We first highlight some pejorative terms used by some Orthodox, as they began such use many years before it was used against them. While some of these words have a descriptive basis, they are clearly pejorative in the way they are usually used in this dispute. The terms include but are not limited to abomination and faggot.

Some Revisionists use a number of terms to denigrate those they oppose, most specifically any who question the Gay/Queer agenda and the Blessing of CSsC relationships. While some of these words have a descriptive basis, they are clearly pejorative in the way they are usually used in this dispute. The terms used include, but are not limited to, homophobic,[2] fundamentalist[3] and reactionary.[4]

"You are an Abomination" "You are an abomination" has featured on placards at protests in the United States, held by angry, vocal people who oppose and wish to refute the Gay/Queer agenda.

There is no passage in the Old or New Testament that says: "You are an abomination" referring to any person. There are three passages, Leviticus 11:10; 13; 42, where the "they" of "they are an abomination" refers to "unclean" foods which the Hebrews were not to eat, namely, fish without scales or fins; some varieties of birds; snakes, lizards, other creeping things; some insects and some varieties of animals. If people ate some types of animals, that food was an abomination to the people who ate them. While people are not an abomination, some things they may do are an abomination. Practices such as witchcraft, idol worship, and homosexual acts (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13) are activities identified as abominations. For the Orthodox to say that homosexuals are an abomination has no scriptural basis, and fans the bitter fire in this dispute.

A parallel can be made with the central issue here. The blessing of an individual (heterosexual or homosexual) is not in question; all humans are worthy of blessing regardless of (perceived) faults, being creatures made by God, and in God's image, and redeemable. Whether or not a relationship is 'blessable' is predicated upon the nature of that relationship. To date, the church has seen fit to Bless the relationship of Holy Matrimony as a God ordained that relationship in creation (including the distinction ― male and female). We do recognize a conflict here, in that commitment and fidelity are good, even though some aspects of the Queer lifestyle are not compatible with the doctrine and understanding of the church

"You oppose us because you are Homophobic" The backhand ― "You oppose us because you are homophobic" ― is the first line of defense and counter-attack used by Revisionists against those who raise questions regarding SsSA, its health issues, psychological effects, and the associated Gay/Queer Agenda. Gary Colwell has summed it up nicely in the abstract to his article on the subject:

The charge of homophobia, indiscriminately made in a large part of our Western culture today, is ill conceived, illogical and false. This sweeping charge may be pictured as a triangle of informal logical fallacies. The more prominent side, the one which the general public encounters first, is what I shall call the fallacy of turning the tables: the rhetorical device of making the source of criticism the object of criticism. The other side of the charge is the fallacy of equivocation.

The boundary of the term 'homophobia' is made so elastic that it can stretch around, not just phobias, but every kind of rational fear as well; and not just around every kind of fear, but also around every critical posture or idea that anyone may have about the practice of homosexuality. At the base of the charge, and undergirding the other two fallacies, is the fallacy of begging the question. A commitment to the complete acceptability of the practice of homosexuality enables its proponents to 'know' beforehand that all criticisms against it must originate in the defective psychology of the critic.[5]

The charge that anyone who raises concerns regarding SsSA is homophobic is ad hominem, an attack on the person rather than their argument or concern. It can be likened to a kea-gun[6] attack on a person at short range. It shifts the focus from the stated concern to the person raising the concern. Colwell signifies the homophobic argument thus:

1 All critics of homosexual practice are homophobic.
2 Being homophobic is bad. ∴
3 All critics of homosexual practice are bad, or 3' What the critics are is bad, or 3" What the critics have (a phobia) is bad.[7]

The basis of the argument hinges on Premise 1 being true, which begs the conclusion, and in Premise 2, on how 'homophobic' is defined (sans extensive equivocation). Finally, it is irrational to assert that people who have concerns regarding SsSA or the bio-medical statistics demonstrating significant health risks have a phobia (i.e., an unwarranted fear that paralyses them).[8] This fallacy has also been argued against in New Zealand by Robert Mann (1997[9]) and Mark Rowley (2001).[10]

"You oppose Blessing CSsCs because you are a Fundamentalist and a Reactionary" How often one hears the terms fundamentalist, reactionary and other similar terms used as a pejorative in statements such as: "the regressive, fundamentalist, evangelical wing of the communion."[11]Such statements are not backed by research, citations, or any substantiation as to who these fundamentalists are, or why they are labeled fundamentalists. Edith Humphrey helpfully clarifies a motivation for Michael Prowse's[12] attack on the "fundamentalists" who opposed Jeffery John's consecration as Bishop of Reading (England):

The term 'fundamentalist' [is used] in order to suggest an approach to Scripture and the gospel that differs from his own, but also to elicit a dismissive emotional response from his readership. He is correct that the response to same-sex eroticism is connected with views of the Scripture and of authority in the Church. What he fails to recognize is that the so-called 'progressivist' has specific 'fundamentals' as well, when he or she interprets 'the gospel' and affords the covenant sign of the rainbow a new meaning. 'Liberal' voices can be as 'fundamentalist' and 'exclusivist' as others./[13]

Orthodox and Revisionists have each resorted to adolescent name-calling to 'bate and bash' those they oppose. That these tactics are sub-Christian is self-evident.

