Journalists told to stop using the term ‘homophobia’

The Associated Press has nixed the term ‘homophobia’ from its Style Book.

The online Style Book now says that ‘-phobia’, ‘an irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness’ should not be used ‘in political or social contexts’, including ‘homophobia’ because ‘a phobia is a psychiatric or medical term for a severe mental disorder’.

AP Deputy Standards Editor Dave Minthorn said that ‘Homophobia especially is just off the mark. It's ascribing a mental disability to someone, and suggests a knowledge that we don't have. It seems inaccurate. Instead, we would use something more neutral: anti-gay, or some such, if we had reason to believe that was the case.’

‘We want to be precise and accurate and neutral in our phrasing,’ he said.

Wikipedia currently defines ‘homophobia’ as ‘a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people identified or perceived as being homosexual’.

In keeping with this view, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King in a 1998 address, equated homophobia to ‘racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry’ on the grounds that ‘it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood’.

However when the term was first used it actually meant something quite different.

The word homophobia first appeared in print in an article written for the 23 May 1969 edition of the American tabloid Screw, in which it was used to refer to heterosexual men's fear that others might think they are gay. It has also been used to describe a fear of people who ‘come out’ as homosexual.

These definitions are much more in keeping with the literal meaning. After all, a phobia is a fear: claustrophobia, arachnophobia and acrophobia being fears of closed spaces, spiders and heights respectively.

But more recently the term has been almost exclusively used to describe anyone who publicly opposes the demands of the gay rights lobby. The aim has generally been to silence and marginalise opposition and to close down rational debate. By labelling opponents as 'homophobic' campaigners are able to demonise opponents by implying their views are purely the product of prejudice, thereby avoiding having to engage seriously with their arguments.

For people who don’t hate, dislike or fear gay people, but simply believe that sex between people who are not married (including all sex between those of the same sex) is morally wrong, journalists clearly now need a new term.

I’d like to propose that the media start using the term ‘homosceptic’ – which the Urban dictionary defines as ‘a member of society who does not hate homosexuals, but generally does not agree with the principle of homosexuality in moral and ethical terms’.

As I’ve previously argued this term could be broadened to include ‘being sceptical about the key presuppositions of the gay rights movement’ such as the beliefs that:

• Homosexuality is genetically determined
• Homosexual orientation is always fixed
• Sexual orientation is a biological characteristic like race, sex or skin colour
• Feelings of same sex attraction should be welcomed and acted upon
• Offering help to those who wish to resist or eradicate these feelings is always wrong

Same sex marriage and the politics of elitism

An article by Brian Clowes posted earlier this week on LifeSite News examines ‘The six ways homosexual activists manipulate public opinion’.

It argues that ‘homophile strategists’ are very adept at manipulating public opinion with an arsenal of six tactics that are based upon deceptions and half truths:

1.Exploit the ‘victim’ status
2.Use the sympathetic media
3.Confuse and neutralize the churches
4.Slander and stereotype Christians
5.Bait and switch (hide their true nature)
6.Intimidation

Clowes’ whole article is well worth a read especially for its references to the early gay rights publication ‘After the ball’ and to American hate-crime statistics.

But I also heard a masterful speech on item 1 (‘Exploit the victim status’) this week by ‘Spiked-on-line’ editor Brendan O’Neill at a London debate on same-sex marriage between Catholic Voices and the British Humanist Association.

O’Neill has now placed it on his website under the title ‘The fashion for gay marriage has nothing in common with the civil-rights campaigns of the 1960s’ – also well worth a read.

He argues that, whilst gay-marriage activists often compare themselves to the civil-rights campaigners of 1960s America, in so doing they actually unwittingly draw attention to the vast differences between these two movements.

The greatest difference, he says, is between the agony suffered by those civil-rights campaigners compared with the celebrity and adulation enjoyed by gay-marriage activists today.

‘In order for gay marriage to become one of the most celebrated issues of our time, embraced by everyone from David Cameron to The Times to Goldman Sachs, nobody had to fight on the streets; nobody had to organise long and bitter boycotts of public institutions; nobody was water-cannoned by the authorities, attacked by police dogs, burnt out of their homes.

Where civil-rights campaigners had to go through all those things and more for their cause to be taken seriously, gay-marriage campaigners just had to say “We want to get married”, and, hey presto, the vast bulk of the political and media class said “Yes! We agree! This is the most pressing equality issue of our time!”’

He draws attention to the ‘remarkable ease with which gay marriage has moved up the political agenda’ showing ‘that this is an issue which the political elite feels very comfortable with’.

‘… for all the gay-marriage activists’ rather desperate claims to be like the oppressed blacks of the past, this is in fact a very elitist campaign. It is underpinned by an aloof and disdainful political outlook.’

He then outlines those areas where the gay-marriage issue has more in common with the modern-day politics of elitism than it does with olden-day civil-rights campaigning:

‘The first is in its snobbery towards vast sections of society; the second is in its intolerance of dissent; and the third is in its indifference to the lives and experiences of everyday people.’

Firstly, its snobbery. Gay-marriage supporters have a real tendency to look upon their critics, not as people who might be won over, but as backward, uneducated creatures, whose minds have possibly been warped by religion.

Opponents of gay marriage are frequently said to be suffering from “homophobia”, which, as one gay writer recently reminded us, is a “recognised mental illness”. ..

