IN this entry from yesterday, Ian writes:

Advocates for sodomy often claim that the high rate of suicide among sodomites is due to the prejudice and bigotry shown towards them.

However, if we look at other groups who have been persecuted in the past or in the present, do we see a high rate of suicide among them?  Were the early Christians committing suicide at high rates because of Roman persecution?  Were European Jews committing suicide at high rates because of Nazi persecution? Were American blacks committing suicide at high rates because of enslavement or because of Jim Crow? Are Middle Eastern Christians committing suicide at high rates today?

While I don’t have any data on hand, somehow, I rather doubt the rate of suicide among these groups was/is as high as it is among sodomites.  And never mind the fact that the level of “persecution” sodomites experience today is nowhere near what most of these other groups suffered.

— Comments —

Paul T. writes:

Why do I find the use of the word ‘sodomites’ so distasteful? (And all the more so in a piece about suicide among homosexuals.) Perhaps it’s because it seems to equate the sin with the sinner, or more precisely, to reduce the sinner to the dimensions of the sin. And how often has the predictable response to concerns like mine. “But I can’t sugar-coat, can I? I have to be honest! People need to hear the unvarnished truth!” been offered as a cover for uncharitableness and malice?

 Laura writes:

Why do I find the use of the word ‘sodomites’ so distasteful?

Do you object to calling adulterers “adulterers?” Thieves “thieves?”

Given that we are talking about the effects of homosexuality, it is entirely appropriate to refer to “sodomites.” And if they die from the effects of sin, it is still sin.

I think you find the term objectionable because you live in a world where homosexuality is discussed in morally neutral or approving terms. That is true uncharitableness, especially since homosexuality kills.

Jewel writes:

You raise a good point about naming things. Homosexuals practice sodomy, they are therefore sodomites. Also, they take pride in doing so, so loving the sinner by not shaming him for his sin does him a great disservice. It really boils down to the corruption of our language. I got into a raging argument with a college woman who referred to prostitution as “sex work.” I did this on Facebook, and I violated a few of the core beliefs I have about posting on Facebook: Never say things you might regret saying. I actually went back to see what I wrote with calmer eyes, and still, after reading her comments, I wanted to brain her with a pre-1962 dictionary.

J. writes:

It strikes me that in this discussion of homosexuality and sodomites, we have to be careful to distinguish terminology.  A homosexual is not de facto a sinner, just as a married man who does not act upon his urges towards other women is not an adulterer.  A man with an inclination to steal who refrains from so doing is not a thief, nor one with the inclination to kill a murderer.  What makes these sins sins, after all, is acting upon the desires which give rise to the temptation.

So a homosexual is different from a sodomite, and it would be wrong to label a man a sodomite just because he has the unfortunate proclivity to find other men attractive.  A sodomite, in contrast, is a sinner, as he actually acts upon these desires and in so doing turns away from God’s will for him.  To call a sodomite a homosexual is to demean homosexuals living a Godly, righteous, and sober life.

Laura writes:

I consider a homosexual to be someone who publicly identifies himself with his same-sex desires and activity. No one is born “homosexual.” Some people are born with strong proclivities to involuntary homosexual desire, which they may suffer from all their lives, but such a person is not a “homosexual.” He is a heterosexual, as all human beings are, with unnatural desires.

A homosexual, as the word is used today, is a sodomite.

Ian writes:

Paul T. finds the term ‘sodomite’ distasteful.  I thought your response to him was very good.

It makes sense to refer to those who engage in sodomy as sodomites.  It would be uncharitable (and inaccurate) to refer to as sodomites those men who are sexually attracted to other men but who nevertheless remain chaste.  Analogously, using your example of a thief:  what makes a thief a thief is actually stealing things, not simply a predisposition to steal things.

There was a recent lengthy article at First Things by Michael W. Hannon in which he discusses why ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ are deficient terms.  ‘Sodomite’ is a better term precisely because it is associated with a behavior rather than with a made-up identity.

