Addressing homophobics

[MNathaniel]

I leave it as i phrased it.

I think that’s shameful. On the plus side, you make yourself a piece of public evidence that careless unkindness still exists towards people who experience SSA, so the rest of us can keep that in mind and try to be even more forgiving when we’re lashed out against, and even more compassionate about the experience someone has gone through before they got to us.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

I’ll leave it as i phrased it.

Then you will remain in error.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Too bad you feel a need to justify an undisputed sin.

What sin is being justified? There’s no sin in experiencing same sex attraction. The only sin is in acting on those desires.

 

[MNathaniel]

undisputed mortal sin

There is no sin, either mortal or venial, in experiencing an attraction or temptation.

Sin exists when a person acts sinfully. When we conform our will to our temptations, instead of to God. Simply experiencing same sex attraction implies no more sin than simply experiencing opposite sex attraction.

I expect we’ll see canonized saints coming out of this generation, who were open about their experience of same sex attraction while living chaste and holy lives.

Again, see apostolates like Eden Invitation. These are our joyful, loving, God-focused brothers and sisters. We can each probably learn a lot from their holy example.

 

[MNathaniel]

See my original response. “Homosexuals are not rightly ordered”. Homosexuals are by definition practicing homosexuality not just “thinking” about it. Are you justifying an undisputed mortal sin?

You’ve got your definition wrong then. I’d advise you to stop using this language so as to avoid confusing anybody else about what you mean.

In the overall culture, what the label ‘homosexual’ tends to mean in the ears of hearers (which is where half of communication happens; you can’t just ignore it) is that a person experiences attraction to a person of the same sex. A person might self-identify as ‘homosexual’ (or, perhaps more commonly, ‘gay’) on the basis of felt attraction alone, without ever having taken an action synchronous with that attraction. (Or, after having taken such actions in the past, but no longer doing so.)

This is why it is so important to be careful with the language we use, and to draw clear distinctions between persons (beloved of God) and actions.

 

[StudentMI]

Homosexuals are by definition practicing homosexuality not just “thinking” about it.

Lol sure. Thanks for telling me what I’m doing.

By the way your use of Latin terminology is sloppy.

 

[StudentMI]

You’re welcome. Maybe nobody told you in clear terms before.

So I’m a practicing homosexual?

 

[MNathaniel]

The bible and Catholic church are very exacting about terminology. I would urge you to stick to doctrine and dogma and not your personal sentiment.

Friend, I would seriously advise you to pause for at least a moment and pray. Or ask yourself whether it’s possible – possible – that you’re the one who’s accidentally clinging to your private preferred way of speaking out of personal sentiment. Ask yourself whether it’s possible – possible – that you’ve flubbed up here and actually you might learn how to approach a given topic better in future.

 

[StudentMI]

I don’t know or care.

But but but, according to you I am because I’m homosexual.

 

[MNathaniel]

I don’t know or care. You just want to argue against Catholic and biblical doctrine which I will defend.

You clearly have no idea who you’re talking to, if you think StudentMI (or I) “argue against Catholic and biblical doctrine” on sexual ethics.

 

[JMMJ]

Homosexuals are by definition practicing homosexuality not just “thinking” about it

Incorrect.

 

[annad347]

Who is StudentMI, should I know who he/she is?

 

[annad347]

Never mind

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Nobody has done that.

 

[StudentMI]

Who is StudentMI, should I know who he/she is?

Hi I’m StudentMI.

 

[MNathaniel]

He’s actually not wrong in saying it is disordered. The CCC itself says Homosexuality is disordered.
[/quote]

Please re-read specifically what I said and specifically what I responded to.

Homosexuals are by definition practicing homosexuality not just “thinking” about it.

You’ve got your definition wrong then… In the overall culture, what the label ‘homosexual’ tends to mean in the ears of hearers (which is where half of communication happens; you can’t just ignore it) is that a person experiences attraction to a person of the same sex. A person might self-identify as ‘homosexual’ (or, perhaps more commonly, ‘gay’) on the basis of felt attraction alone, without ever having taken an action synchronous with that attraction. (Or, after having taken such actions in the past, but no longer doing so.)

The user proceeded to reject correction of phrasing, ignore the clear distinctions being drawn between person and act, and call myself and StudentMI “obvious heretics”, as if noting the difference between person and act has anything to do with approving an act.

 

[MNathaniel]

I asked him to clean it up. My very first response to him was a polite suggestion that he might consider rephrasing.

His response?

I’ll leave it as i phrased it.

 

[pulchraesamicamea]

Are you referring to people who hate homosexuals, and who believe they should be killed based on their homosexual tendencies?

If yes, you did the right thing.

We are called to rebuke sin, not to rebuke people. The Church even says homosexual peoples should be treated with respect like any other person, not threatening their lives.

Yes, homosexuality is a sin, but this doesn’t give a reason to hate homosexuals.

 

[neophyte]

So my friend was expressing his homophobia

I’ve never met a homophobe, and I doubt that you have.

 

[lwest]

Pointing out that the homosexual lifestyle offends God is not ‘hate’. Saying we should go around and beat up gay people is hate. So…it depends on what your friend said, exactly.