…This verbal abuse, so unbecoming of supposedly liberal campaigners, shows the extent to which gay marriage has been turned into a marker of respectability. Expressing support for gay marriage has become a key way of distinguishing yourself from the unenlightened mob. This is one of the main reasons it is so attractive to the political elite – it allows them, everyone from discredited investment banks to fusty old conservative newspapers, to advertise their moral credentials by contrasting themselves with the ignorant homophobes at large in society.’

Secondly, there is the intolerance of dissent. If gay marriage really is a civil-rightsy, freedom-orientated issue, then why are so many of its supporters so hostile to open debate?

… gay marriage is a uniquely black-and-white issue on which no “cultural differences” of opinion can be tolerated. So it isn’t surprising that when anyone does put forward an alternative view, they tend to be shot down in flames. …This hostility to dissent also speaks to the elitism of the gay-marriage issue. What the political class and various political cliques love about gay marriage is the sense of belonging to a club, a decent, moral, enlightened club which has come to the “right answer” on gay marriage.‘

His conclusion?

‘What we have in the gay-marriage issue is elitism disguised as equality. Strip away the self-flattering civil-rights garb, and you can clearly see a top-down campaign which demands conformism, which demonises cultural difference, and which invites the state further into people’s private lives.’

Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the recently launched Out4marriage campaign, where we see politicians and media celebrities fawning and falling over each other to register their politically correct soundbites for youtube videos.

Items 4 and 6 in the list of manipulative techniques above were ‘slander and stereotype Christians’ and ‘intimidation’.

I made the mistake of tweeting a link to Brian Clowes article earlier today as follows:

‘The six ways #homosexual activists manipulate public opinion. Interesting article http://bit.ly/LnfIfu #gay #lgbt #homosexuality’

Within just over an hour I received the list of tweets below which rather beautifully illustrated the point.

I am not ‘homophobic’ but ‘homosceptic’. I do not dislike gay people and certainly do not feel intimidated by homosexual activists (if I did I would not be posting this!)

But I do believe it is important that the manipulative techniques of some homosexual activists are identified, named and exposed in the interests of robust honest debate.

So there you are.

Tweets I received in just over an hour for flagging Brian Clowes article

Toni Jenkins ‏@amnerisuk
@drpetersaunders Why do gays trouble you do much? I'm RC and married but don't see them as a threat just different

Tammy Newman ‏@tamnet11
“@welsh_gas_doc: Blimey @drpetersaunders, sometimes there are no words. Your obsession with gays is quite remarkable.” - he should come out

Alexander Dando ‏@ajd90
@drpetersaunders @welsh_gas_doc Perhaps not the best representation for a Christian organisation eh?!

Bob Churchill ‏@bobchurchill
@drpetersaunders Intimidation? Every LGBT rights event I've ever been to has a Xian handing out hate lit, or telling people they're evil.

ClareBear ‏@coldilox
@welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders the obsession is somewhat telling, no?

Rachel Holmes ‏@mcgingersnap
For ways in which anti-gay activists manipulate public opinion, see Prop 8 judgments. Evidence-based court decisions.@drpetersaunders

Stuart Sutton ‏@StuSutton
I find @drpetersaunders twitter feed depressing - I don't believe most Christian doctors share his #homophobic views so why is he #CMFCEO?

Rachel Holmes ‏@mcgingersnap
.@drpetersaunders 6 ways gay activists manipulate public opinion? 1. Appeal to humanity. 2 - 6. Repeat 1. (Only works if audience has soul.)

Andrew ‏@GahndiAndy
@welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders classic overcompensation.

Ben Humphrys ‏@benhumphrys
@drpetersaunders @welsh_gas_doc If you accept that people can be born gay (i do), most of this 'homosexual agenda' is just child protection.

Jonathon Tomlinson ‏@mellojonny
@welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders eg Rt wing hatred/ fear of vulnerability http://abetternhs.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/who-is-the-nhs-for-not-me/

Charles ‏@charleshvl
@drpetersaunders far-right Christians playing the victim card as they find it's no longer socially acceptable to dehumanise humans

Jonathon Tomlinson ‏@mellojonny
@welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders public obsession is usually a sign of internal repression

Craig Williams ‏@IntenseGas
@drpetersaunders @welsh_gas_dochttp://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/judge-forces-jehovahs-witness-parents-to-allow-transfusions-for-daughter-with-cancer/story-e6frf7l6-1226380955006...,frightening how too closely held belief can damage.

Fi Douglas ‏@fidouglas
@MargoJMilne @keirshiels @welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders Ah, the great irony of all those people who have bible verses tattooed on them...

Margo Milne ‏@MargoJMilne
@keirshiels @welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders DOI: I have a tattoo. I presume I'm therefore doomed to burn for eternity?

Fi Douglas ‏@fidouglas
@keirshiels @margojmilne @welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders in that case, I bow to your superior knowledge. :-)

Petersmam ‏@petersmam
@MargoJMilne @keirshiels @welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders*shudders at mention of shellfish* *cuddles a gay to recover*

Keir Shiels ‏@keirshiels
@fidouglas @margojmilne @welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaundersJesus redacted that one too.

Keir Shiels ‏@keirshiels
@MargoJMilne @welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders in fairness, Jesus redacted that sin. But he never redacted tattooing.

Fi Douglas ‏@fidouglas
@MargoJMilne @keirshiels @welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders Or wear clothes with blended fibres...

