Terminology - Gay & Homosexual

I hate to post something like this so late in the game. But it needs to be done. Words are extremely important . Over time it seems the connotative can overpower and replace the denotative. With something that is very emotionally charged this can lead to muddled denotation. With the word "gay" this is certainly the case.

According to the dictionary, gay means a homosexual. When and how this happened is for another post. "Homosexual" according to dictionary.com is: "(noun) sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex." I balk at this in general since it links sex with sexual behavior. You can have a homosexual high-five, two people of the same sex giving a high five. It completely removes the idea of one having a sex without having to have sex. I also balk at this when being applied to a person for the following reasons: 1) There are folks who have homosexual encounters without being particularly attracted to people of the same sex. 2) There are folks who have infrequent or minimal same sex attraction. It can mitigate the gradation in sexual orientation. 3) The word homosexual wasn't even coined until the late 19th century by psychiatrists. (Interesting to note is the word heterosexuality originally denoted the desire to have sex with the opposite sex without family life.) Prior to that point sodomite or pervert was given. Nevertheless, when understood properly this is a good definition to describe non-personal behaviors or inclinations. I would be inclined to state that a person is a homosexual only when either inclinations and/or behaviors are predominant. If someone is homosexual by predominance in behaviors - regardless of inclinations - the term "active" is best applied in conjunction for clarity. Behaviors or inclinations that are directly related to sexual acts with people of the same sex are homosexual too.

The problem is that the word "gay", more so than "homosexual", seems to carry connotations and thus restrictions or non-existent implications. For whatever reason there ARE "gay" subcultures, and predominant "gay" subcultures at that. Sometimes when the word is used it is meant that the person it is applied to chooses to act on their un-chosen same sex attraction (SSA). Or even simply that they have many of the mannerisms or preferences associated with the term. When it is used in the pejorative sense this is especially clear.

An even deeper issue is how "gay" fits into the English language. English in general is odd in that we say "I am hungry;" we speak as if it is a state of being, as opposed to other languages which say "I have hunger," something that is possessed. English has no way of conveying depth or duration of a state of being without being verbose. The closest we get is in the distinction between titles and general nouns. We say "I am hungry" or "I am tired", not "I am a hungry" or "I am a tired". It's as if we are saying we share in this universal nature of hunger or tiredness or sloppiness or whatever. This can lead to some level of identity conflation when it comes to other things we say we are. For this reason, along with what was mentioned earlier about the frequently concurrent mannerisms and preferences, it is easy for the word to conjure a huge chunk of identity in the person whom it is being applied to. If so-and-so says "Bobby is gay," one cannot help but think back to earlier interactions with Bobby and recall aspects of his personality and preferences that somehow are now linked to his sexual preferences. It's easy to get trapped and have it consume one's entire identity, which is why I am uncomfortable saying "I'm gay". Since it seems identity issues are at least correlated to same sex attraction, it is also another reason to be cautious.

Many people who believe in reparative therapy or even just the immorality of homosexual acts avoid using this term for those reasons. It's kind of funny now that I think about it. One of the aforementioned arguments against using the word gay is that it connotes or even denotes aspects of one's identity and personality that aren't necessarily true or at least desirable. But if there is genuine correlation between the term and one's preferences, temperament and mannerisms, wouldn't that aid in the argument that homosexual inclinations are largely developed by implicating these other aspects as precursors or exacerbating factors?

Also I feel that many who oppose using the term gay are doing so for more subtle reasons, primarily out of an anxiety to not endorse anything they cannot condone. I can't help feel when I use the term that I am somehow conceding to an agenda, that they have succeeded in warping language. That somehow by using the term "gay" I am legitimizing certain aspects of it that I can't agree with. And when applying it to myself I can somehow communicate that I condone the behaviors that are immoral or even practice them myself. However, these people fail to see that CULTURES define words, not necessarily intellectuals who can make clear distinctions. Even if an agenda pushed for a term, if it is adopted we need to respect how context defines things.

If "gay" is simply understood by the culture to mean: "One who has predominant same sex attraction," then I'm gay. Nevertheless it is next to impossible to weed out associations. Then again, there are campy stereotypically gay preferences and mannerisms that I do have. So if "gay" were to mean: "Someone who has predominant SSA and more than likely associated mannerisms and preferences" I would still fall into that category. If "gay" means to most people: "I experience predominant SSA, I participate in homosexual behavior and have many of the correlated preferences and mannerisms" I would STILL fall into that category. However if it meant: "I experience same sex attraction, I participate in and CONDONE homosexual behavior and have many of the correlated preferences and mannerisms," only then I would have a problem with it.

