In an editorial today regarding the crackpot antigay theories of George W. Bush's surgeon general nominnee, James Holsinger, the New York Times several times uses the term "homosexuals." Last week my friend John Aravosis of Americablog wrote an open letter to the Washington Post regarding the use of that word.
While the usage of the term, in a limited (often clinical or scientific) manner could be argued, there is ABSOLUTELY NO justification for the Times using the term "practicing homosexuals" in today's editorial, as the final, emphatic note of the piece, no less.
Let's all write the Times and let them know that we are not a coven of witches "practicing" our craft. Nor are we a group of kids "practicing" our playing of musical instruments, or "practicing" gymnastics or "practicing" French! And we are not lawyers, doctors or accountants, who decide to hang out a shingle when we want to "practice." All of these are religious beliefs, learned activities, and business professions. The implication is: "Homosexuals" are "practicing" their cultish, acquired, and/or often for-sale (those gay hustlers!) sexual "practices" while heterosexuals, of course, are doing something much more, well, natural and about love or whatever.
Just by using that term, the editorial undermines the very point it is trying to make. Holsinger has been attacked for supporting a church that reportedly believes in "ex-gay" therapies and he clearly believes that people can be "indoctrinated" into homosexuality. Describing homosexuality as something you can "practice" until you get it right sure goes a long way toward helping Holsinger's cause.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Posted by Signorile at 7:53 AM