Margo Milne ‏@MargoJMilne
@keirshiels @welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders Or eat shellfish...

Keir Shiels ‏@keirshiels
@welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders far more people have tattoos than are gay. Why not concentrate on a more prevalent Levitican "abomination"?

Gareth Bundy ‏@gabundy
@drpetersaunders @welsh_gas_doc Methinks the good Dr Saunders doth protest too much!

Esther ‏@FabFingertips1
@feekelife @drpetersaunders Sounds like it!

Lageraemia ‏@Lageraemia
@drpetersaunders @welsh_gas_doc @PeteDeveson As a PoliceSurgeon, I can confirm that gayness not a factor in deprivation and crime #wrongtree

Andy ‏@fintanbear
@drpetersaunders It would appear that article is employing all six ways to manipulate opinion too. (cc @welsh_gas_doc )

Tom Mallinson ‏@MallinsonT
@drpetersaunders "atheist" answers still more sensible than "an alien who likes to be worshipped did it & my book says so" - sorry

Matt ‏@matthud59
@welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders Methinks he doth protest too much!

sheila scoular ‏@sheilascoular
@MargoJMilne @welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders The voracious interest in other people's sex lives of so-called religious folk is disturbing.

Peter ‏@PME200
@welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders And was as if this study came as a *complete* surprise to us all!http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120406234458.htm#repressedgays

Ben ‏@tooPsychedout
@drpetersaunders It alarms me that you as former Doctor have so little understanding of Science & seem to be so keen on such pseudo-science

Paul Davies ‏@docpgd
“@drpetersaunders: The six ways #homosexual activists manipulate public opinion. Are you ****ing kidding me!

Brownhills Bob ‏@BrownhillsBob
You're evil >> RT @drpetersaunders: The six ways homosexual activists manipulate public opinion. Interesting article http://bit.ly/LnfIfu

Kees Engels ‏@KeesEngels
@LazyJaySez @drpetersaunders THE XENOPHOBIA! IT BURNS!

BendyGirl ‏@BendyGirl
@MargoJMilne @welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders Had to stop reading. The inbuilt hatred made me gag.

LazyJay ‏@LazyJaySez
@welsh_gas_doc You noticed too? @drpetersaunders

Pank ‏@originalpanksta
@welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders #comingoutofthecloset Live and let live FFS

Margo Milne ‏@MargoJMilne
@welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders ...and possibly pathological

Dave Jones ‏@welsh_gas_doc
Blimey @drpetersaunders, sometimes there are no words. Your obsession with gays is quite remarkable.

LazyJay ‏@LazyJaySez
BIGOT DETECTED RT @drpetersaunders: The six ways#homosexual activists manipulate public opinion. Interesting articlehttp://bit.ly/LnfIfu

Simon Feeke ‏@feekelife
@drpetersaunders you are obsessed with homosexuality - I think you need to get laid more often!

john Fairhurst ‏@mail2fairhurst
@drpetersaunders very interesting article, the writer depicts gay people as almost sub human, the article is dripping with hate and bigotry

Why Christians don’t say what they really believe about sex on Twitter

This morning, after the Coalition for Marriage Petition gained its 500,000th signature, and in response to an article in Pink News trying to undermine #C4M’s credibility, I sent out two tweets from my twitter account (@drpetersaunders) announcing the new milestone.

The first (admittedly provocative) tweet read as follows:

Growing paranoia from @pinknews over having its small unrepresentative cyber-community trounced by #c4m petition http://bit.ly/J6HnFh

The second was a ‘retweet’ from Archbishop Cranmer (@his_grace)

And many congratulations to the Coalition for Marriage @c4mtweetsfor reaching 500,000 supporters http://c4m.org.uk/?cranmer

As a result for the last nine hours I have been under constant siege from the several hundred secular twitterati who track my every move.

As I usually do, I have ignored frankly abusive comments but have attempted otherwise to take questions and comments at face value and do my best to answer them honestly and politely, but firmly and, as appropriate, with good humour.

Many of the responses have been in the same spirit, robustly but respectfully disagreeing with me. There has been a lot of mutual ribbing too and as is usual, certain members of the twitterati have taken great delight in retweeting some of my 140 character utterances to their adoring followers in order to demonstrate how self-evidently foolish I am.

This is all par for the course on Twitter. You can read the various conversations on my twitter page by clicking ‘view conversation’ on each tweet

Some of the twitterati have also tried to draw me out by asking specific questions that they know will elicit answers which will draw the baying mob most effectively.

Today I sent out two tweets in response to specific questions from a Dr David Jones (@welsh_gas_doc) that really sent the mob into a wild frenzy. As you will see he is copied into most of the ensuing tweets. My tweets read as follows:

@welsh_gas_doc @pocketapocketa @c4equalmarriage All people are sinners (Romans 3:23) and also all sex outside marriage is morally wrong

@welsh_gas_doc @pocketapocketa @c4equalmarriage Yes David. Sex between two people of the same sex - male or female - is always wrong

Both were simply factual statements about orthodox Christian belief. In days past, such statements would have been met generally with a reaction of patronising incredulity or even pity that someone could hold such unenlightened and antiquated, even quaint, views.

But today the sort of reaction such statements elicit explains I think why so few Christians ever talk about what they actually believe on twitter – at least about sex.

I’m pretty much used to this kind of stuff now and put up with it largely because I get a lot of traffic to this blog as a result from those who silently listen in to the conversations.