Laura write:

The idea that a person is a homosexual is just false and confusing. Do we call a man who would like to have five wives, and who can’t seem to shake the desire to have five wives, an adulterer? No, not unless he is engaging in adultery.

However, “sodomite” will not be embraced by the public anytime soon. : – ) It’s a very negative term, to put it mildly.

James N. writes, in response to the original post:

The most widely accepted model of suicide is that it is rage, inwardly directed, as depression is anger, inwardly directed. The premorbid personality of successful suicides is often brutal self-condemnation (I am useless or worthless).

Corporal suffering, by contrast, is rarely associated with suicide. Persecution, even of the most severe kind, is also an uncommon antecedent of suicide without additional factors, such as failure of a man to protect his woman or children from torment (useless, worthless). I have witnessed only two patient suicides in 35 years of caring for many patients with terminal illness accompanied by physical suffering.

It would be interesting to know if the incidence of self-harming behaviors by male homosexuals is increasing or decreasing. Certainly, the persecution/oppression model would predict a sharp recent decline, which does not appear to be the case.

Buck writes:

I imagine that Paul T. objects to the use of “sodomites,” for the same reason that most of us won’t use it. Rarely is the term used in public discourse; for good reason. Few would tolerate it. It probably offends the sensibilities of most people; more so, the more that they conjure its meaning. Sodomy generally covers the full range of non-procreative sexual activity, widely practiced without guilt among average people. In 2003 sodomy was “finally” made legal. The term “sodomize” is now used only narrowly in the law, to define the particular crime of anal rape – not consensual anal sex – but, to distinguish the particular rape as not vaginal. There must be a reason. I mean, why make the distinction? It’s certainly no longer wrong (illegal), in and of itself. The only other way it can be “wrong” is within the shifting and arbitrary paradigm of legal consent. The act can only be wrong outside of consent, and consent is arbitrary and restrictive of autonomy.

From sodomite, to homosexual, to gay; is no different in my mind from near complete substitution of “gender” for sex. These substitutions didn’t come about naturally, they were insinuated into the vernacular. They did not grow organically out of a public discourse. They were studied and tactical. Academics and activists continue to be years ahead of the social curve. Language is a tool. Words have meanings. That’s why some are prohibited publicly. More to come.

Modern liberalism infects everyone of us. There is no escaping it. If Paul T. has a homosexual friend or acquaintance, he refers to him as “gay” (when necessary) rather than as homosexual, within their shared social circle. “Gay” males don’t like “homosexual”, or “queer” (“queer” is like the “N” word among blacks, in that they can use it but non-blacks can not) (See how I, a white man, balked at typing the “N” word?). The “gay rights” activists long ago moved society, culture and government away from the too clinical a term “homosexual”. Though “homosexual” remains unavoidable in much of societies’ required discourse, it is pointedly avoided in typical modern, social/culture conversation.

Today, “gender” has almost universally been substituted for “sex.” It’s pervasive in all forms of media, it’s complete in academia, and it has found growing favor even among traditionalist conservatives. Many use it routinely and unthinkingly, and on notice, argue that it doesn’t matter.

It’s no different than the way we discuss abortion. Is abortion the killing of a human baby or not? Is the taking of that innocent life, murder? We don’t discuss it those terms. We certainly don’t begin there, and rarely end there. That would do more than shock sensibilities. It would inflame rage.

If we’re confined, as we seem to be, to a battle of ideas – since revolution and civil war are beyond the pale – and when we find ourselves in an actual skirmish with a political, intellectual or cultural foe, we’re afraid to unsheathe the few aging weapons that we have, then we’re already in full retreat. We might as well turn our backs and withdraw completely.

Being polite is “having or showing behavior that is respectful and considerate of other people.” Is an extreme adherence to that a first principle, the first principle; one that subjugates all others, including the truth?

Laura writes:

“Sodomy generally covers the full range of non-procreative sexual activity, widely practiced without guilt among average people.”

Sodomy has for a long time been a term for anal intercourse, usually between men.

Please follow and like us: