“School supports Sodomy”

[GreenJeans]

Welcome to America, the land where the only sin is the judgment of sin. Everything else is okay.

Sin is a private matter in America. People are free to define their own norms for sin.

 

[fix]

We should consider this question carefully, because I think the point is well taken in an important sense. This point is important because it helps us realize what our duties are and what issues we must defend…

Ok, it seems you want a fair parsing of the issue.

This is from the old CE:

• One (odium abominationis, or loathing) is that in which the intense dislike is concentrated primarily on the qualities or attributes of a person, and only secondarily, and as it were derivatively, upon the person himself.
• The second sort (odium inimicitiae, or hostility) aims directly at the person, indulges a propensity to see what is evil and unlovable in him, feels a fierce satisfaction at anything tending to his discredit, and is keenly desirous that his lot may be an unmixedly hard one, either in general or in this or that specified way.
  This second kind of hatred, as involving a very direct and absolute violation of the precept of charity, is always sinful and may be grievously so…
  
  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07149b.htm

I may be wrong but I contend those who use terms like hate speech are claiming such people are filled with hatred towards others. That charge that is thrown is false. The common understanding of the word hate is seen as pejorative. It is a political term, like “homophobic”, and is used to silence opponents.

 

[John_Hiner]

Ok, it seems you want a fair parsing of the issue.

This is from the old CE:

I may be wrong but I contend those who use terms like hate speech are claiming such people are filled with hatred towards others. That charge that is thrown is false. The common understanding of the word hate is seen as pejorative. It is a political term, like “homophobic”, and is used to silence opponents.

Dear Fix:

Thank you for the definitions. They are helpful. They also point out the problem. The word for “hate” in the Scriptures (in Latin) is “odit.” Hence, the two definitions from the Catholic Encyclopedia are distinguishing two meanings for the word that is actually used. Hence, it is “odit” in the one sense that we are commanded to do, and “odit” in the alternate meaning which we must avoid.

The difficulty with the “homosexual lobbying groups” is that their members assert a different anthropology than we do. They have been working for years to effect two twists (or perversions) in the language.

First, they have been working to establish a “gay identity.” That is, they have been urging those who have tendencies toward same-sex attraction and especially those who indulge such tendencies to think of these tendencies and actions as part of their personal identity. That is “gay” is not what they do, but rather it is “who they are.”

This is the meaning of the “gay pride” parades and celebrations etc. The purpose was to be seen and ultimately to understand oneself as being “gay” as a matter of identity. Hence, the possibility for the Catholic Encyclopedia’s first definition, odium abonimationis, is not allowed in their anthropology. One cannot “hate their actions” without hating their “person,” because the two have been made “identical.”

Second, the “homosexual lobbying groups” have been working through propaganda and emotionally charged encounters to establish the term “homophobic” as a means of inserting another aspect of their anthropology into the common speech. It is their hope that everyone will come to see sex not as separation into two sexes, but rather as a matter of choice and taste where activity and “identity” lie along a continuum of “sexuality” ranging from male to female, and “free” to rest at any point between those extremes. This notion denies the very concept of “male” and “female.” Those are extremes of the continuum, not separate categories, in this view of anthropology. (Of course, this does violence to the very word “sex,” which means “section, or separate part”; which is why the term “gender” is urged instead of “sex.”)

It is in this worldview that the word “homophobic” is being forced into use. This word wraps in itself the “sexuality” not “sex” view of man. It assumes that all people are homosexual, since all have merely come to rest somewhere on the continuum, which includes both same-sex and heterosexual acts and preferences. The term “homophobic” taken on its face is a combination of Greek roots that means “fear of self.” In the “homosexual lobbying groups’” view this has the double meaning of “fearing the openly homosexual person because he is the same as we are,” and “fearing what we do not want to face about our own subconscious ‘sexuality’ and desires for homosexual acts.”

Hence, the word “homophobic” is both an assertion that everyone is homosexual (at least subconsciously) and an accusation of self-loathing on the part of the person who is called “homophobic.”

As this language becomes more and more accepted, the necessary distinctions which you highlight become harder and harder to draw, and the worldview that makes a wholesome and correct view of the issues becomes more and more alien to the ideas assumed in day to day speech.

