There is a general belief that conceptual clarity exists re the terms ‘sexual orientation, homosexuality and homophobia’. This belief is dead wrong as I hope to show now. According to the therapeutic manual of the American Psychiatric Association there are upwards of at least twenty distinctive sexual variations of ‘sexual orientation’. This goes way beyond the traditional orientations of heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and bestiality and includes the ‘paraphilias’ like incest, necrophilia, etc. Would all of these more than twenty sexual orientations qualify for protection in our charter of rights? And after all what really is sexual orientation, predominant inclination, predominant sexual desire, practice or what? More importantly because of the seeming fluidity of sexual orientation (people’s sexual appetites can and do change over time) how defensible is it as a protected right within a nation’s charter of rights?
The criterion of immutability usually associated with protected rights is not applicable to sexual orientation at all. There is a growing concern among clinicians and behavioural scientists about what qualifies as homosexuality. Law and Bioethics Professor Lynn Wardle has raised some interesting questions towards a definition of homosexuality. For instance he asks whether thoughts about engaging in same-sex intercourse qualifies as homosexuality or is sexual behavior required as well. Whether the definition is based on feeling/inclination or behavior, questions of level, intensity, frequency and historical timeline are relevant in Professor Wardle’s view. Then Wardle raises the thorny issue of a man who was a practicing heterosexual for 15 years but two months ago abandoned that practice for same-sex intercourse (cited in Mathew Staver, Same-Sex Marriage: Putting Every Household at Risk, 2004, 76).
As a student of languages I find this coinage very weird, etymologically and conceptually. As the word is popularly used it seems to mean at least dislike or disgust for homosexuals. If this is the dominant ethos of the word it is a poor coinage etymologically. Phobia is Greek for fear and the homo part of the word (similarly for homosexual) is not Latin-derived but is drawn from the Greek word homoios, meaning same. Nobody really fears homosexuals but a goodly number of us are repulsed at some of the practices associated with homosexuality. I know homosexuals for whom I have the profoundest respect as persons and as talented professionals be they lecturers, journalists, musicians, politicians or parsons but I maintain that the act of eating a person’s faeces or showering in a person’s urine, even once, is downright sick, pathological and disgusting. Indeed such practices pose public health challenges. As we foster public dialogue on our charter of rights let us seek clarity on the key terms and concepts that are central to the charter or deemed to be missing from the charter.
My two cents
To limit his view of homosexuals to just the professional class is precisely the major issue I have in how we have discourse on the subject it's as if we are teetering on the perception that it is an import from the foreign mostly Caucasion middle to upper middle socio economic classes. And what the hell does he mean by? - but I maintain that the act of eating a person’s faeces or showering in a person’s urine, even once, is downright sick, pathological and disgusting. Indeed such practices pose public health challenges.
As if to loop all male homosexuals (while conveniently leaving out lesbians when the word as he tries to sway us means persons attracted to the same sex) want is anal sex and we are so urgently desperate for a battyhole to enter therein with our dicks. Oh please Reverend Chisolm if you do not know how we fuck then just ask for clarification this just goes to show that even as a reverend gentleman you too are covered under the highly sexualized mental psyche of the nation to think all we do is wade in shit.
And what health challenges does that pose in today's modern world of safer sex gadgetry and cleansing items on the market? Same gender loving men are no longer exposed to excretory matter in or around the body and contrary to popular belief sexual practices of bare-backing and penetrative sex were not as popular for gay men as now, Greek and Roman men mostly practiced intercrural sex or our version of missionary where the penis was placed between the legs to reenact or fake the feeling of penetration similar to when a woman who is seeing her menstrual cycle may do the same with her legs. Enemas such as the ones in the photo are readily available locally at popular pharmacies and reasonably priced as well for up to $300 a bottle for a single use bottle. As more and more men demand cleaner sex these items are now the rage so I do not know what health risk the goodly reverend speak of plus many of these products contain sodium based mixes that help to clean and protect the linning of the rectum.
Why does everyone feel that they have to find something in that realm from their figment of their imagination to condemn homosexual acts between men? Just leave it alone if it does not please you, simple!
Besides the word homosexual was only formally introduced into the English language by a Dutch Hungarian gentleman named Mari Kert Benney on May 6 1868 when at that time in the very ultra progressive Prussian version of parliament this forward thinking man led a bill now known as Paragraph 145 across the floor arguing the same points we are arguing today which are consent, privacy and tolerance. His mix of the Greek and Latin to form this new word did not sit well with the intelligencia of that as it was considered an anathema to mix the more superior legal Latin with the second tiered Greek in any lexicon.
Please Reverend Chisholm judge not and ye shall not be judged all this pontificating and intelligent masturbation will get us nowhere just love and let God do the rest.
What are we scared of in this matter, do we feel homosexuals are here to make everyone else gay? Utter rubbish.
Peace and tolerance