Anyway, for what it is worth, here is a selection of some of the more offensive tweets I have received today. I am frequently called a 'homophobic bigot' (although I prefer to think of myself as 'homosceptic') but as you will see some of these go a bit further than that. I haven’t replied to any of them.

For those unfamiliar with twitter, each begins with the name and account of the person sending the tweet. As you will see, some people appear more than once.

Simon Feeke ‏ @feekelife
@drpetersaunders @C4EqualMarriage you are such a terrible small minded person, I'm staggered by your hypocrisy, call yourself christian!!

Simon Feeke ‏ @feekelife
@drpetersaunders @C4EqualMarriage just admit you're a bigot and we can all just continue fighting the cause without your input, thank you

lisa pawson ‏ @emmliss
@C4EqualMarriage @drpetersaunders what a horrible out of touch man

Sarah Guest ‏ @sarah_gue5t
@jjswin @drpetersaunders ghetto??? Wot a shallow pathetic little man u are, I'm straight, live in the countryside #C4EM all the way! #twat

Sara O'Brian ‏ @Sara_OBrian
@drpetersaunders Shut up you stupid old bastard you won't be around to see marriage equality so pipe down.

Alex Graham ‏ @Rangaaar
@drpetersaunders I would love to give you the benefit of the doubt, but as a representative to lots of people, why are you so poisonous?

Lizzie P-B ‏ @LizzieMansfield
@C4EqualMarriage @drpetersaunders @mcgingersnap one day the gay community will receive a public apology from these homophobes. #c4em

Johnathon Waples ‏ @JohnathonWaples
@drpetersaunders But srsly? A civil partnership isn't equal. I hope your HATE for people who just want to be HAPPY makes you sleep at night.

Lorrie Hearts ‏ @LorrieHearts
@drpetersaunders: Smiley enough in his picture but he'd cut off your equal rights as soon as look at you. Not my kind of doctor.

Ollie James ‏ @OJB_clough
@drpetersaunders you're a massive cunt

Simon Feeke ‏ @feekelife
@drpetersaunders @UK_CMF @UCBMedia absolutley vile, no doubt you agree with Stephen Green on marital rape as well #OUTDATEDBADCHRISTIAN

The George ‏ @kaptainkrucius
@drpetersaunders no I merely stated that none of my friends were bigots like you. It was you who suggested I need to get out more.

Russell Norton ‏ @russyork
I find the opinions of @drpetersaunders scary. I would be terrified if he were my doctor, clearly has no idea about equal treatment #bigot

Simon Feeke ‏ @feekelife
@drpetersaunders utter tripe! thank GOD only the Daily Mail reports your offensive crap!!

Simon Feeke ‏ @feekelife
@drpetersaunders @C4EqualMarriage i fear if any of your children are gay, terrible things happen when you preach hate #BADCHRISTIANS

dam robinson ‏ @damrobinson
@drpetersaunders @C4EqualMarriage this straight, 2.4 kids dad agrees with equal marriage but not your small minded bigoted intolerance

Adam Kay ‏ @amateuradam
@welsh_gas_doc @pocketapocketa @c4equalmarriage I often have a wank to @drpetersaunders' avatar. That's still fine, right?

Rob Ward ‏ @PocketaPocketa
@drpetersaunders @welsh_gas_doc @C4EqualMarriage I feel sorry for you &your hindbound soul both. Still, it's never too late for ppl to grow.

Chris H ‏ @chris_m_h
@drpetersaunders (cc to @welsh_gas_doc @pocketapocketa@c4equalmarriage) Dr Peters, your discriminatory, prejudiced opinions are disgusting.

Dr_PaulC ‏ @Dr_PaulC
@drpetersaunders drag your bigoted ass out of the dark ages. @welsh_gas_doc @pocketapocketa @c4equalmarriage

Mr Stefani to you! ‏ @Glen_Stefani
@feekelife @drpetersaunders FUCK ME! How in this wonderful world can these ignorant morons peddle this hatred? Hang your head in SHAME!

Chris Wallace ‏ @CJWallace91
@drpetersaunders @welsh_gas_doc @pocketapocketa@c4equalmarriage Are you a medical doctor? If so, you're a disgrace to the profession.

Mrs Mackenzie ‏ @loftspace
@welsh_gas_doc @marty_hogg I thought @drpetersaunders must be a spoof account. He's real? Scary shit.

Shaun Lawrence ‏ @BigGayShaun
Want to see how some Christians regard LGBT people? I suggest dipping in to the mind of @drpetersaunders. What an intolerant person he is.

Stuart Sutton ‏ @StuSutton
@welsh_gas_doc @icuchris @drpetersaunders thank goodness he's not practicing. I would think a referral to @gmcuk appropriate if he was.

Wendy Lee ‏ @TheRealBaglady
@welsh_gas_doc @ICUchris @drpetersaunders Pretty terrifying that someone so judgemental would ever be let loose on people with a scalpel.

Shaun Lawrence ‏ @BigGayShaun
@welsh_gas_doc Frightening that people still think like @drpetersaunders but one ought to know one's enemy so I'm paying close attention.

ICU Chris ‏ @ICUchris
@welsh_gas_doc @deeteeuk @marty_hogg @drpetersaunders Does my tax money pay his wages? How do I stop this?

ICU Chris ‏ @ICUchris
@amateuradam @welsh_gas_doc @pocketapocketa@c4equalmarriage @drpetersaunders I bet you eat shrimp too, you godless heathen.