It is a serious attack on the ability to think and talk. Identity itself is being perverted, and the dignity of persons is being degraded, as a person is fundamentally identified with one or the other taste in sensual lust.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Fascinating and diabolical in that the perversion of identity seems to be a conscious attempt to validate a grave sin as acceptable. Well maybe frightening is a better word than fascinating

 

[GreenJeans]

While I understand the distinctions of meaning in the two uses of the word odium, I really have to question if people are capable of implementing one without the other. I would say we are not capable of intense dislike for the qualities of a person without an accompanying dislike for the pertson themselves.

When a person is presented before us, we see nothing other than the qualities of the person. What do we see and experience that is not a quality of the person? We don’t have a history of acknowledging the niceties of odium, and agent of the disliked attribute almost universally becomes the object of the dislike.

Experience shows us that encouraging intense dislike of a person’s qualities leads to intense dislike of the person. In simpler terms, hatred quickly targets the individual. And, we should keep in mind that few are as erudite in their definitions of odium; most just say hate the sin, love the sinner. It just doesn’t work on the street. Derivative hatred of a person is still hatred of a person.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Man has higher faculties. I do not think anyone is condoning wrath, anger that overrules right reason. Hate for sin is governed by the charity for the individual laboring under the sin.

I can hate the sin of homosexual actions and have charity for the poor individual laboring under the falsehood that surrendering his body to perverse acts is somehow an expression of his truest identity. In fact the hatred of the sin adds passion to the charity for the individual who is in the image of God; hatred of sin can spur me out of my comfort zone to try to help the sinner blinded by sin even though I know I will probably be met with vicious hatred of my person for pointing out the truth and this, too, I think is spoken of in the Gospels.

God bless.

 

[mesquite_magic]

We should not let loose language confuse us. It is the duty of the faithful to hate, in certain senses of that word. Jesus hated the acts of some. We are all commanded to hate – as a necessary part of love of God. Consider these passages from the New Testament Scriptures:

If any man come to me, and **hate **not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

Itself remaineth alone. But if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that **hateth **his life in this world, keepeth it unto life eternal. John 12:25 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

For that which I work, I understand not. For I do not that good which I will; but the evil which I hate, that I do. Romans 7:15 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

Thou hast loved justice, and **hated **iniquity: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. Hebrews 1:9 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

But this thou hast, that thou **hatest **the deeds of the Nicolaites, which I also hate. Revelation 2:6 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

There are many more uses of the word “hate” in the Old Testament, many of which reflect parts of the Gospel that are still binding.

The Faith demands full emotional competence. Hate is one of the emotions that we must feel fully and in precisely the correct way. It is a dangerous but necessary emotion. We cannot be casual about understanding its nature or its targets. (We must be careful to understand the word “hate” were it appears above in the precise way that the Church understands it. We cannot accept popular meanings for an English word, when we are trying to understand the meaning of Scriptures and Church teachings understood and expressed before English was devised.)

Given all of this, we should not fall too easily into the simplistic and imprecise way of speaking favored by journalists and “activists” for various popular causes. Simple, thoughtless talk is the tool of the enemies of the Church, not of her children.

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

Just now comming back to this post. I’m rather stunned by this response, or maybe I’m just confused…

“Simple thoughtless talk is the tool of enemies of the Church, not of her children”. Could you elaborate on this quote before I stick my foot in my mouth again?

You know in what way I referred to hate in my original post. Hate speach as in the way the KKK would speak to non-whites. Hate just for the feeling of superiority.

I’ll leave it at that for now. It’s late and I can’t put a decent thought together that won’t be offensive.

Kim

 

[mesquite_magic]

I have a few questions.

1. Is this homosexual group promoting that folks with SSA remain chaste or do they promote that they are “free” to act on their desires?
2. Is promoting a message that is contrary to the goal of this homosexual lobbying group automatically “hate” simply because it is contrary?
3. Does the assertion one is born “gay” somehow mean those who claim such are unassailable? I mean simply because one claims something does not mean the discussion gets shut down.

I’m not quite sure what you are asking in question number 3. Did I say the discussion should be shut down? I just asked a question.As to question number 1, to what group are you refering? The whole concept of A Day Of Silence is to show how homosexuals are "silenced’ in their lives. As far as I know it’s not one particular group, chaste or not, who “put it on”. Question 2, No. Not automatically. But explain to me how wearing a shirt that says “Homosexuality is a sin” is promoting anything else.

