I have just returned from a frenetic and hugely enjoyable and successful trip to Oakland in California, during which I gave five talks in a little over 24 hours. Upon my return, and browsing through the discussions on the Ink Desk, I noted the controversy caused by Colin Jory’s post on “Homosexuality and Terminological Social Engineering”. I sympathize and agree with those who are concerned that we remain charitable to our neighbours, regardless of the nature of their sins, and agree that a Christian should always avoid the descent into mere name-calling. None of this should detract from Colin’s primary purpose, which was to address the issue of terminological social engineering. The abuse of language in the service of wrong-headed political “correctness” is something of which we should be aware and against which we should fight. I do not use the word “gay” in reference to homosexuality because it pollutes the gaiety of the word’s true meaning and because the neologism has turned the adjective into an archaism.
As for “homosexual”, it is an awkward and ugly word. Since “homo” means man in the inclusive sense of humanity, i.e. men and women, it has been said that the word literally means “human sexual”, thereby rendering it meaningless. This is, however, not true. The word is actually a combination of “homos”, which means “same”, and “sexual”, i.e. homosexual means “same sexual” and is, therefore, an accurate description of the attraction being described, as distinct from “heterosexual”, in which “hetero” means “different” or “other”, i.e. “other sexual”. The accuracy of the word “homosexual” is hardly surprising since it was invented as a medical term in the nineteenth century.
Another word invented in the nineteenth century for same-sex attraction was “sexual invert”, often abbreviated simply to “invert”. This term has a greater resonance because it ascibes to same sex attraction an inversion of the purpose of the sexual act, which is union with the “other” (hetero), with the implicit assumption that procreation is its purpose. Inversion reverses the true purpose of the sexual act, which is to bring forth new life. Invert is, therefore, a better word than the clinically accurate “homosexual” because it conveys the deeper reality at the inverted heart of the thing being described.
The words matter. Use them according to what they mean, not how they sound. (The latter is a purely political concern.)
But words are always–always–contextual. You can’t ignore grammar. No matter how much of a nuisance it is, it’s the foundation of logic and of sanity. So, the words matter–but so does their function.
You can’t “be” a homosexual (or a hetero) because you can’t be an adjective. You have to be a noun, whether you like it or not.
I’ve written about this before, and I won’t repeat myself, but the comments criticizing Colin’s post ignore the point that he was making–which was not about persons with same-sex attraction, but about language.
Agreed, Joseph, but how often do we even hear the more common word “pervert” any more? Pervert was a very good word, which, like invert, described the “turning away” from the proper purpose of sex, and carried with it a very strong derogatory content, as it should have.
But, dear Dena, we can “be” adjectives, or we could never “be” holy, or even “good” – though I’ve never personally come all that close, anyhow.
The point some of Colin’s critics were making was that a person is more than his sexual preference. This is certainly true, but I countered with the point that sin narrows us and enslaves us and turns Smeagol into Gollum – we do indeed become our adjectives, when those adjectives are descriptions of sins that we give our lives and our hearts to. “Where your heart is, there will your treasure be also -” and some people’s hearts are given to the most perverse of things. Give yourself to lechery and you eventually become a lecher, and little more than that.
Please note our own words, Kevin, “you can be a lecher.” Right. You can be–you must be–a NOUN. You cannot BE an adjective. We are sinful, we are not sin. We can be pretty/ugly/smart/dumb/lecherous/predatory–but these do not DEFINE us; they describe us.
There is a huge difference between an adjective and a noun; it’s the difference between eternal life and eternal death. Yet, people who have same-sex attractions–and others–DEFINE themselves by their adjectives. No. That’s not WHAT you are. A thousand times no.
Do think about the distinction. It is–to me, at least–of incalculable importance, not only for how I see others, but how I see myself.