Homosexuality: Even a Linguistic Error
Touchstone magazine published an article by R.V. Young (available on-line) this month that studies the linguistic development of the term “homosexual†and its correlation to claims made about what it is and how it has been understood throughout history. Some important/interesting points Young makes (some of which I harp on constantly here):
-
a. Homosexuality is what someone does not what he is
b. There is an inherent contradiction among activists who want to reduce sexual differences to social constructs but assign to the status of “nature†that which causes same sex attraction
c. Linguistically homo-sex is oxymoronic based upon each term’s original etymology
d. A change in meaning of the term “sex†and its replacement with “gender†helps explain and undermine the ideology of feminist and “gay†activists
Two beefs I have with the article:
-
a. Perhaps this can be interpreted correctly, but his use of the phrase “sinfulness of our nature,†can suggest an ontological change to human nature due to the Fall. I admit that this is not an unusual phrase but it leads to misunderstanding and is in fact in correct, if interpreted to mean that we have a different nature than our first parents.
b. I may disagree with Young’s belief that some may be born with a proclivity to same sex attraction among other problems. Again, if he means by this that genetic factors combined with environmental stimuli make some more susceptible to same sex attraction disorder than others than I would agree. If this is interpreted to mean that a genetic transcription problem is the sole causal factor in SSA than I would argue that the data I have seen to this point, make me think this unlikely.
.jpg)
