{"id":26106,"date":"2013-12-30T02:08:03","date_gmt":"2013-12-30T05:08:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/?p=26106"},"modified":"2016-11-26T00:03:51","modified_gmt":"2016-11-26T03:03:51","slug":"words-have-meaning-discrimination-in-a-post-dadt-world","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2013\/12\/30\/words-have-meaning-discrimination-in-a-post-dadt-world\/","title":{"rendered":"Words Have Meaning: Discrimination in a Post-DADT World"},"content":{"rendered":"

A writer at the Engage Family Minute blog begins his post<\/a> with an appropriate question:<\/p>\n

How exactly is discrimination defined, and what constitutes discrimination?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As has been noted here before (“Of Bullies, Bigots, Homophobes: The Changing American Vocabulary<\/a>“), it is not uncommon for people or groups to appropriate terminology — or even twist semantics — to support their cause.\u00a0 Prior discussions have already covered several: homophobe, bigot, bully, tolerance, and Michael “Mikey” Weinstein’s use of “rape”.<\/p>\n

“Discrimination” was also briefly mentioned, though it has again surfaced in incorrect usage (at least by its traditional definition). In short, it bears reminding that in order to discriminate, one has to act<\/em>. By themselves, thoughts, beliefs, and words cannot<\/em> be discriminatory — again, by definition<\/em>.<\/p>\n

An example:\u00a0 The Catholic Church discriminates when it chooses\u00a0<\/em>who it permits to be Priests.\u00a0 If a person says, “The Catholic Church is wrong for not ordaining women,” that person is not<\/em> discriminating, and their words are not<\/em> discriminatory.\u00a0 Whether you agree with their sentiment or not, merely having<\/em> a sentiment and expressing it in words does not discriminate<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Similarly,\u00a0were someone to say “I disagree with a state’s\u00a0recognition of homosexual marriage,” that person is not<\/em> discriminating, and their words are not<\/em> discriminatory.\u00a0 Amazingly, this type of accusation on this subject<\/em> is fairly common — and most often uncontested.\u00a0 See, for example, the accusation by homosexual advocates<\/a> that Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson was guilty of “discrimination” when he did nothing other than express his thoughts on the subject of homosexuality.<\/p>\n

Another recent entry to the wars of semantics has been “anti-gay.”\u00a0 Ironically, there’s even a Wikipedia page<\/a> for the term, and it lists 15 possible variations to what it might refer, from “heterosexual bias” to “violence against LGBT people.”\u00a0 The much-criticized<\/a> Southern Poverty Law Center is probably largely responsible for normalizing<\/a> what would ordinarily be considered a pejorative\u00a0term.\u00a0 Those who use the term may know almost nothing about the person or group they have thus labeled — except that they do not affirm homosexuality.<\/p>\n

Yet the term carries the social connotation that someone who is “anti-gay” hates, discriminates (see discussion above), or otherwise mistreats people or groups.\u00a0 The term “anti-gay” generally seems to have an inflammatory effect — and it seems to have been used that way intentionally<\/a>.\u00a0 As the Associated Press did<\/a> with “homophobe,” the term should be dropped by reputable organizations.<\/p>\n

In short, words have meaning.\u00a0 Rather than simply using the word du jour<\/em>, the conversation can be far better understood if words are used for their definition<\/em>, not their connotation, and everyone understands what those definitions are.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n