Paul Southworth ‏ @PaulMSouthworth
@DeeTeeUK @marty_hogg @drpetersaunders @welsh_gas_doc I hope they take a good deal of comfort from the people pointing out he's a twerp.

ThomThom ‏ @ThomJONeill
@drpetersaunders What of the kids who kill themselves because of the attitudes of people like you? Is your faith REALLY worth that?

Ruairi Doran ‏ @RuDoran
@welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders @nhs_hca @pocketapocketa@c4equalmarriage Is he quoting the Bible again? That doctor is sick. *notadoctor*

Heather ‏ @Spleather
Actually shocked that @drpetersaunders is allowed to be a medical professional with the unacceptably homophobic beliefs he holds

Owen Blacker ‏ @owenblacker
Wow. What an unChristian arsehole. RT @drpetersaunders: Yes David. Sex between two people of the same sex - male or female - is always wrong

Kris Manuel ‏ @kris_manuel
@C4EqualMarriage @drpetersaunders @c4mtweets what a prick!!!

Mike Ward ‏ @Schroedinger99
@zeno001 & I'm free to think he's an irrational evil misogynistic homophobe @anarchic_teapot @C4EqualMarriage

Will Jensen ‏ @mrwilliamjensen
@drpetersaunders This man believes its wrong for same sex sex!!! Tweet him and tell him he's wrong and should give it a go some time!!!! :-)

Alex Scott ‏ @alexscott292
@anarchic_teapot @drpetersaunders @welsh_gas_doc to be fair, it's big bumper book of bollocks he's got to thumb through to get the answer.

Owen Blacker ‏ @owenblacker
@helliewm @drpetersaunders Indeed. Sinners like him give Christians a bad name.

helliewm ‏ @helliewm
@owenblacker @drpetersaunders Yes Owen my news feed is full of it. The medics in my news feed are getting annoyed too. He is just a bigot IMO

Jason ‏ @Lewishamdreamer
@drpetersaunders I call you out as a liar. Based on my last retweet.@Spleather

G* ‏ @georgie_guy
That's a shame; it's just so good! RT @drpetersaunders: Yes David. Sex between two people of the same sex - male or female - is always wrong

Sam Beezley ‏ @sambeezley
Only if you don't know how to do it "@drpetersaunders: Yes David. Sex between two people of the same sex - male or female - is always wrong"

Alex Scott ‏ @alexscott292
@drpetersaunders eight. How is it relevant to your fulminating homophobia?

Bagguley ‏ @bagguley
@drpetersaunders @shanemuk @andyheeps How can anyone believe such obvious horse-shit-superstitious-nonsense? Grow up ffs.

Adam Banks ‏ @adambanksdotcom
Police officers can't be active members of the BNP, but @drpetersaunders can practise medicine. This isn't sustainable

Matthew Tibbit ‏ @MTibbit
@LeyNathan I look at his page when you retweet him and I fancy a laugh but I can't bring myself to follow the idiot @drpetersaunders

bagguley @Bagguley
@drpetersaunders @shanemuk @AbbieKWalsh @andyheeps @TheNiceLadyDoc You really believe this fantasy bullshit dontcha. You are delusional.

Alex Scott ‏ @alexscott292
It strikes me I could write whatever prejudiced, unreconstructed maliciousness and rename it something like @drpetersaunders "homosceptic"

How the 'liberal' thought police shut down public discussion about homosexuality

Max Pemberton is a doctor who writes for the Daily Telegraph.

I have already commented on his latest offering, ‘There’s no such thing as a “gay cure”’, a shoddy piece of polemic, replete with unsupported assertions and misleading statements, which does him no credit.

But I also said then that I would return to his claim that Anglican Mainstream’s recent bus adverts were dangerous and motivated by prejudice.

I am not here defending Anglican Mainstream for their provocative plan to run ads on the side of some London buses reading ‘Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!’ which conjures up images for me of poking a short stick into a hornets’ nest.

Nor shall I comment on London mayor Boris Johnson’s move to block the adverts after they had been signed off, approved and paid for, or speculate about the ensuing court case, tempting though it is given his apparent enthusiasm for related causes!

But I do want to pick up on Max Pemberton’s reasons for saying why he thought the adverts should be banned in the first place, as he illustrates well an ever more common ploy of sections of the gay rights lobby that needs to be challenged and exposed.

Let’s allow Pemberton to explain the reasons he backs this censorship in his own words:

‘Young gay men and women are at a statistically higher risk of suicide and self-harming behaviours precisely because of alienating and prejudiced attitudes in society. These bus slogans would have perpetuated this and helped create a negative, hostile environment for often confused and vulnerable individuals. While I might not like it, I accept that it’s people’s right to express homophobic – or indeed racist or sexist – views, but in some circumstances society has to step in and place limitations on where you can say it so that it does not create an intolerable and damaging environment for those being attacked.’

This extraordinary paragraph deserves deeper analysis as it propagates a number of unproven assumptions that are regularly trotted out by the gay rights movement as if they were self-evident truths.

Pemberton’s first argument is that the bus campaign had to be stopped in order to save the lives of vulnerable young gay people. If the ads ran, he insinuates, some gay people would have killed themselves.

He offers no evidence whatsoever to back this up but simply asserts it as if to do so is to establish his point beyond any reasonable doubt - an extraordinary example of special pleading.