When I am confronted with all of the additional words I need to use to articulate myself and other nouns without using the word "gay" I am faced with a daunting task. Additionally, I risk alienating my audience. While I am not one for dumbing down my vocabulary, I do appreciate the effort to relate to people with words that show I can empathize with them. In the end it comes down to two primary dangers: First is the social, somehow by saying "gay" I am conveying that I condone immoral behaviors and false ideas. Or even just that I agree with something I don't, simple miscommunication. Second is the danger of it consuming my identity or overshadowing the identity of other nouns which I apply it to, especially people. In which case I view the word much like the term "sinner". It is something that I am and will be until I die. There is even a nature to being a sinner that is immediately connotatively suggested. The danger is letting that become the focus. If I avoid applying the word entirely to me I can fall into pride. If I use it to much I can fall into despair. Likewise if I use the word "gay" too much it can overshadow my personality and usurp my identity. For the purpose of this blog "gay" will mean not only "a person who experiences predominant SSA", but also "those preferences, personality traits and mannerisms associated with SSA and homosexual behavior". Context will largely communicate which is which.

Thus, there is gay culture. Even if there is segregation and even polar opposites it doesn't stop it from existing. Pink and pleather can be gay, but so can cowboy outfits. Light is a particle and a wave. Denying that light exists isn't going to solve it. It is a difficulty, not a doubt. A thousand difficulties do not make one doubt. Fortunately there are terms to describe the differences, i.e., pink and pleather = fem or queen (which is a fem guy) and butch. I plan to do a post talking about all the subcultures someday.

With that being said, the only final argument against using gay as a term that denotes associative things (for lack of a better word) with homosexuality is that it can extend or validate that with which is associated. This can lead to excessive suspicion, which in turn can lead to legit homophobia and loss of that which is good and not explicitly or more fundamentally tied with homosexuality. All of us have something we like, do, think about etc... that can be considered "gay" in this sense. A good way to avoid this is to systematically bring up all that which is seen as gay which shouldn't be. Which really is the purpose of this blog. To point out how we are all gay, but not all gay and that one can be gay without being gay ultimately so we can all be gay.
In all of these instances gay meant something different. And that's ok, I'm not going to stop using the word because some people may not be able to distinguish its meaning based on context, but I will make an effort to make sure what I mean by it is clear.

For simplicity's sake, in this blog the word gay can mean:
1) A person who is homosexual (according to definition above)
2) A person who condones homosexuality and is homosexual ("pro-gay homosexual" is best)
3) Behaviors or inclinations directly related to homosexuality
5) Those mannerisms and preferences that are culturally or indirectly associated with being homosexual
5) Being happy

There are many uses of the word gay which one can be without belonging to the others, too (with the exception of two).

Marriage, can it be gay?

This is a very philosophical post. If you have the patience for it perhaps it will give you a better understanding of arguments for the proper definition of marriage.

If we say that God intended marriage and sexuality for one man and one woman we then have to ask "why?" and "how do we know this?" A fundamentalist view is to simply that "the bible sayeth so and ye hamasaxuals (pronounced hama (like llama) saxual (like saxiphone... but "ual" added on) will perish! (along with papists!)". Such a mind frame hardly takes into consideration the historical ::ahem:: ecclesial origins of the bible. It is likely these folks will have a hard time with logic. Especially since they are appealing to an authority without first establishing its legitimacy. Even so in general appealing to an authority is a logical fallacy.

Why does God say one man, one woman? Ultimately "theology of the body" demonstrates why. (When I say theology of the body and you think "Christopher West" it's about time you actually get the latest translation and read it yourself. Since that is almost as depressing as thinking "Marty Haugen" when you hear "traditional music".) Although, really common sense kind of provides the answer to this.

What is the function of that which we call the sexual organs? Science says reproduction. It's very simple and biologically proven. When a man is stimulated to the point of ejaculation and if it is while penetrating the vagina the result under normal circumstances are several hundred million sperm swimming up and actually being sucked up by contractions in the woman to an egg. That is if intercourse is within that small window of time. This is empirically indisputable.

