at a time. Are my rights being violated?
Posted by: Catholicgauze | Wednesday, April 05, 2006
On the -phobic suffix, I remember reading a history of the Balkans written a century ago that discussed "Turkophobic" British politicians. I smiled, imagining Victorian Imperialists fearing the Ottoman Crescent sailing o'er the Thames...
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Wednesday, April 05, 2006