“There was no message of hate. The only hate exhibited came from those promoting sexual deviancy.” rpp, the only response I have to this is, "What?!! " They were silent, handing out a piece of paper that explained how gay, lesbian, and transgender people are silenced (treated as non-persons) in their lives. How is that promoting hate?

Kim

 

[fix]

Dear Fix:

Thank you for the definitions. They are helpful. They also point out the problem. The word for “hate” in the Scriptures (in Latin) is “odit.” Hence, the two definitions from the Catholic Encyclopedia are distinguishing two meanings for the word that is actually used. Hence, it is “odit” in the one sense that we are commanded to do, and “odit” in the alternate meaning which we must avoid.

The difficulty with the “homosexual lobbying groups” is that their members assert a different anthropology than we do. They have been working for years to effect two twists (or perversions) in the language.

First, they have been working to establish a “gay identity.” That is, they have been urging those who have tendencies toward same-sex attraction and especially those who indulge such tendencies to think of these tendencies and actions as part of their personal identity. That is “gay” is not what they do, but rather it is “who they are.”

This is the meaning of the “gay pride” parades and celebrations etc. The purpose was to be seen and ultimately to understand oneself as being “gay” as a matter of identity. Hence, the possibility for the Catholic Encyclopedia’s first definition, odium abonimationis, is not allowed in their anthropology. One cannot “hate their actions” without hating their “person,” because the two have been made “identical.”

Second, the “homosexual lobbying groups” have been working through propaganda and emotionally charged encounters to establish the term “homophobic” as a means of inserting another aspect of their anthropology into the common speech. It is their hope that everyone will come to see sex not as separation into two sexes, but rather as a matter of choice and taste where activity and “identity” lie along a continuum of “sexuality” ranging from male to female, and “free” to rest at any point between those extremes. This notion denies the very concept of “male” and “female.” Those are extremes of the continuum, not separate categories, in this view of anthropology. (Of course, this does violence to the very word “sex,” which means “section, or separate part”; which is why the term “gender” is urged instead of “sex.”)

It is in this worldview that the word “homophobic” is being forced into use. This word wraps in itself the “sexuality” not “sex” view of man. It assumes that all people are homosexual, since all have merely come to rest somewhere on the continuum, which includes both same-sex and heterosexual acts and preferences. The term “homophobic” taken on its face is a combination of Greek roots that means “fear of self.” In the “homosexual lobbying groups’” view this has the double meaning of “fearing the openly homosexual person because he is the same as we are,” and “fearing what we do not want to face about our own subconscious ‘sexuality’ and desires for homosexual acts.”

Hence, the word “homophobic” is both an assertion that everyone is homosexual (at least subconsciously) and an accusation of self-loathing on the part of the person who is called “homophobic.”

As this language becomes more and more accepted, the necessary distinctions which you highlight become harder and harder to draw, and the worldview that makes a wholesome and correct view of the issues becomes more and more alien to the ideas assumed in day to day speech.

It is a serious attack on the ability to think and talk. Identity itself is being perverted, and the dignity of persons is being degraded, as a person is fundamentally identified with one or the other taste in sensual lust.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

Very good, John you have made your points well.

 

[fix]

I’m not quite sure what you are asking in question number 3. Did I say the discussion should be shut down? I just asked a question.

I guess my question is why are those students who oppose this day of silence disciplined while those who support it are seen as acting in an acceptable manner?

As to question number 1, to what group are you refering? The whole concept of A Day Of Silence is to show how homosexuals are "silenced’ in their lives. As far as I know it’s not one particular group, chaste or not, who “put it on”.

I am referring to those folks who support a day of silence.

Question 2, No. Not automatically. But explain to me how wearing a shirt that says “Homosexuality is a sin” is promoting anything else.

I do not know the inetnt of the one wearing the shirt but I would argue the use of the term homosexuality these days mostly intends a person acting out homosexual acts.

“There was no message of hate. The only hate exhibited came from those promoting sexual deviancy.” rpp, the only response I have to this is, "What?!! " They were silent, handing out a piece of paper that explained how gay, lesbian, and transgender people are silenced (treated as non-persons) in their lives. How is that promoting hate?

Do you have a link that shows what the papers said? Thank you.

