Homophobia

[Didymus]

If its truly psychological, than it is able to be reversed and some could be happily married. I dont think they're all necessarily called to be single

Edited February 11, 2007 by Didymus

[mroger]

The idea of homophobia is very Hobbesian. Thomas Hobbes was the guy who was born during the 100 year war under a conscience of fear. He thinks (thought) that everyone in the world had only two motivations. Desire and Fear. He said we are in constant flux between the two.

The desire of the gays and gay supporters (sounds like a jock-strap) is that they will impose their fears upon you. They'll cast you out by making you look fearful and at the same time introducing fear of you among other people who surround you.

I don't agree with Hobbes on most things about most peoples. I don't like the ideas he puts forward. I think there is a distinct difference between fear and discomfort. I genuinely don't like spinach, it would make me uncomfortable to eat it. Please don't make me eat it ain't the same thing as I'm afraid of spinach.

But I can see where he is coming from, and that many people DO live in that state of fear. I think that people who keep themselves keenly attuned to non-newsworthy events like the death of that coked-up fat model chick who married the bazzilion-aire on a regular basis, people who stare at Hollywood with a blank face on E News! and who can't stand to not know what other people are thinking and doing are the kinds of people who fall under Hobbes description. Gays fall in this category. I could be wrong, I'm sure there are different kinds of people out there, but I never met a gay who wasn't enthralled with "Friends" or "Dawson's Creek" and Brittany Spears. That is why I am convinced that the gayism of people is just what they make of it. Their behavior is completely and totally self-destructive, even when they are abstinent from the heathenous sodomistic and lewd acts.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1191353' date='Feb 11 2007, 02:09 AM']
Then, there is the seemingly Biblical idea that the vast majority of mankind goes to hell anyways. In this way too, they are not nearly as singled out as some would have us think.
[/quote]
Since when Paddington? 144,000 means its a vast amount of people being saved... not the minority of the world...

[quote]
Their behavior is completely and totally self-destructive, even when they are abstinent from the heathenous sodomistic and lewd acts.
[/quote]
You forgot hedonistic...

Edited February 11, 2007 by Sacred Music Man

[Didacus]

The homophobic cry in an argument is in a sense a form of bullying. It has come to the point that people will say nothing rather than their opinion out of fear of being termed just that. It is often the first and last comment a pro-homo person will make in any 'discussion' on the subject.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1191353' date='Feb 11 2007, 02:09 AM']
There are not that many people in the world who really get what they want out of life anyways, and on that note, homosexuals are not near the martyrs they sometimes are made out to be. Although it is sad that they can not marry with their preferred gender. Lots of people can't get married. Lots more have bad marriages. Some people don't have food, water and medicine. God is letting all these things happen all over the world. I'm just trying to get at a balanced view of what is sad about our existence. [/quote]
What is sad is not that homosexuals cannot marry their "preferred gender," but that their appetites are so disordered that they wish to commit sodomy with the same sex, rather than marry the opposite sex.
This might sound nitpicky, but your phrasing makes it sound like the problem is external (society, law, the Church, etc. not allowing homosexual "marriage"), rather than the problem being with their disordered appetites themselves.

Homosexuals not being allowed to "marry" their "preferred gender" is no more sad than pedophiles not being allowed to marry in their "preferred age-group" or "zoophiles" not being allowed to marry their "preferred species."

[quote]BUT, there are some people out there who really hate gays too. Lots of non-religious people too. And some fringe wackos are, as we speak, lurking around and trying to find a homo to bash his skull in for being gay. There could be many bashed skulls tonight because of that evil mindset. There are even some sick people that don't want gays to be allowed to visit their significant others in the hospital during the off-hours. And there is the thing about denying medical benefits to partners of gays who do the same amount of work as the heteros at their place of employment. That stuff is very wrong to me.[/quote]
All this is irrelevent.

There are some people out there who really hate Catholics, or who really hate conservatives, for that matter.
Hate is never right, but this does not mean homosexuals ought to be granted special legal privileges for their homosexuality.

