Many'll be aware of the debate generated by Pio Moa post on his blog Digital Freedom which stated openly homophobic . Was answered by José María Marco who in turn responded Moa.
then the debate has gotten into Albert Esplugas , with some specific allegations about the harmful use of language perpetrated Moa and some other more superficial on Liberalism in this debate. Moa wordy answers and accusing him of committing more care lags improper language terminology that tends to characterize. The debate goes
level when participating Federico Jiménez Losantos, the new response Moa, conciliatory reply of Frederick and rejoinder (also with a clear intention to reduce tensions) of Don Pio.
addition, the issue has sparked debate in the blogosphere, there seems to me to recommend the blog of Daniel Ballesteros especially in the second assault . Luis H. Arroyo also discussed the particular here, here and here in a warm post just a while ago when I started to write this.
As one would expect, the issue has been branching into different areas. On subjective (and inconsistent) conception of Don Pio homophobia holds a legitimate argument against seeking privileges for groups of pressure, then goes to discuss the "normalcy" of homosexuality, as opposed to heterosexuality, and then they dive almost all the coterie at the natural frequency of homosexual inclinations, morals their "social utility", his "dangerousness" and the reflection of the same may crystallize in the Civil Law. Many issues in one. Try to go for parties to make clear my opinion, but start with what I consider essential:
I consider myself liberal, and my professed vision of liberalism that leads me to criticize and abhor any affirmative or negative (but especially the latter). I believe in equal opportunities for all individuals, basic, and then the principle of merit and ability or complicate pave the path to cover each. I believe that sexual orientation is irrelevant to the merits of each one and say that for millennia and even today, homosexuality has been a handicap to one who professed that only very recently been shot down barriers shameful about it and that is a legitimate cause why will to keep fighting. I also believe that, as has always happened in history, after the first ideological and legal abolition of the discriminatory against homosexuals, there is a decades-long process where, as in a pendulum motion, moving from one extreme to another until a more mature social leave things in their just average. I think we now suffer the reactionary pendulum is raised by the current debate and that homosexuality is to transform almost a privilege, this does occur in some Western societies and is criticize and combat, but still, it is a situation better (or less bad) than the previous one which involved the actual discrimination of homosexuals.
know that for many conservative and not a few liberals, told me about many liberals. I disagree, but still, I care little. Do not write in my blog to be liked and to belong to group rows prietas opinion that put labels with the same zeal with which the removed or dispensed to others. And in any case, are the liberals who were leaning against the trench non-discrimination, although evening and have done wrong (passing of deceleration, as indicated).
And now, the debate linking the various links, here we go:
The question of terminology. errors and inconsistencies Pio Moa.
Don Pio started his first paper claiming that it's homophobic to say that immediately afterwards "of course" does not hate homosexuals. Then use the tired argument of "I have gay friends" (as if that reinforce your opinion or make him look better person) and return to perplex the reader by saying that in any case, your homophobia is more worthy than other phobias that haunt our society. Clearly, the SAR is clear on what it means to be homophobic:
homophobia.
(The Press. homophobia).
1. f. obsessive aversion toward homosexuals.
Royal English Academy © All rights reserved
But Pio not bow to the meanings of common language So in its second paragraph states what their homophobia:
In the that m and resist, what I hate, the Mafia is trying to get roses positions of power to shape society according to their twisted tangles theoretical and pract ical , starting with the totalitarian claim that they represent homosexuals.
Well have started out there, man. In his other articles on this controversy, indicates that the etymology of "homophobia" is awkward. It is. Etymologically means a homophobe who hates just so I led the field of sexuality, homophobic hate would be that those of the same sex, which is not exclusive to hate homosexuals, but also congenial. If self-proclaimed homophobe Moa want to put him to give birth and lobbyists who hates gays, he probably gets at the expense of twisting the language and dragging the pedestrian and level of debate in Spain. Pio claims that the Royal English Language Academy accepted the term "homophobia" with the pressures of the homosexual lobbyists. Big mistake. And it reflects a certain paranoia, since the SAR does not determine the meaning of words in its dictionary, but simply makes a snapshot of the use made of words. For further contradiction of Don Pio, "homophobia" is an anglicized, as both exports in recent decades.
That this be clear: the dictionary of the Royal Academy has no legislative power, only sanctions the common use of language users to give a word. It is obvious what is the use we give to "homophobia": a hatred of homosexuals.
What use is made according to the etymological meaning of the word? No, as also happens with the word "atom" which means indivisible and we've known each other for almost a century is divisible. But there is a traditional use of that word that gets over the etymological construction, which is not only rare but happens to thousands of words and will continue to happen in many different ways, for example, "format" that increasingly confined more to its meaning in the jargon of computer science, or "scratch" which is increasingly used in the sense of "going crazy" when that is its tenth meaning as the SAR. "Cansino" see how it is imposing a third of its meanings that at first seemed confined to Andalusia. The etymology is not an inflexible guardian but a contributor, and not the most important to the evolution of lexicon. Choosing it as "acid test" of the error of a concept is not acceptable and less when the next paragraph you change the criteria. Let's see:
The gibberish language in which to proclaim homophobic Moa refuge does not stop there. In their replies mentioned on several occasions to "homosexuality" as if it were a movement of organized political pressure and tending to impose their world view. Examples:
gay is one thing and another on homosexuality as something else are the workers and Marxism, or women and feminism, or the Catalans and nationalism Catalan, etc.