END

[1] Archbishop Rowan Williams (2005). "Questions to the Archbishop of Canterbury" regarding authority and human sexuality, put to him at the Global South Meeting held in Cairo, Egypt, 25 -30 October 2005. A transcript. Available from: http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/article/questions_to_the_archbishop_of_canterbury_q_a_transcribed/_; downloaded 24 November 2005.

[2] "The Anglican Church is not exempt here. I am the product of one of the most homophobic and hate-mongering Anglican dioceses in the world. Even outside of Sydney the best that the Anglican Church can often manage is an indifferent 'Don't ask, don't tell' approach. This too is inadequate. Nothing short of a complete and open acceptance of people of all sexualities in leadership in the Church will suffice." The Revd Ian Lawton (2002). SMACA, 29 Sept 2002. (Lawton, an Australian, preached and published this on the parish webpage while he was Vicar of St-Matthew's-in-the-City, Auckland.) Available from: _http://www.stmatthews.org.nz/smaca014.htm_; downloaded 24 November 2005, (bold print by thesis writer).

[3] "Will the worldwide Anglican/Episcopalian communion survive intact the current upheaval over homosexuality and human rights? Is it even important that it does? How is it, and why is it, that the regressive, fundamentalist, evangelical wing of the communion has so scared the hierarchy that it is the progressive, liberal and inclusive North American wing which has been forced into retreat?" Ross Stevenson (2005). "Questions of Principle". St Columbia's e-Tracts, Autumn 2005. Available from: http://www.saintcolumbas.org.nz/news.php; downloaded 24 November 2005, (bold print by thesis writer).

[4] "Ostensibly, this resolution intends to affirm the commitment of the diocese to the Anglican Communion and to direct its bishops and General Convention deputies to act consistent with that commitment. The real intent is almost certainly to minimize allegiance to the Episcopal Church and to facilitate movement to the right within the Church by strengthening the influence of reactionary elements in the wider Anglican Communion. In fact, the original resolution has been toned down, presumably to achieve wider support, and it would hardly be tragic, from our point of view, if it passed. Because it has been reduced to largely innocuous platitudes, however, the more reactionary deputies may try to strengthen it from the floor." Lionel E. Deimel (2005). "Resolution 1: Reaffirming Our Commitment to the Anglican Communion". PEP Argument Briefing Paper, 10/28/2005. Available from: http://www.progressiveepiscopalians.org/html/AC05-R01-01.htm; downloaded 24 November 2005, (bold print by thesis writer).

[5] Colwell (1999), p. 207.

[6] Kea-gun: a self or gunsmith-made shotgun type weapon, about 6 or 8 gauge with a short barrel and stock, firing cartridges filled with large steel shot, used at least until the mid 1970s by some Tuhoe and Hawkes Bay bushmen. It was the weapon of choice in defense against attacking boars to save human and canine life. Being used at close-quarters, and due to its wide discharge pattern, accuracy in aiming was not critical; paramount was its one-shot lethality. It appears that the police in those days turned a blind eye to possession and use of this firearm. The analogy of the Kea-gun against attacking boars, and the accusation of homophobia against all persons who express concerns in relation to SsSA, is that both weapons are used without discriminating aim, yet each is capable of imparting a lethal one-shot blow. Thus, each is selected as the weapon of choice in their respective arena, with devastating effect.

[7] Colwell (1999), p. 210.

[8] Ref. Glossary: phobia, pp. 208ff.

[9] Robert Mann, (1997). A letter in response to Brian Edwards' reading of a letter that included an errant use of the term "homophobia" on Radio NZ, 17 May 1997. Available from: robtm@xtra.co.nz.

[10] "Homophobia . . . for those very reasons, its broadness and its guilt-inducing and mental-illness connotations, the word has served, and continues to serve, a most useful political purpose and despite its limitation is not likely to be abandoned any time soon." Mark Rowley (2001). "Homophobia". Cutting Edge, Christchurch, April 2001.

[11] "Will the worldwide Anglican/Episcopalian communion survive intact the current upheaval over homosexuality and human rights? Is it even important that it does? How is it, and why is it, that the regressive, fundamentalist, evangelical wing of the communion has so scared the hierarchy that it is the progressive, liberal and inclusive North American wing which has been forced into retreat?" Ross Stevenson (2005). "Questions of Principle". St Columbia's e-Tracts, Autumn 2005. Available from: http://www.saintcolumbas.org.nz/news.php; downloaded 24 November 2005, (bold print by thesis writer).

[12] M. Prowse (2003). Financial Times, quoted in: Edith Humphrey (2003).

[13] Humphrey (2003).

--- Ron Ashford (Portland, Oregon), has lived in New Zealand since 1974. He served in parish ministry for 14 years prior returning to university for advanced studies in Systematic Theology. He recently submitted his thesis for an MA (Bioethics).