It is of course true that the gay community suffers from ‘a statistically higher risk of suicide and self-harming behaviours’ than the average, but Pemberton’s conclusion that this is ‘precisely because of alienating and prejudiced attitudes in society’ is hugely contentious.

However, so ingrained has this view become that many now accept without question the ‘fact’ that gay people take their own lives primarily because they are an oppressed and persecuted minority. The reality is far more complex than that.

The argument that gay people are downtrodden vulnerable victims may have worked in the 1960s but it is now wearing a little thin at a time when gay role models and celebrities are worshipped by the media and liberal establishment, when gay rights post Equality Act appear to trump all other rights in the courts, when gay rights activists, and those who support their worldview, are disproportionately represented in virtually every corridor of power and influence including even the Church of England and indeed when the Prime Minister himself champions gay rights and marginalises those who stand in the way.

But the argument that gay people are persecuted is in reality not actually an argument at all. It is rather a technique aimed at marginalising and silencing reasonable opposition.

It is intended to shut down debate and prevent anyone asking the perfectly valid question as to whether there might be any factors other than malicious oppression and exploitation contributing to the self-destructive tendencies of some people who engage in same-sex erotic behaviour.

Which brings me to Pemberton’s second point – that running the bus ads would have ‘helped create a negative, hostile environment for often confused and vulnerable individuals’ and led to gay people ‘being attacked’.

There are of course sadly still those who act violently toward gay people. This is completely unacceptable and perpetrators need to feel the full force of the law, as do those who carry out violence fuelled by prejudice against any other minority group in society.

But to suggest that these bus ads would have fuelled a fresh wave of ‘homophobic’ killings is at very least stretching it and at most frankly risible.

His third assumption is that the bus ads are ‘homophobic’. This is the label commonly thrown at anyone who questions any of the presuppositions of the gay rights lobby. But again it is an unwarranted assumption. The bus ads, taken at face value, appear to be motivated by the belief that sexual orientation, at least in some people, might actually change. This is not a moral viewpoint but a hypothesis open to scientific enquiry. It is also a belief held by prominent members of the gay community!

Pemberton’s fourth unstated assumption is that homosexual orientation is a characteristic analogous to skin colour or sex. Again this is highly contentious. In fact I’d suggest that to compare a predominant direction of sensual attraction, which is what sexual orientation is, with a genetically determined biological characteristic like skin colour or sex, is to make a basic category error.

That is, unless of course, one can prove that sexual orientation is genetically determined, something that so far no one has been able to do. In fact the current consensus is that it is a complex product of genes, upbringing, choice and habit.

It is high time that more people started calling the bluff of the gay rights lobby and questioning their unsubstantiated assumptions, name-calling and debating techniques.

There are important issues of public policy here to debate. Let’s try to do so in a spirit of robust openness without labeling and the intervention of thought police intent on closing down reasonable discussion.

The great irony about all of this is that those who are claim to advance ‘liberal values’ seem also to be those most intolerant of people expressing views that are different from their own. Not a healthy precedent for a liberal democratic society.

Peter Tatchell comes clean that homosexuality is neither biologically determined nor fixed

Many people think that homosexuality is a biological characteristic like race or sex – biologically fixed and genetically determined.

They think this because this is the view that has been successfully propagated by the gay rights lobby for decades in order to provide a justification for arguing that ‘homophobia’ is a form of discrimination akin to racism or sexism.

This belief has also been behind moves to treat discrimination against 'practising' homosexuals as a human rights issue by pretending that homosexuals are a biological category like 'women' or 'asians' whose distinctive features are genetically determined rather than just a group who have simply made a certain life-style choice.

But in fact the strength and direction of erotic attraction, although relatively stable in some people, can be quite changeable in others – it is often not fixed at all.

Similarly identical twins often have different sexual orientations proving that, although sexual orientation may have some genetic influences, it is not genetically determined. There is, in other words, no such thing as the gay gene.

Sexual orientation is much more accurately thought of in the category of a conditioned (and often variable) preference than a determined biological condition.

Most researchers now accept that sexual orientation (the predominant direction of sexual attraction one feels) is the result of a complex interaction in which nature, nurture and choice all play a part. But whether one acts on those feelings by having same sex relations is actually a matter of personal choice (see my previous blog on the difference between same sex feelings, orientation, identity and behaviour).

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated, ‘some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime’. The APA also says that ‘for some the focus of sexual interest will shift at various points through the life span...’

A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health similarly states, ‘For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time’

And in a recent Huffington Post article, ‘Future Sex: Beyond Gay and Straight’, gay rights activist Peter Tatchell affirms the fluidity of sexual attraction.

First he affirms the reality of bisexuality:

‘We already know, thanks to a host of sex surveys, that bisexuality is an fact of life and that even in narrow-minded, homophobic cultures, many people have a sexuality that is, to varying degrees, capable of both heterosexual and homosexual attraction.’

Then he challenges the traditional view that gay and straight are distinct categories:

‘Research by Dr Alfred Kinsey in the USA during the 1940s was the first major statistical evidence that gay and straight are not watertight, irreconcilable and mutually exclusive sexual orientations. He found that human sexuality is, in fact, a continuum of desires and behaviours, ranging from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. A substantial proportion of the population shares an amalgam of same-sex and opposite-sex feelings - even if they do not act on them.’