"Partners" of homosexuals do not deserve to be rewarded any special privileges by law.
Someone should not be rewarded any legal or medical benefits for being in a "gay partnership" that I do not have as a single "straight" man.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1191933' date='Feb 11 2007, 10:10 PM']
The homophobic cry in an argument is in a sense a form of bullying. It has come to the point that people will say nothing rather than their opinion out of fear of being termed just that. It is often the first and last comment a pro-homo person will make in any 'discussion' on the subject.
[/quote]
Nah just tell them they are heterophobes.

[Paddington]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1191841' date='Feb 11 2007, 09:57 PM']
Since when Paddington? 144,000 means its a vast amount of people being saved... not the minority of the world...
[/quote]

Sacred Music Man,

I hope you are right.
"A vast amount" can still be a minority too.
I hope that everybody goes to heaven. I'm pretty sure that we all do.
I've heard optimistic and pessimistic guesses from Christians. But, I've heard more pessimistic ones and they sounded more convincing scripturally. That is why I said "seemingly scriptural."
A lot of Catholics have believed the pessimistic side.
How many baptized Catholics actually follow the Church?
Then you get into all those outside the Church. None of those follow the Church.
The pessimistic side is sad beyond words. It is a complete horror. It's not that I WANT to believe it.

Peace,
Paddington

[quote name='Socrates' post='1191986' date='Feb 12 2007, 01:29 AM']
What is sad is not that homosexuals cannot marry their "preferred gender," but that their appetites are so disordered that they wish to commit sodomy with the same sex, rather than marry the opposite sex.
This might sound nitpicky, but your phrasing makes it sound like the problem is external (society, law, the Church, etc. not allowing homosexual "marriage"), rather than the problem being with their disordered appetites themselves.
[/quote]

I see your point. That is the correct Catholic way for sure. The way I said it was more about how temptation in general is sad.


[quote name='Socrates' post='1191986' date='Feb 12 2007, 01:29 AM']

Homosexuals not being allowed to "marry" their "preferred gender" is no more sad than pedophiles not being allowed to marry in their "preferred age-group" or "zoophiles" not being allowed to marry their "preferred species."

[/quote]


You think all sins are the same?
Consentual and rape are the same?
In a trusting relationship and as a fling are the same?
Fornication with your girlfriend is the same as fornication with a goat?

Your hateful comments prove that the gay-rights crowd has a point.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1191986' date='Feb 12 2007, 01:29 AM']


There are some people out there who really hate Catholics, or who really hate conservatives, for that matter.
Hate is never right, but this does not mean homosexuals ought to be granted special legal privileges for their homosexuality.

"Partners" of homosexuals do not deserve to be rewarded any special privileges by law.
Someone should not be rewarded any legal or medical benefits for being in a "gay partnership" that I do not have as a single "straight" man.
[/quote]

Apples and oranges.
I didn't mention anything about gay-marriage.
But, what about getting health care for a significant other like the other employees who do the same amount of work? I'm not suggesting that every company be forced into this. But, at universities and government offices and such where there is not an "owner" to speak of, it should happen. I would just prefer universal health care. But in the meantime, yep.
It is not a bad thing for somebody to get medical treatment. "Give to him who asks of you."
The other thing now.....What if their s.o. is the only person that wants to visit them during family hours? (it happens) What if their s.o. is the only person that they want visiting during family hours?

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]If its truly psychological, than it is able to be reversed and some could be happily married. I dont think they're all necessarily called to be single[/quote]

Firstly, not all psychological conditions are reversible, just as not all physical conditions are curable. Secondly, no matter what anybody might claim, the causes of homosexuality are unknown. In some cases it might be biological. In some cases it might be psychological. In some cases it might be a cocktail of both. Who knows? For this reason and for many others, it is very difficult to make judgements about what people are and aren't called to do with their lives.