So why should we not thwart such processes? Well, there's a couple reasons. First is if you accept there is a God, then logically (since the essence of God is creator) He "created" (notice I believe in evolution so this isn't 6 day creationism) and what's important about that is he has intention and puts order into what He made. If we can say there is a God and we can say He "created" that is he also designed (no, not intelligent design theory there's a difference, see the works of the late Fr. Dr. Jacki) then we can say that there is a purpose, a meaning and an end to this design. Notice this inference of a design is ultimately a philosophical one. Science cannot tell us if it is random or design, it only tells us what is.

If this is the case we can say we reflect God's nature most fully when we procreate. Only God can create something out of nothing, so to participate in that activity that begets kiddies is to reflect God most fully.

As a side note, if you adhere to a monotheistic belief system that believes in the Trinity, ordered sexual relationships reflect the holy Trinity. As God the Father eternally begets the Son and the love between the two is the Holy Ghost. A man and woman loving etc... then there is a third... except we are in time which means it happens chronologically and, well, there's a lot more to it now that Sin has kind of screwed up the whole process.

In the end, if you accept that an essential part of our being is sexuality and an essential part of sexuality is procreation which then is predicated on the idea that God has created the universe a certain way, which is to say he intended for various things to have a certain purpose and because of how they were made. We can then safely say using sexuality for any other purposes is damaging to us since it goes against his intent. This is because of how essential sexuality is to our Nature.

What does this have to do with marriage?

The argument is simple; marriage is that institution that humans engage in to ensure the best situation for a sexual relationship. If children are to be raised then a life-long commitment is necessary to ensure the best rearing of children. I think I can safely say without citing a statistic that most people who have grown up in a divorced family can testify to the negative effect of divorce on the family life.

But let's address the arguments people use for homo-marriages. This is not meant to be exhaustive, but here are some I have heard:

1) "Two adults who love each other should be able to make a commitment to each other.”

2) "Straight people have messed up marriage so gay people should be able to give it a shot."

3) "Some traditional marriages used to involve rape and other antiquated things."

4) "There was this one time a gay lover was refused from seeing his beloved who was in the hospital, if they were married they would be allowed to do this."

And just for good measure I will include one that I haven't heard, but could hear:

5) "If marriage is about raising kids what's wrong with a committed relationship that adopts? It includes sexual expression and the raising of kids". With the case of some lesbians there is even invitro fertilization which mimics the 'natural' process anyways".

Response to objection 1) This objection begs the questions: “What is love?”

The answer to the former is that loving is the willing of the beloved for their good according to their Nature and the nature of the relationship. Nature in this instance is not what is necessarily observed in nature. Nature in this instance means what /should/ be. Nature with a big “N” is a philosophical inference, not a scientific one. Science only tells us what is, what has been and what could be, not what should be. With that establish we return to what was mentioned earlier. If there is a God who established the universe with intention we can then discover what he intended versus what is etc…

2) This can be addressed in to wasy: A) It is right that people who have heterosexual relationships have damaged the institution of marriage. If we accept contraceptives, divorce etc… as norms for marriage then marriage has been redefined and technically this argument could (sort of) work. That is if it was formulated properly. If, however, the norms of marriage insist upon an exclusive, totally open to life, sexual relationship occurring within an indissoluble bond this argument does not follow.

B) A person who fails to do an action properly does not give license for another person to fail at it even further. A man who does not succeed in jumping over a fence and claiming he did succeed does not give a man the right to jump over a wall and say he jumped over a fence no matter how similar the action.

3) While all marriages involve traditions that is a matter of attribute not of substance. The substance of marriage persists despite better or worse things that have concurred with it.

4) This argument is basically saying that a particular instance in which a subjectively dissatisfying experience that may or may not have been the result of injustice is sufficient reason to give license for people to use the term marriage how they please. Presumably this is because it will provide the necessary legal rights and privileges that will prevent such a situation from occurring. The rights and privileges in this particular case focus on common practices in medical institutions. Quite simply providing the people who are in these situations with the rights and privileges to avoid such a misfortune is the way around it. Not redefining marriage. It should also be known that even the California supreme acknowledges that the rights and privileges of same-sex couples are identical to that of married persons. ( See the post Beyond Gay and Prop 8).

5) Once again this implicitly denies the intention of our sexual faculties. It gives license to use them in a way that will never naturally produce children. Invitro is an unnatural process in two ways. It does not occur in nature and it goes against our Nature. Same gender sexual activity will never result in children no matter how committed the individuals are. Adoption is not the result of same sex activities.

In the end if you reject God it’s impossible to prove that marriage should remain a heterosexual institution without turning to utilitarianism or consequentialism.