 

[mesquite_magic]

I guess my question is why are those students who oppose this day of silence disciplined while those who support it are seen as acting in an acceptable manner?

**Many schools don’t allow students to wear T-shirts with any saying on them. Maybe that was the reasoning behind the school’s decision. I honestly don’t know. **

I am referring to those folks who support a day of silence.
**Sorry I screwed up here, this is sponsered by The Gay Straight Alliance. A group who promotes "tolerance’ of gay, lesbian, and transgender people. The same way the NAACP promotes “tolerance” of people of color. **

I do not know the inetnt of the one wearing the shirt but I would argue the use of the term homosexuality these days mostly intends a person acting out homosexual acts.

**And people are just supposed to understand the intent. I thought we were supposed to hate the sin, not the sinner. To wear a shirt saying Sodomy Is A Sin would fit “hate the sin”, but to wear a shirt saying Homosexuality Is A Sin promotes 'hate the sinner". Just because someone realises they are gay, doesn’t mean they are acting on it. I would venture to guess that many gay people are chaste. Assuming all gay people are promiscuous is like assuming that all teenagers are promiscuous. **

Do you have a link that shows what the papers said? Thank you.

Why yes I do. Courtesy of The Gay Straight Alliance website,
gsanetwork.org/resources/dos.html

*“Please understand my reasons for not speaking today. I support lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights. People who are silent today believe that laws and attitudes should be inclusive of people of all sexual orientations and gender identities. GLSEN’S Day of Silence is to draw attention to those who have been silenced by hatred, oppression, and prejudice. Think about the voices you are not hearing. What can you do to end the silence?” *

 

[fix]

“Please understand my reasons for not speaking today. I support lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights. People who are silent today believe that laws and attitudes should be inclusive of people of all sexual orientations and gender identities. GLSEN’S Day of Silence is to draw attention to those who have been silenced by hatred, oppression, and prejudice. Think about the voices you are not hearing. What can you do to end the silence?”

Sounds like propaganda. Which laws do they want to enact or change? What do they mean by silenced? How do they define hatred?

 

[mesquite_magic]

Sounds like propaganda. Which laws do they want to enact or change? What do they mean by silenced? How do they define hatred?

What!!! I guess being beaten, hung on a fence, and left to die, is a sign of love??? Then joy of joy having a group of so-called Christians shout obcenities at your family as they try to mourn you. Gosh, those are some real Christ-like people, don’t ya think. Oh, hey. I guess Brandon Tina deserved to be raped and murdered by a group of men. How dare she try to look like a man and steal someone’s girlfriend, right?! Darn D-word! She doesn’t deserve to live,I guess. Hate indeed! Why they’re just cleansing the world of that gay junk, huh?!

Oh, how about being afraid to attend school. Not being able to sit through one class without being harrassed. Scared to walk home because of the group who follows you every day. You know, those big, tough guys who can only fight while their friends hold you down.

Then there is the day you have to tell your family that something is "different’ about you. Ever wonderd how it feels to have your family turn their backs on you? Wow! I wonder why anyone one would feel silenced.

Kim

 

[estesbob]

What!!! I guess being beaten, hung on a fence, and left to die, is a sign of love??? Then joy of joy having a group of so-called Christians shout obcenities at your family as they try to mourn you. Gosh, those are some real Christ-like people, don’t ya think. Oh, hey. I guess Brandon Tina deserved to be raped and murdered by a group of men. How dare she try to look like a man and steal someone’s girlfriend, right?! Darn D-word! She doesn’t deserve to live,I guess. Hate indeed! Why they’re just cleansing the world of that gay junk, huh?!

Oh, how about being afraid to attend school. Not being able to sit through one class without being harrassed. Scared to walk home because of the group who follows you every day. You know, those big, tough guys who can only fight while their friends hold you down.

Then there is the day you have to tell your family that something is "different’ about you. Ever wonderd how it feels to have your family turn their backs on you? Wow! I wonder why anyone one would feel silenced.

Kim

So if I dont support you poltical agenda I am in favor of beating you and hanging from a fence to die? And becuase a woman was beaten and raped we should accept homosexual berhavior as just another lifestyle choice?.