The homosexuality is not simply that a homosexual is a person and must be respected. In reality it matters little and goes much further. It makes the center of their sexual orientation of his thought and action, and claims that as society according to their theories. You need to believe and do believe that the social attachment to a normal sexuality, reproduction, family, decency, etc. are "bias" to be eradicated by all means. Homosexuality, feminism and other ideologies "radical" often go together [...]
Therefore, Moa tries to say that he is homophobic but professed homophobia against gays as individuals but against the "homosexuality" . What is particularly homosexuality? Well, according to the RAE:
homosexuality.
1. m. homosexuality.
And in case anyone has not become clear:
homosexuality.Royal English Academy © All rights reserved1. F. Tilt erotic relationship with individuals of the same sex.
Come on, Moa, to justify homophobic homosexual homosexuality difference and leaves a mess to get into another. It turns out that for Moa, the language on the subject is fraught with traps set by evil pink mafias and some liberal, heterosexual or not, we fold it gentle to the goings of these social engineers. Thankfully there are people like him able to redefine words and concepts and eye-opener.
The term homophobia, awkwardly from his own etymological construction, no means, therefore, to those who hate homosexuals, but those who hate the machinations of these mafias.
He is homophobic because homophobia is something else different from what we believe the vast majority, like homosexuality. Sure. Note that I agree with Moa in that language is constantly deforming under stress by those who want to impose their criteria, which aim to give names to things. I agree also that many gay lobbies want to go far beyond the achievement of that homosexuals are no longer discriminated against. I do not need to be homophobic to oppose such claims of privilege, I just have to be liberal and that "creed" comes my drive to prevent homosexuals from being discriminated against or obtain privileges for their condition.
If Moa meaning is something like "those we do not agree with those lobyys are labeled as homophobic, "all we would give the reason. But it is inconsistent to be considered homophobic" naturally ", because it's like to suggest that assumes the use of the word are those who lobbies claims to oppose. Do you oppose them and agree to "naturally" to call you homophobic?
New inconsistency: Moa says that those lobbyists do not represent all homosexuals and makes the parallel with unions and Catalan nationalists who do not represent the all (or even most) of workers and Catalans respectively. Moa you accept that anti-worker and anticatalán branded with the same ease with which claims homophobic? Is not it better to give the full battle and not only denounce the manipulation of terms but also clearly stated leave no need to invent a parallel world where words mean what is best for your speech? Did not realize Moa saying "homophobia" and "homosexuality" mean what suits him to fall into the same exclusive voluntarism and self-centered that the creators of these "words" police "that he denounces?
As if all this concoction semantic and plethora of inconsistencies in Moa were not enough, be accused to accept defined as someone who hates something is as bad as he reduces his capacity as an individual to its mere sexual orientation (which he criticizes):
The reasonable homosexual [sic] not make their sexuality the center of his personality and his life, accept your reality if you think you can not change , and takes it with discretion, since it is an intimate affair, as they should do as well as heterosexuals,
Sincerely, define themselves as homophobic is less "reasonable" to define themselves as homosexual. The second is defined by their sexual orientation and / or sentimental, the first, on phobia. It is ethically wrong to be proud of all hatred. Of course, one can be considered very liberal if he says he hates Castro, Hitler, Stalin, Franco and Pol Pot. Of course we can assume that we hate the communists, Nazis and other Patulea, but what does that go? Just believe and love the freedom and justice to be all that battalion of fanatics who hate us and put us in front.
In my humble opinion, Don Pio Moa, tired of the pink mafia, falls into the same mistakes that complaint: consider representative of homosexuality and change the common language to be able to hold his argument. In its engineering semantics and the incoherence of their fighting, do not say that failure of the shot (his phobia against the intention of achieving lobbyist privileges successful, in my opinion) but he escaped several perdigonazos that giving in his rear end (I will not say "the back" because I look like a joke in poor taste in this context and I fear that the failure to put the paragraphs in that naive lilac and can be misunderstood.)
After putting my views clear on the language and its use (or abuse, as we see it), which is of course rebuttable and will be delighted to read the differences, there remains the issue of normal-natural-morality of homosexuality. Logically, this ties in with the legal recognition of homosexual unions and call them "marriage" as well as the possibility of adoption by those couples "homo" (Also a questionable etymology). My intention is to pursue this issue in the next inning.
To summarize it, I mean that, as Borges said, and reminds us my Argentine friend Pablo Martinez Burkett in his blog , "words are symbols that posit a shared memory" . Getting into a debate using subjective meanings and objective when it should come as better or worse, does not seem honest. A minimum of agreement among the debaters to understand what each one means. And that is usually minimal agreement language. Most of the debates in our country lack imperative that convention in which words mean the same or very similar to the "fighters." It was hoped that the Internet and participants given, whether there is such minimal agreement, but Don Pio Moa has never been faithful to it. That is why I believe that even with a large percentage of reason, fails to achieve its real goal, which is consistent with what any liberal can enter: The State does not get into the private lives of citizens while not crime and that no group can make the state his servant to obtain privileges.
Undoubtedly, much remains to comment on the matter.