He then goes on to quote Kinsey’s (grossly inflated) assessments of the incidence of homosexuality whilst acknowledging that they ‘have since been criticised as out-of-date, exaggerated and unrepresentative’.

Tatchell also acknowledges that ‘evidence from sociology and anthropology (shows) that the incidence and form of heterosexuality and homosexuality is not fixed and universal, and that the two sexual orientations are not mutually exclusive. There is a good deal of fluidity and overlap.’

‘What's more,’ he adds, ‘although scientific evidence shows that human sexuality is significantly affected by biological predispositions - such as genes and hormones - other influences appear to be cultural, including social expectations, peer pressure and the availability and opportunity for sexual release. These influences channel erotic impulses in certain directions and not others.’

In fact he even goes so far as to suggest that some homosexual identities are formed as a result of people reacting to perceived prejudice in others:

‘Gay and lesbian identities are largely the product of homophobic prejudice and repression. They are a self-defence mechanism against homophobia. Faced with persecution for having same-sex relations, the right to have those relationships has to be defended - hence gay identity and the gay rights movement.’

Tatchell, despite these admissions, grossly inflates the true incidence of exclusive homosexuality.

The best evidence (1,2,3) actually suggests that only a very small percentage of men (1-2%) and women (0.5-1.5%) experience exclusive same-sex attraction throughout their life course. It appears that more men and women experience mixed patterns of sexual interest. This includes shifts of interest from one sex to another at various points in their lives or attractions to both sexes at the same time.

Tatchell is right though in saying that bisexuality appears to be more prevalent than exclusive gay/lesbian and if defined in terms of same sex behaviours in past year, may be as much as 5% in men and 11% in women aged 15-44 (4).

Sexual attractions are therefore best understood as lying on a spectrum rather than in terms of a simple dichotomous binary categorisation. Survey data suggest that mixed patterns of sexual desire, including attraction to both sexes at the same time, appear to be more common than exclusive same sex attraction, especially among women.

So what?

Well, like many, I am getting rather tired of the term ‘homophobic’ being used as an accusatory label to tar anyone who does not accept, approve and celebrate same-sex sexual relationships and believe that homosexual orientation is a biological characteristic like race or sex.

There are a large and growing number of people (I call them ‘homosceptics’) who neither hate nor fear ‘gay’ people but simply believe that sex outside a lifelong exclusive heterosexual marriage is morally wrong and the fact that we have certain feelings of sexual attraction does not mean that we should therefore act on them.

These people are also highly sceptical about the key presuppositions on which the gay rights movement has based its campaign, such as the beliefs that:

• Homosexuality is genetically determined
• Homosexual orientation is always fixed
• Sexual orientation is a biological characteristic like race, sex or skin colour
• Feelings of same sex attraction should be welcomed and acted upon
• Offering help to those who wish to resist or eradicate these feelings is always wrong

Tacthell’s arguments above, and the findings of recent research, confirm that these beliefs are actually more ‘ideology-driven’ than ‘evidence-based’.

But Tatchell, by suggesting that gay and straight are not distinct categories at all, has also pulled the rug out from under the feet of the gay rights’ movement.

Of course if you accept these ‘key presuppositions’ in spite of the evidence to the contrary you may well believe that people who don’t are ignorant, bigoted, prejudiced or even immoral. You might even feel that such people should not hold public office, publicly express their views or hold any job which involves having to condone, promote or facilitate same-sex intimacy. And you might feel justified in branding everyone who does not share your views as 'homophobic'.

But if you have any sort of intellectual integrity, then you should accept that you have adopted these beliefs in the face of, in fact in spite of, the evidence.

And if so you should stop using divisive labels, and accept rather that there are some people who believe with good cause that to treat homosexual orientation as a fixed biological characteristic like race or sex is to confer upon it a status that it does not and should not have.

References

1. Dickson, N, C Paul, and P Herbison. ‘Same-Sex Attraction in a Birth Cohort: Prevalence and Persistence in Early Adulthood’.Social Science & Medicine 56, No. 8 (2003): 1607-15.

2. Laumann, Edward O., John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

3. Savin-Williams, RC, and GL Ream. ‘Prevalence and Stability of Sexual Orientation Components During Adolescence and Young Adulthood’. Archives of Sexual Behavior 36 (2007): 385-94.

4. Last year, two important reports have been published in the United States. The 2011 National Health Statistics Report (NHSR) is a nationally representative, multi-stage study that investigates a wide range of sexual attractions and behaviours (A. Chandra et al., Sexual Behaviour, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2011). A review from the UCLA School of Law combines data from nine recent surveys (G. J. Gates, How Many People are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender?, The Williams Institute, UCLA, 2011)

Leading article in Independent shows 'tolerant liberals' at their intolerant illiberal worst

Delegates at the National Union of Teachers' conference in Harrogate have warned that ‘homophobic bullying in schools is “endemic" and likely to rise with the impending growth in the number of faith schools’ and, in a motion overwhelmingly backed by delegates, have called on their union ‘to conduct an investigation into discrimination in faith schools’.

Bullying is to be denounced and should not be tolerated in any school in any circumstances for any reason but today’s accompanying 'leading article' in the Independent, titled ‘Faith schools must confront homophobia’, has a much more pernicious tone and insidious agenda.

Its main failings are its failure to define the term 'homophobia' (it conflates 'believing that homosexual acts are morally wrong' with 'hating gay people') and its assumption that there is such a thing in our multi-faith and multicultural society as a 'an agreed set of British values'.