BTW-Mathew Shepard was killed in a drug deal gone bad-NOT becuase he was a homomosexual. Although I know you were probably crying at the end of “Big Girls Dont Cry” but Brandon Tina is no Hillary Swank Thats the problem with developing ones world view based on movies you have seen.

 

[fix]

What!!! I guess being beaten, hung on a fence, and left to die, is a sign of love??? Then joy of joy having a group of so-called Christians shout obcenities at your family as they try to mourn you. Gosh, those are some real Christ-like people, don’t ya think. Oh, hey. I guess Brandon Tina deserved to be raped and murdered by a group of men. How dare she try to look like a man and steal someone’s girlfriend, right?! Darn D-word! She doesn’t deserve to live,I guess. Hate indeed! Why they’re just cleansing the world of that gay junk, huh?!

Oh, how about being afraid to attend school. Not being able to sit through one class without being harrassed. Scared to walk home because of the group who follows you every day. You know, those big, tough guys who can only fight while their friends hold you down.

Then there is the day you have to tell your family that something is "different’ about you. Ever wonderd how it feels to have your family turn their backs on you? Wow! I wonder why anyone one would feel silenced.

Kim

If I do not kow tow to homosexualist agitprop I am supporting violence? Your post makes the argument that I am against in this day of silence.

It is an admixture of extremist politics, moral relativism, and intimidations used to shutdown debate. No one is in favor of violence. Being against homosexual acts and being against the forced normalization of those acts in this society is the real issue.

 

[estesbob]

If I do not kow tow to homosexualist agitprop I am supporting violence? Your post makes the argument that I am against in this day of silence.

It is an admixture of extremist politics, moral relativism, and intimidations used to shutdown debate. No one is in favor of violence. Being against homosexual acts and being against the forced normalization of those acts in this society is the real issue.

Kinda like judging all homosexual by the death of Jesse Dirkhising . Of course being he was a heterosexual boy tortured raped and killed by two hoimosexual men you dont hear muych about him. No made for TV movies, no foundations in his memories.

 

[mesquite_magic]

So if I dont support you poltical agenda I am in favor of beating you and hanging from a fence to die? And becuase a woman was beaten and raped we should accept homosexual berhavior as just another lifestyle choice?.

BTW-Mathew Shepard was killed in a drug deal gone bad-NOT becuase he was a homomosexual. Although I know you were probably crying at the end of “Big Girls Dont Cry” but Brandon Tina is no Hillary Swank Thats the problem with developing ones world view based on movies you have seen.

No, I didn’t say you were in favor of beating people. Fix asked me a question about homosexuals and hate. I simply answered it.

Where did you hear that Mathew Sheppard was killed in a drug deal gone wrong?

You’re right about Tina Brandon/Brandon Teena. He certainly wan’t Hillary Swank, I didn’t say that. I don’t base my opinions on movies. I realise that movie makers take 'poetic license" with stories. I read articles from various sources and watch the news.

Kim

 

[mesquite_magic]

If I do not kow tow to homosexualist agitprop I am supporting violence? Your post makes the argument that I am against in this day of silence.

It is an admixture of extremist politics, moral relativism, and intimidations used to shutdown debate. No one is in favor of violence. Being against homosexual acts and being against the forced normalization of those acts in this society is the real issue.

I never said one way or the other. Your own posts make you sound that way. You asked a question and I answered it. I’ve never tried to shut down this debate. You keep alluding to that, yet, here I am, and there you are. The debate goes on.

Kim

 

[mesquite_magic]

Kinda like judging all homosexual by the death of Jesse Dirkhising . Of course being he was a heterosexual boy tortured raped and killed by two hoimosexual men you dont hear muych about him. No made for TV movies, no foundations in his memories.

No. I haven’t heard of that person. I’ll be sure to look up the case though. You are welcome to make a movie or start a foundation for him. I don’t see anyone stopping you.

Kim

 

[fix]

I never said one way or the other. Your own posts make you sound that way. You asked a question and I answered it. I’ve never tried to shut down this debate. You keep alluding to that, yet, here I am, and there you are. The debate goes on.

Kim

The debate is shutdown by those gay groups who use the terms hate and violence when they are inappropriate.

Now, when I asked you what laws were in question you bring up examples that are not relevant. The laws in question involve normalizing deviant conduct. The real issue has nothing to do with violence. It has everything to do with foisting a particular agenda on the rest of the population.