I also think it is good to be wary about so-called 'cures' for homosexuality, as a lot of them operate on weak assumptions and shoddy psychology. In some cases a competent psychologist might identify a specific cause for an individual's homosexuality and be able to deal with it at the root, but I think that organisations like Exodus, which base their entire philosophy on the belief that homosexuality is [i]always[/i] psychological and [i]always[/i] curable, do a lot of homosexual people a disservice at least and a large amount of damage at worst. Especially as many of the people who are doing the 'curing' seem to have no qualifications other than a certificate from a third-rate Bible college and a copy of the KJV.

Edited February 12, 2007 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1192066' date='Feb 12 2007, 12:57 AM']
Sacred Music Man,

I hope you are right.
"A vast amount" can still be a minority too.
I hope that everybody goes to heaven. I'm pretty sure that we all do.
I've heard optimistic and pessimistic guesses from Christians. But, I've heard more pessimistic ones and they sounded more convincing scripturally. That is why I said "seemingly scriptural."
A lot of Catholics have believed the pessimistic side.
How many baptized Catholics actually follow the Church?
Then you get into all those outside the Church. None of those follow the Church.
The pessimistic side is sad beyond words. It is a complete horror. It's not that I WANT to believe it.

Peace,
Paddington
I see your point. That is the correct Catholic way for sure. The way I said it was more about how temptation in general is sad.
You think all sins are the same?
Consentual and rape are the same?
In a trusting relationship and as a fling are the same?
Fornication with your girlfriend is the same as fornication with a goat?

Your hateful comments prove that the gay-rights crowd has a point.
Apples and oranges.
I didn't mention anything about gay-marriage.
But, what about getting health care for a significant other like the other employees who do the same amount of work? I'm not suggesting that every company be forced into this. But, at universities and government offices and such where there is not an "owner" to speak of, it should happen. I would just prefer universal health care. But in the meantime, yep.
It is not a bad thing for somebody to get medical treatment. "Give to him who asks of you."
The other thing now.....What if their s.o. is the only person that wants to visit them during family hours? (it happens) What if their s.o. is the only person that they want visiting during family hours?
[/quote]
Too bad that someone wants to pick someone of their same sex as their 'significant other'. Is homosexuality wrong or not? Why? If you answer that according to RCatholic morality homosexuality is wrong according to natural law. It's not just a chosen alternative lifestyle. Laws and morality are based on the principles of natural law, what's right or wrong. Accomodations that equivocate rights to same-sex-couples is acquiescing to same-sex couples and is one of the forces that is the push to have homosexual marriages.

Just because God 'may' have given you urges to have sex with people of the same sex, that doesn't mean you should work to create a 'coupleship' and be 'significant others' and have the rights and privleges of hetero married persons.

People can purchase additional coverage. Push for laws that allow people to add non-family people to their policy, such as someone you are caring for, etc. What about someone who takes care of a close and unreleated friend who has no other family? They need coverage. But that's different than saying they are a 'significant other' in a couple relationship and deserve to be covered like a hetero spouse.

Sorry. There is family, and there are spouses. It's the way nature works. There are always exceptions to the rules, but that doesn't mean we should throw out the rules to 'protect' the few times someone could benefit from the charity of an exception. Nor should we be so 'kind' to make it easy and acceptable for people to chose to live a lifestyle that against natural law.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1192275' date='Feb 12 2007, 04:49 AM']
Firstly, not all psychological conditions are reversible, just as not all physical conditions are curable. Secondly, no matter what anybody might claim, the causes of homosexuality are unknown. In some cases it might be biological. In some cases it might be psychological. In some cases it might be a cocktail of both. Who knows? For this reason and for many others, it is very difficult to make judgements about what people are and aren't called to do with their lives.

I also think it is good to be wary about so-called 'cures' for homosexuality, as a lot of them operate on weak assumptions and shoddy psychology. In some cases a competent psychologist might identify a specific cause for an individual's homosexuality and be able to deal with it at the root, but I think that organisations like Exodus, which base their entire philosophy on the belief that homosexuality is [i]always[/i] psychological and [i]always[/i] curable, do a lot of homosexual people a disservice at least and a large amount of damage at worst. Especially as many of the people who are doing the 'curing' seem to have no qualifications other than a certificate from a third-rate Bible college and a copy of the KJV.
[/quote]

my bad. I was just responded to the statement that all homosexuals are 'called to the consecrated single life.' I didnt mean to be universally stereotyping it either, just meant to say some of them can still be called to the hetero married life.

