Moderator Note:

If you want to comment directly on the thread topic for the debate between Aaron and lagtight, feel free to do so in the main debate thread. Please put other comments here. I'll be moving any off-topic comments made in the main thread here.

-Original Position





Calling a gay person a sodomite is extremely offensive. Unlike the n-word where if you are white you should refrain from saying it in most contexts, but the black community has taken ownership of the word, sodomite is unused in the LGBT community. In the specific instance of studying a KJV passage or the decline in anti-sodomy laws in the US or something it might be reasonable, but otherwise just don't.

Hi, uke_master.

FWIW, the website dictionary.com does not flag "sodomite" as a derogatory or offensive word. But since the thin-skinned "PC" crowd seems to rule the roost here at 2+2, I can see why its usage would result in a temp-ban.

Thanks for your input.

That is worth very little. That term sodomite has extremely low usage in modern society and is not just rejected by thin-sinned PC moderators, but by the gay community and society at large. You should know this. Perhaps the closest comparison I can think of is "Negro", a similarly anachronistic term that to be used today to refer to a black person would be extremely offensive.

The following guide from the prominent LGBT group GLAAD may help you understanding the opinion of the gay community on the matter (click link to see unstarred versions if you can't figure them out)

I've never heard anyone cite Dictionary.com to determine whether a word is derogatory or offensive.

What is seen as derogatory or offensive is always with respect to the present cultural expectations. If you look at the history of words, you'll find that a great many terms we use today were once offensive and derogatory. The term "jaywalking" is a common example of this. Or you can look into the history of the term "queer."

One of the basic natures of language is that it changes over time. What you see as "political correctness" could simply be a reflection of the fact that the language you want to use is no longer in use in that manner.

Edit: If you want a more interesting one, look up the lawsuits around "eenie meenie miney mo." Essentially, there are two very common next lines in that nursery rhyme. One is offensive and the other is not. But who gets to decide which one is the "correct" understanding?

I can moderate this thread in 3 ways, let me know which you prefer (for Aaron and lagtight):

1) As a primary debate thread with only two participants and a side thread for commentary.

2) As a heavily modded High Content thread.

3) As a regular thread.

As for the use of "sodomite," it is not banned in RGT.

I hope that the United Negro College Fund is aware that the name of their organization is offensive to black people.

Hi, OP.

I will defer to Aaron's judgement regarding these three options.

No need to play games, of course they are aware of the history of the word. This is not black and white in the sense that there is no context where it can ever be used. The UNCF, which has maintained its historical name from a time when negro was acceptable and african americans referred to themselves in this way instead of black; heck some in older generations still do this. That doesn't in any way negate my point that the anachronistic term remains offensive in innumerable contexts. Obama is the first black president, not the first negro president.

Much the same as sodomite, which is even more unused in the LGBT community. You shouldn't impose terms on them. Just don't use it unless you are doing something like textual analysis of the bible.

I think we can start it as a not-heavily moderated thread. I'd like to believe that we can hold it together. But I could be wrong. If it starts to get too bogged down, I think extracting out the side commentary from the main conversation would be better. (Actually, extracting out the main conversation would be easier because it will probably only be about 10-15 posts long whereas the side commentary may be several dozen posts...)

Mr. Obama was both the first black president and the first negro president. Even though the word "negro" is archaic, it hasn't lost it's meaning.

Wow, who made you the Vocabulary Czar? Did Mr. Trump create a new task force and put you in charge of it?

I'm not imposing terms on anybody. I can't "impose" on the LGBT folks the word sodomite any more than they can impose on me that I refer to them as "gay." They can use any word that they want to refer to themselves, and I can use any word that I want to refer to them.

Note to Moderator: Maybe we can move the "sodomite" discussion to another thread?

Do you ever think living is absurd and stupid?

Make sure to edit it out of your original post then. Any inquiry about the use of sodomite should have a clear refutation that this is offensive and disgusting in almost all contexts and not be left unanswered.

sure, you can. But you are almost certainly bring homophobic and shamefully provocative if you call gays sodomites knowing how culturally unacceptable it is.

I have no problem being "culturally unacceptable."

Given that I'm not afraid of sodomites ("phobia" means "in fear of"), I'm not sure that I can be properly labeled as "homophobic."

As an aside, I virtually never introduce sexual issues into theological or political discussions. It's always in response to someone else bringing it up. I might literally never talk or think about "gender issues" if the media didn't constantly talk about it.

I can't edit or delete a post after it has been posted for over an hour. I have no problem with the moderator moving all of the posts in this thread about sodomites to another thread.

+1

I admire your zeal, and look forward (in a new thread) to continuing this dialogue. Would that more people would have your passion to do what they believe is the right thing.

You have a profound confusion of what homophobia means. You seem to like dictionaries, so here it is:

Calling gay people sodomites isn't homophobic because it shows you have some literal fear of them.

Your posts are strange. I can't tell if you are just genuinely ignorant on the topic (you were unaware calling people sodomites is offensive; you are unaware of what homophobia means) or whether you are aware of these things but just don't care about being "culturally appropriate", that you don't care if you use disgusting and offensive words that you are know society rejects.

On what basis have you declared that it has not lost its meaning? In your view, what establishes the meaning of words?

Original Position: I suspect there are going to be a lot of side issues that come up, that are not directly related to the topic, but interesting enough not to be ignored so I'd just like to throw in my opinion, that this thread remains fairly heavily on-topic, with a shadow thread where the side issues such as language (which currently outnumbers the debate topic) can be discussed.

PS Aaron, you might be right in your original response after I had suggested this topic a few months back, that "it might not be quite as interesting as you think" and the side issues might end up being much be more interesting. Regardless, I appreciate you holding on to the idea, and for you and lagtight giving it a go.

Thank you for this definition. Now I know "homophobia" doesn't mean "fear of", even though "fear of" is literally contained in the word itself. The person or people who invented this word should have been more careful.

+1

The word should have been homoprejudice or homohate or ???

I stated in a previous post that I don't care if I'm being "culturally appropriate" or not. My goal is to speak the truth as I understand it, not to placate those who engage in practices that the Bible refers to as an abomination. I fully expect some people to be offended by what the Bible says about a lot of things. My loyalty is to my God, not to the PC crowd.

If the United Negro College Fund is cool with the word, who I am to argue? It hasn't "lost its meaning" to them, apparently.

I guess I can't refer to blacks as "colored" either, even though the leading black rights organization in the U.S. is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People?

For the record: I never use the words "colored" or "negro" to refer to black people. I use "black" or "African-American."

A good dictionary. In a recent post, uke-master gave me the current dictionary definition of "homophobic." Now I know what it means.

I view the United Negro College Fund as being more of a name holding over through history than it is defining a standalone word. The reason that Negro is in the name is strictly historical at this point. And there are very real ways in which the word *has* lost its meaning.

It has moved from being a term with a "neutral" connotation to one with a negative connotation in most contexts. The original meaning has been lost because the word is no longer interpreted in the way it was when the name was originally created.

The *only* contexts in which the connotation is not neutral are ones that hold historical significance, such as the UNCF or negro spirituals. But in both of those settings, the word is in place for historical reasons and that historical context acknowledges that history. But using the word outside of that context means something entirely different.

That's simply how language works. Words are not stable objects that hold singular meaning in all places and at all times. Language is dynamic and constantly changing with the cultural setting that it finds itself in.

It's not that you can't. You can use whatever words you want to use. But there would be consequences to that word choice as well.

So why don't you?