Homosexuality creates difficult problems of terminology. "Homosexual" is a well-established term that conveys meaning pretty well,but it has the huge disadvantage of being five syllables long. "Gay" is one syllable--which is why it has been so successful-- but it is a propaganda term that still has weird resonances with its old meaning of "happy"; e.g. in "gay cancer" (AIDS), or "gay leaders disturbed by weblog". My father, visiting me for Thanksgiving, suggests wisely that "queer" is the best term. This has one syllable, combines its original meaning with the new meaning of sexual deviant well (and without damaging the old meaning), and is even used proudly by many homosexuals.

Some problems still remain. One of them is nicely solved by John Derbyshire in a recent National Review column:

In passing comment on the "gay rights" movement, I have sometimes used the word "homosexualist," and I have had many e-mails asking me what the difference is between a homosexual and a homosexualist. Don't these two words have the same meaning?

The answer is: Only if you are a careless writer. Gore Vidal, for example, who is a careless writer, although often a very amusing one, uses these two words synonymously. I don't. I use the suffix "-ism" to indicate the presence of an ideology. A homosexual is a person who is erotically attracted towards persons of his or her own sex. A homosexualist is a type of ideologue -- which means, someone who divides the human race into two fundamentally opposed categories, the Elect and the Damned, Lenin's "Who" and "Whom." For a homosexualist, the Elect are homosexuals and those who "celebrate" them, the Damned are homophobes like me, who, for various reasons, and with various intensities of feeling about the matter, decline to join in the celebrations.

A second problem was called to my attention by Pastor Timothy Bayly of the Church of the Good Shepherd a month or so ago. The problem is that categorizing someone by his sexual desires is something that we ought to do only with great care. When Smith says he is a queer, or when I say he is a queer, what does that mean? Suppose, as Case 1, he and I are both referring to his sexual attraction towards other men, which he, however, has never acted upon, and that he is in fact happily married. His latent sexual desire, however, strong, is not the main thing in his life, and it seems odd to characterize him by them. It is odd in the same way as the oddity of people who once became drunk every day but now never touch a drop calling themselves "alcoholics" because they know the temptation and possibility of succumbing to it is still there.

Or suppose, as Case 2, that Smith is actually attracted only to women, but he is a homosexual prostitute because he likes earning the money. Calling him a queer is perhaps more accurate than in Case 1, but he is not committing the relevant acts constantly, and he would change to being non-queer tomorrow if he won the lottery. He is in the same position as a thief. The status is not permanent, and it is troublesome figuring out in what context he is queer.

And now we come to the more typical Case 3: Smith is attracted by men now, and acts upon it sometimes. He has not done this during his entire life, however, and he may change in the future. If we call him "queer" on the understanding that this is like calling him "a basketball player"--- something that describes him now, but might not be true of him later--- we are not inaccurate. But the way we tend to use "gay" or "queer" or "homosexual" is as if it is a permanent status, and we glide over the distinction between desire and act.

I'm not sure what to do. For the moment, I'll use the terms "queer" and "homosexualist", and try to be careful about them.

[ permalink, http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/03.11.26c.htm ]

To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/0.rasmusen.htm.