Advocate.com/Sirius OutQ Radio report today on a new Gallup poll surveying moral attitudes placed onto the lives gay and lesbian Americans. Given that I do not live by other peoples’ moralistic opinion of my life I shall only be discussing one interesting tidbit which concludes the story:
Proving the power of language in the debate, survey responses were nine to 10 percentage points higher when the term “gay and lesbian” was used instead of “homosexual.”
This of course touches on the right of any minority group to self-determine their own descriptive terminology. Only the most backwards members of society continue to refer to black Americans as “negros.” Nonetheless fundamentalists, oh I’m sorry they prefer to be called Evangelicals continue to insist on calling us “homosexuals.” Perhaps some GLAAD Media Reference Guides got lost in the mail; it’s ok though, I found it online: [emphasis not added]
OFFENSIVE: “homosexual” (as a n. or adj.)
PREFERRED: “gay” (adj.); “gay man” or “lesbian” (n.)
Please use “lesbian” or “gay man” to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. Because of the clinical history of the word “homosexual,” it has been adopted by anti-gay extremists to suggest that lesbians and gay men are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered – notions discredited by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s.
Alert reader Michael Ditto found this stylebook excerpt put out by the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association:
homosexual: As a noun, a person who is attracted to members of the same sex. As an adjective, of or relating to sexual and affectional attraction to a member of the same sex. Use only if “heterosexual” would be used in parallel constructions, such as in medical contexts. For other usages, see gay and lesbian.
It’s a simple way to determine anti-gay bias in media. I’ve found if I use “homosexual” in a google search, I find what the wing-nuts are upset about. Sometimes it’s useful as their rantings don’t always make it to the real press.
Another way to tell is when they put “marriage” in quotes. Amusingly, they even do it when discussing gay marriage in Massachusetts. I guess it isn’t marriage until they say it’s marriage.
And while we’re at it, What-up with the fundies increasingly making a point of calling a marriage between two same-sex individuals, a “‘one-sex’ marriage” (vice, “same-sex” marriage)? What sort of traction are they hoping to get out of ~this~ opaque slur?
That the term homosexual is considered offensive is not well known outside of the GLBT community. I did not know that until I saw it here. The use of the non-offensive terms may be a measure of contact between the respective communities. Thus, the poll may show how the attitudes of heterosexuals, err, straight people 🙂 differ once they actually talk with actual gays and lesbians.
I’ve noticed this recently too Sharon. I swear they have some odd focus groups or something to finely tune their language and then throw it up into the echo chamber to see if it sticks.
I’m not exactly sure what their “single-sex” marriage ploy is about but it’s very odd.
Scott and Sharon where is the coming from? I have never heard this before. That I hadn’t heard that homosexual is offensive I understand, but I still have enough fundie friends to normally hear such changes in the lexicon. This language hasn’t shown up in the ads FotF runs in the Denver Post, either.
The right to define oneself is obviously an essential right.
I did not realize that “homosexual” was an offensive term to same sex attracted individuals. But I can see why, given that the term does indeed have a rich, psychoanalytic history.
I personally don’t like to label myself because I feel that such labels are too simplistic to describe something as complex as sexuality.
But those who see their sexuality in more straight forward terms (not necessarily more simple) seem to have a much easier time choosing either the label “gay” or “straight.”
yes, I’m afraid I’m going to need a source for this “one-sex marriage” nonsense. I’ve yet to see it in anything from Focus, the AFA, WND, or World Magazine.
How much has support for gays in the clergy and the classroom declined since the last poll? That “immoral” question is loaded, because there are many people who feel cornered into answering yes, gays are immoral. They think that if they don’t answer that way, they will be judged by the pollster.
I don’t trust Gallup, and never will. They seem to care more about releasing results that will get them attention than about any real validity or consistency. They released a poll in April that had 28% supporting gay marriage. They released a poll in May that had 39% supporting gay marriage.
What would have happened in a month to cause such a huge swing in support for equal marriage rights??
Supposedly Mr Gallup saw the light and became born again. Ever since his polls have been consistent wing nut oriented. He showed Bush way ahead last fall when he polled twice as many Reps as Dems. DailyKos had the story.
My understanding is that evangelicals and fundamentalists are two entirely different categories, the former having a scriptural focus and the latter having a political focus.
The majority of evangelicals want nothing to do with politics or the fundamentalist agenda. The fundamentalist mentality views embedding scripture into law as the ultimate expression of their faith. Often the end is used to justify the means and some biblical reasoning is shortchanged in the process. Fundamentalists often like to refer to themselves as evangelicals because they misunderstand the distinction between the two.
It’s the distinction between being “passionate” about something (evangelical) or going beyond passion into the realm of “zealotry” or “extremism” (fundamentals).
Use the term fundamentalist by all means. By equating the extremist view with the evangelical view we give the wrong impression that agressive anti-gay rhetoric has scriptural backing.
cheers queers.
Dexter,
I base my definition of Evangelical on Time magazine’s recent cover story titled “The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America”
The vast majority of them are politically oriented.
https://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050207/
According to Karen Armstong’s ‘The Battle For God’, the distinction between evangelical and fundamentalist dates to the early 1940’s. At this point it first appeared in Billy Graham literature. And was an advertising slogan, like ‘new improved’. Graham needed some means to differentiate himself from his fellow believers. And he settled on the description ‘evangelical’.
No author or commentator on the topic prior to WW2 seems aware of this distinction. It is unknown to Mencken who wrote extensively on the subject. From all evidence, gathered by Armstrong, fundamentalism had so discredited itself that fundamentalists themselves realized they needed a new term. Which term became ‘evangelical’. Why we are obligated to respect the terminology when the group being so discussed refuses to return the favor, is beyond me.
