Dear Editor
As a bit of an outsider who spends much of his time back and forth, I have been observing with interest the back and forth in articles and letters involving an article about same sex marriage by James R. Harrigan on April 5th 2013.
The reason I have been moved to writeis because of Mr. Harrigan’s response (Anguillian 19th April) to a letter concerning his use of the word “homos”. In his response Mr. Harrigan states that:
“It does not take an intellectual to explain that the prefix “homo” means “the same”, as in ”same-sex” or “homo-sex” from which we get “homo-sexual.” Even pupils in elementary school learn about “homophones”: words with the same sound but different meaning; or the adjective “homogenous” being of the same in nature or kind. When I therefore call gays “homos”, it only serves as a means of varying my writing pattern – it’s nothing derogative or offensive.”
What Mr.Harrigan neglected to point out was that the definition of ‘homos’ means, and I quote,”Offensive Slang Used as a disparaging term for a gay man or lesbian.” (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition 2009.)
Mr. Harrigan tried his best with flowery language to explain his use of the word but he must be extremely naïve (which I don’t think he is) to think that his use of the word, especially in the context it was written, could have been interpreted any other way. When we review the context (“there was a time, in case some homos don’t know…”) it is clear that the use of the word ‘homos’ was derogatory. For Mr. Harrigan to suggest otherwise is an insult to the intelligence of the Anguillian readership. I forwarded the original article to a number of friends, straight and gay, and all came to a similar conclusion. To paraphrase Mr. Harrigan, ‘it does not take an intellectual’ to know that his intent was to ‘disparage’ but luckily many of my friends are intellectuals.It also makes his assertion in his response to the letters that he loves gays all the more incongruent.
I know Mr. Harrigan and others of his ilk are worried about the paradigm shift in the US towards the legalization of gay marriage. Fortunately, in the US we have ‘The Establishment Clause’ – the separation of church and state. This is there to stop belief systems, which religions are, from pushing their agendas and beliefs on others who don’t follow those beliefs. It may come as a shock but many people aren’t Christians or Muslims or follow any other of the many belief systems on offer. In fact, many of the most secular countries of the world also turn out to be some of the most tolerant and peaceful – is that a coincidence?
President Obama recognizes that the President doesn’t just serve Christians or Muslims but the whole of the nation which includes many who don’t follow a belief system. The President recognizes that The Establishment Clause is there to stop discrimination and make sure that people are treated equally and with respect whatever they believe or don’t believe – so they can live their lives in freedom without having to put up with some of the discriminatory beliefs of certain religious groups.
Stephen Y W Austin (A Christian)
Editor’s note:
The views expressed in the above article are those of Mr. Austin and not necessarily those of The Anguillian newspaper.