In this way, rather than providing a basis for discussing an important issue (bullying directed against gay people), it risks doing little more than stirring up prejudice against people who subscribe to religious faith. Maybe that is its intention.

Surely the whole problem is that as a society we do not actually have 'an agreed set of values'. Britain is not a monoculture and it is certainly not a monocultural 'modern, liberal society' however much the author might wish that it was.

Part of respecting diversity is to understand that intelligent and well-meaning people come to different views on morality, ethics and on which of the broad range of world views held by British people they think most closely reflects reality.

This high-handed and patronising editorial paints a rather perverse (and largely untrue) picture of faith schools as emphasising 'differences between people rather than uniting them', sourcing 'their core values in historically intolerant creeds' and allowing 'bigotry' to 'shelter behind the mantle of religious conviction'.

It is precisely this sort of intolerance expressed by the (conveniently anonymous) author that stirs up prejudice towards, and even demonises, people of faith

I suspect the writer's real intention is to promote the secular fundamentalist agenda with the aim of undermining public funding for schools which espouse any 'faith' other than secular humanism.

But a free, liberal and tolerant society is actually one where diverse views on such issues as morality, God, sex, origins and the afterlife are both recognised and allowed to be taught and expressed.

Let's stamp out bullying by all means - but let's not allow it to be used as a platform for promoting the secular fundamentalist agenda and demonisng everyone who thinks differently.

(For an alternative perspective on 'homophobia' see my previous blog on homophobia and homoscepticism)

Do you object to being labelled 'homophobic' when you are actually just 'homosceptic'?

Last month’s election threw up some interesting results as a variety of issues took prominence in different constituencies.

In particular we saw strong reactions to four conservative parliamentary candidates who had, either during the campaign or previously, held views which were judged as being ‘homophobic’.

Philip Lardner lost his candidacy for saying that homosexuality was 'not normal behaviour' – sacked by party leader David Cameron. The uproar surrounding Philippa Stroud’s Christian beliefs about the issue was a major factor in her failing to take Sutton and Cheam for the Tories. Chris Grayling’s comments about Christians offering ‘bed and breakfast’ being justified in denying double beds to gay couples staying in their homes almost certainly cost him a cabinet post.

Theresa May managed to hold on as Equality Minister after the election, despite over 70,000 people joining a Facebook group asking for her to be sacked on the basis of her past ‘homophobic’ voting record, when she said her views on homosexuality had now changed.

Being judged ‘homophobic’ can cost you dearly.

I’ve always been puzzled by the term ‘homophobia’. In the minds of most people it means being prejudiced against, or even hating, people who are homosexual.

Wikipedia defines it as ‘a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people identified or perceived as being homosexual’.

In keeping with this view, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King in a 1998 address, equated homophobia to ‘racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry’ on the grounds that ‘it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood’.

It is therefore understandable that 'homophobic' is a label that no one wants to have.

However when the term was first used it actually meant something quite different.

The word homophobia first appeared in print in an article written for the 23 May 1969 edition of the American tabloid Screw, in which it was used to refer to heterosexual men's fear that others might think they are gay. It has also been used to describe a fear of people who ‘come out’ as homosexual.

These definitions are much more in keeping with the literal meaning. After all, a phobia is a fear: claustrophobia, arachnophobia and acrophobia being fears of closed spaces, spiders and heights respectively.

For many people 'homophobia' is actually about ‘having a fear of being accused of being bigoted, prejudiced or discriminating against homosexual people’.

This fear, which is increasingly common, causes people to take a defensive posture in order to avoid attracting disapproval or adverse publicity. This may take the form of changing ones public position, pretending to adopt views in accordance with the prevailing liberal consensus, actively denying ones real beliefs or simply abstaining from expressing an opinion when the matter is discussed.

This kind of ‘homophobia’ is becoming increasingly common amongst those who belong to religious faiths which teach that sex outside marriage is wrong (ie. most world faiths) and it is not difficult to come up with examples of (often) prominent people in whom the condition is well advanced.

For people who don’t hate, dislike or fear gay people, but simply believe that sex between people who are not married (including all sex between those of the same sex) is morally wrong, we need a new term.

I’d like to propose the term ‘homosceptic’ - a term that is not yet in common use and hence arguably open to (re)definition. My Microsoft Word spell-check rejects it as an unknown word and a Google search for it throws up only 1,830 examples of its use in any context.

The Urban dictionary defines a 'homosceptic' as ‘a member of society who does not hate homosexuals, but generally does not agree with the principle of homosexuality in moral and ethical terms’.

I’d like to broaden this definition to include ‘being sceptical about the key presuppositions of the gay rights movement’ such as the beliefs that:

• Homosexuality is genetically determined
• Homosexual orientation is always fixed
• Sexual orientation is a biological characteristic like race, sex or skin colour
• Feelings of same sex attraction should be welcomed and acted upon
• Offering help to those who wish to resist or eradicate these feelings is always wrong

Of course if you accept these ‘key presuppositions’ you may well believe people who don’t to be ignorant, bigoted, prejudiced or even immoral. You might even feel that such people should not hold public office, publicly express their views or hold any job which involves having to condone, promote or facilitate same-sex intimacy.

But if you have some doubts about the truth of some or all of these beliefs – and suspect that they might be more ‘ideology-driven’ than ‘evidence-based’ – then perhaps you could argue that you are not ‘homophobic’ but rather ‘homosceptic’.