I hope that Dan doesn’t take this the wrong way.
Not all Evangelicals are conservative. The Evangelical Lutheranische Kirche in Deutschland (ELKD) is actually relatively liberal. They’re in Germany, though. I could regale you with matters regarding the RCCI (Roman Catholic Church, Inc) in Germany, but I’ll refrain.
Point that should be understood regarding polling. The numbers you usually see are not what would be referred to as “raw data.” Most polling operations take in the “raw data” (the yes/no/other) responses that they get from people who will respond to them, and weight the number of yes/no/other according to various weighting factors. What the polling operations report is the data after the weighting. The weighting factors that the various polling operations use may or may not have anything to do with reality, but that’s what they do. Yes, the raw data is probably affected by the words that they use in doing the polling.
BTW, Dan, apparently you are from the left coast. I was raised in the midwest, and my relatives were from the old south. There were no “negros” They were “nigrahs.” And, just to let you know, I am not joking. And, as a kid, I was known to be a lil’ queer. This was in the 1960s in South Norfolk, Virginia.
As Raj indicated, evangelicals are a diverse group. Their most visible and influential leaders are strongly anti-gay, but Dobson and Falwell don’t speak for everyone.
The late Lewis Smedes, a widely known professor at an evangelical seminary, was an active supporter of Evangelicals Reconciled. There’s an association of affirming Baptist churches now (although, as you might expect, other Baptist churches won’t have anything to do with them). Author Philip Yancey has declared his neutrality and associates freely with people on both sides of the divide. Tony Campolo’s wife actively supports gay causes, with his blessing (if not his complete agreement).
Granted, this minority is drowned out by the larger and more vocal anti-gay wing of the conservative church, but that minority is growing. The National Association of Evangelicals expects the issue of gay marriage to split the evangelical church (whatever that really is) down the middle over the next decade.
So, despite their best efforts, Focus on the Family doesn’t speak for everyone.
I think that some fundamentalists use “evangelical” as a euphemism for themselves, to prettify the ugliness of their politics and personal (im)morality. In that sense, Dan’s original comment would be accurate.
(I realize not all literalists/fundamentalists are jihadists, by the way; and some are gay.)
In any event, I agree that *mainstream* evangelicals are distinct, politically and spiritually, from fundamentalists. Though there is overlap.
Wikipedia and BeliefNet are probably better judges of the distinction than Time Warner. 😀
The way I use the term Evangelical is more of a catch-all term. Fundamentalists are Evangelicals but not the other way around. As a group, we Evangelicals do not have a great sense of our self-identity. So, it stands to reason that outsiders will be confused.
As for the NAE statement about gay marriage splitting Evangelicals, maybe so. But, we do that so naturally noone will notice.
You can pull your hair out trying to figure out a taxonomy of Evangelicals. Just as you find it offensive when we try to group or label you, the same holds for us. It is best if we try to deal with each other as individuals and eschew anyone who tries to speak for a diverse group be it LGBT or Evangelicals.
Mike, I checked the Wikipedia article out and according to the way the terms are used there, I would be a neo-evangelical.
As for eschewing the term Fundamentalist, it is not because the word is bad but we are embarassed by the people that usually go by that label. Now, if all we do is change the label then people will see through that. There really needs to be a difference. Therefore, I am not offended if someone calls me a Fundamentalist but am reminded of the task ahead to show that I don’t deserve that label.
As a former Pastor’s wife in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, I had front row seats to the cultural warfare and the “strategy” of shifting from the “fundamentalist” label to the Evangelical one.
Evangelical evokes evangelism, the call to preach the “truth” and be a bearer of God’s light. It shapes for them a mission of which they stand purely in the “right”. It’s not their battle, it’s God. They’re just doing his work. They feel this shields them from accusations of bigotry because t hey are not relying on the “work of men.”
Fundamentalism evokes image of stone cold literalism, of narrow mindedness, of extremism. Of course that produces a negative connotation, so they want to distance themselves from that. Now to the objective and discerning eye, there is quite a bit within the “evangelical realm” that exhibits these attributes of Fundamentalism. But in this culture war terminology is such a powerful weapon. Most telling is how freely they toss the “Fundamentalist” label upon the extremist of the Muslim world.
Like the previous reader said, we should use the term Fundamentalist often–especially when their actions warrant it.
It’s calling a spade, a spade.
Someone mentioned that “any minority group has the right to self-determine their own descriptive terminology”. I agree, but… you are suggesting that all men that like to have sex with men belong to the “minority group”. Hello? If you like to eat apples instead of bananas, does that make you immediately belong to a “group”? My understanding is that the “gay community” was born based on the need to defend their rights, and that is OK. However, there are millions of homosexual men that do not feel identified with the “gay community”. They are usually masculine, and no one would ever think they like men as sexual partners. So they don´t feel represented (nor the need to!) as part of the “gay community”. I am not discriminating anyone here, just trying to explain that there IS a difference. Homosexual men (not belonging to the gay community) could also create a community, but they don´t have the need, because they feel they are simply “men that like men”, and that’s it!
Charlie, I don’t agree that there is one specific “gay community,” nor do I agree that “gay” is in any way a synonym for effeminate, liberal, trendy, or what-have-you.
(It might help if you define your terms more clearly before you distance homosexual men from them.)
I also believe you are mistaken when you say that homosexual persons have not created communities apart from the “gay” label — actually, they have. There are the “down low” subculture, the “same-gender-loving” subculture, and the “ex-gay” subculture, for example — various groupings of homosexual persons who form communities around perceived common needs and goals.