This is the first I have heard of it. It may be common to you but obviously I was not the only one to read that way. It was a question directly asked of me. Hardly, in the context of society.
How is a discussion of how terms change to be offensive and even become slurs
not in the context of society?
Since I linked the dictionary you would see that it is modern not a few decade old. Language does change meanings that is why a dictionary is used. What is being attempted here is to force a change.
I looked through your posts and can’t find a link. I did however find a post where you pasted a definition. The definition seems correct:
“anal or oral copulation with a member of the
same or opposite sex”
The vast majority of sodomites are heterosexual, and the vast majority of acts of sodomy are done between one man and one woman. Many of them married. If you have ever had oral or anal sex, regardless of the gender of the partner, then you are a sodomite.
This is why using it to implicitly refer to homosexuals is not only factually wrong - by doing it, you are actively singling out one group of sodomites as if they were worse than others. However, the vast majority of “sodomite marriages” are between man and woman. Because of this, using the term the way some conservatives do is ridiculous.
Lastly, the change is hardly forced - “sodomite” was not in common use even before the liberalization. People commonly used the “f” word and the “q” word, not the “s” word. The main change of language since the gay movement came into existence, has been getting rid of the “f” slur.
This is decades old thinking. Sodomy laws are archaic. You may believe there is a connotation but I would not make that connection.
/sigh.
The term “sodomy” is archaic. And people connect it with sodomy laws - it is the
only context in which most people have ever heard the word used.
The connotation of a word is not determined by what connections
you would make, but what connections
people in general would make. Your statement is similar to saying things like “Segregation laws are archaic. You may believe the “n” word has a connotation to them, but I would not make that connection.”
But you see, that won’t work. You’re not alone in the world.
You may hear but what do base such an unwarranted generalization?
I base the (very warranted, by the way) generalization on the fact that
every single person I’ve ever discussed this with except from extreme conservatives have told me that the word “sodomite” has those connotations to them. Additionally, they think of stoning, firebombing cities (at least if they’re read the Bible or heard a fire-and-brimstone sermon), lynching, and so on.
You are better off using the “f” word - at least that is “merely” connected with violent bullies.
I can’t think of any word that would convey a teaching.
I can however think about words that would obscure a teaching, and hinder it from being conveyed; “sodomy” is one of them. Using it is the best way to ensure that the person you speak to may
never get to learn what the Church actually teaches.
Comparing a word that is uncharitable to a person and a word that accurately describes a sin is comparing apples to oranges
But you see, “sodomy” does not accurately describe “homosexual sexual acts”. It accurately describes “oral or anal sex”,
if the recipient knows the dictionary definition; which most recipients don’t. When the word then is used as if it means “homosexual sexual acts”, then it is
not accurate. It is, additionally, not only uncharitable - it is offensive and a slur. You can’t just stick your head in the ground and pretend it’s not; you live in a society (I presume), and you cannot just pretend that language hasn’t changed since the 19th century.
What I see is an attempt to make homosexuality an accepted way of life. I have never really used this word but now I realize that it must be used to fight this evil.
Well, good luck with that.