Edited February 12, 2007 by Didymus

[mroger]

Saw the horns off the wicked! I think it's time to wash our hands of the sodomites, and go lookin for dinner, ya know what I mean. Just let evil be evil and stay away from it in any case.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1192033' date='Feb 12 2007, 12:06 AM']
Nah just tell them they are heterophobes.
[/quote]

Nice. Just do as cmom says, and essentially play their game. I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth but if anyone cries phobia just give it right back. Don't forget to stick to absolutism. Anyone notice that they all seem to be relativists?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1192066' date='Feb 12 2007, 12:57 AM']
You think all sins are the same?
Consentual and rape are the same?
In a trusting relationship and as a fling are the same?
Fornication with your girlfriend is the same as fornication with a goat?

Your hateful comments prove that the gay-rights crowd has a point.
[/quote]
Well that sure was a non-sequitor.

No, all sins are not the same, but no sins are good and deserving of rewards by society.
Homosexual sodomy may not be at the same level of depravity as pedophilia or bestiality, but like them, it is sin against nature and an abomination to the Lord.
St. Thomas Aquinas ranked homosexuality second only to bestiality in level of depravity.
The things listed are all grave sins, and undeserving of benefits.
No sin, and especially not unnatural vice, should be rewarded by law.

Speaking harshly of sin is not "hate" towards people. We are to hate the sin, love the sinner. Rewarding sin, and speaking "nicely" of it does no service to the sinner.

[quote]Apples and oranges.
I didn't mention anything about gay-marriage.
But, what about getting health care for a significant other like the other employees who do the same amount of work? I'm not suggesting that every company be forced into this. But, at universities and government offices and such where there is not an "owner" to speak of, it should happen. I would just prefer universal health care. But in the meantime, yep.
It is not a bad thing for somebody to get medical treatment. "Give to him who asks of you."
The other thing now.....What if their s.o. is the only person that wants to visit them during family hours? (it happens) What if their s.o. is the only person that they want visiting during family hours?[/quote]
If you'd read my post, you'd note that I said nothing about "gay marriage" either (which it should go without saying is contrary to Catholic morality).

There is absolutely no reason on earth why anyone should be rewarded additional health care benefits for being in a homosexual "relationship."

Why should someone be rewarded benefits not given to normal single adults for being a homosexual partner-in-sodomy??
As a single man, with no "significant other," I cannot receive any such additional health care insurance. Should I, if for some depraved reason I decided to "hook-up" with another man in a homosexual "relationship," be rewarded insurance benefits for being his "significant other"????

(And "universal health care" is a very bad idea in practice, but that's a whole other debate.)

As for hospital visiting privileges, those can be arranged legally if necessary, but no one should be legally considered the same as family because he is involved in a homosexual "relationship".
Two (or more) homosexuals sodomizing each other does [b]not[/b] constitute a family, and should not be legally regarded as equal to a family.

Call me hopelessly old-fashioned, call me whatever, but legal and insurance benefits like those mentioned should belong only to married couples, for the purpose of supporting the family.
To give them to unmarried people engaging in sinful activity only rewards sin, and helps weaken the family.

Pardon my bluntness, Paddington, but most of your post has nothing to do with Catholic/Christian morality, and everything to do with modern politically-correct attitudes.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1192033' date='Feb 11 2007, 11:06 PM']
Nah just tell them they are heterophobes.
[/quote]

I remember someone - I think it was Ironmonk - who used the term "moralphobe", although I would also use the word "Godphobe".

[Paddington]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1192329' date='Feb 12 2007, 01:20 PM']
Push for laws that allow people to add non-family people to their policy, such as someone you are caring for, etc. What about someone who takes care of a close and unreleated friend who has no other family? They need coverage. But that's different than saying they are a 'significant other' in a couple relationship and deserve to be covered like a hetero spouse.
[/quote]

That is what I wish I thought of.


[quote name='Socrates' post='1193041' date='Feb 13 2007, 01:30 AM']

Homosexual sodomy may not be at the same level of depravity as pedophilia or bestiality, [/quote]

It sounded different the first time you said it. But that is just me. Sorry.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1193041' date='Feb 13 2007, 01:30 AM']

Pardon my bluntness, Paddington, but most of your post has nothing to do with Catholic/Christian morality, and everything to do with modern politically-correct attitudes.
[/quote]

I'm not Catholic or Christian. Sometimes I answer as if I were, but not to deceive anybody.

[maeveangel]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Unless you are gay, you have no idea. i have spent the past decade trying to change, trying to be chaste, trying to act straight and it was just too much. is it merely biological? is it a deliberately chosen orientation?Who knows? i have been this way since i was a small child. i just didn't have any words for it. Was i molested? No. But if molestation by a member of the same sex was a prerequisite for being gay, then anyone who suffered so would be so. If you are going to look at natural law, yes, sex would primarily be for procreation. But there is also the unitive factor. And in the animal kingdom there are many species who participate in sexual acts other than heterosexual ones.(Sand fleas & lizards come to mind :i am talking about 2 consenting human adults, i am not advocating incest or pedophiliae.)(And yes, i know we are not animals, but if you are going to look at natural law then you are also looking at the behavior of these creatures as well...what comes naturally to them.)

i am speaking up out of charity and i know that for the most part no one on here will agree with everything that i am typing. But i am interested in what you have to say.


So, yes the question i posted somewhere else on here was about me, no cousin. i am sorry that i misled you.

Also, one more thought. How would you feel if one day you woke up and heterosexual sex was out-lawed? Or that you were told that even though you are in love with this person, you could never be intimate with them? And that all of sudden you were treated as a second-class citizen with no tax breaks, no recognition for your spouse, you were expected to act a certain way and to be someone who you know deep in your heart are not. Just imagine this for a moment. i do not wish this on any of you. it is horrible. i wish you all peace. Edited February 13, 2007 by maeveangel

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='maeveangel' post='1193394' date='Feb 13 2007, 11:13 AM']
You have no idea what you are talking about. Unless you are gay, you have no idea. i have spent the past decade trying to change, trying to be chaste, trying to act straight and it was just too much.

Also, one more thought. How would you feel if one day you woke up and heterosexual sex was out-lawed? Or that you were told that even though you are in love with this person, you could never be intimate with them? And that all of sudden you were treated as a second-class citizen with no tax breaks, no recognition for your spouse, you were expected to act a certain way and to be someone who you know deep in your heart are not. Just imagine this for a moment. i do not wish this on any of you. it is horrible. i wish you all peace.
[/quote]
Anyone who is not married is called to be chaste, so everyone here who is not married does know what you are talking about. Sex is NOT the end purpose of a relationship with another human being. People can and do live without sex.
There are also many instances in your life when you can love someone but may not ever marry them, or because of sickness, or disability may not be intimate with them.
Taxes break are for married people to help them raise their children and to support their marriage, they are not rights for any two people who choose to live in the same household.
I wish you peace as well.

[maeveangel]

thank you for responding so gently.

Edited February 13, 2007 by maeveangel

[cmotherofpirl]

If this were the end of our existance we could all do as we wished for there would be no eternal consequences to our actions, just oblivion.
However for those of us who believe this is just the wink of an eye compared to eternity, we must choose for the long term and not for just today, tomorrow, or next year.

[mroger]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1191741' date='Feb 11 2007, 04:14 PM']
If its truly psychological, than it is able to be reversed and some could be happily married. I dont think they're all necessarily called to be single
[/quote]

That is absolutely true. But they have to first change their system of values? Of course, most urban and sub-urban Americans have to change their system of values.