Catholics are ceding too much ground to the homosexual agenda

[BroomWagon]

We shall see.

Are they unjustified in doing so? Should we not bring up serial killers who target only women because female serial killers exist?

1. You are arguing against no one; your claim is a straw man.
2. Homophobic violence is different than incidental homosexuality in serial killers whose motives are not parallel.

I ask again: how is this relevant?

Actually, the top male serial killers from proven cases of murder have been homosexual.

So, we can hear all the time of supposed violence against homosexuals but if one shows homosexuals commit violence, you are saying that is irrelevant.

 

[atheistgirl]

That’s because there is no real definition for homophobia.

Your scholarly etymological source for this please?

Don’t bother quoting it’s a neologism coined by Weinberg in the 1970’s as this is incorrect.

So, your scholarly source please?

Sarah x

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Your scholarly etymological source for this please?

Don’t bother quoting it’s a neologism coined by Weinberg in the 1970’s as this is incorrect.

So, your scholarly source please?

Sarah x

Is there such thigh as Heterophobia?

Very convenient of you to avoid that question.

Perhaps Bisexualphobia?

Oh yea probably.not, these things have no agenda or political motives.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Your scholarly etymological source for this please?

Don’t bother quoting it’s a neologism coined by Weinberg in the 1970’s as this is incorrect.

So, your scholarly source please?

Sarah x

Wait… Are you asking him to prove the absence of a definition for homophobia?

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

This thread has derailed. Big time. :slapfight::stretcher::crutches:

 

[fix]

Children are naturally repelled by homosexuality? Not sure about that. When I was a very little girl, 6 or so, another little girl in the neighborhood used to practice kissing on me and on her life-size female doll all the time.

Innocent children know naturally that same sex acts are not normal. It is not until they get older and are indoctrinated or their consciences get dulled they they begin to see homosexuals acts as normal and acceptable.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

This thread has derailed. Big time. :slapfight::stretcher::crutches:

Not really. The og post was about “he who controls the language controls the debate.” Everyone seems to ne discussing the language.

 

[fix]

Irrelevant. The OP stated that homophobia was an “invented evil.” He should not have set the burden of disproof so low that any demonstration of homophobia whatsoever is sufficient evidence.

And should not be.

That it happens at all is problematic enough. In some countries, being homosexual is illegal. Even in the US, there is rampant and unjust discrimination against homosexuals. All of these are unacceptable.

Remember that the OP was the one who claimed that all the crosses are identical, not I.

Where is this rampant unjust discrimination you claim?

 

[fix]

It is not a more difficult vocation because there is no sex. It is more difficult because you are called to give up everything. And in addition to giving their lives to God, they are still misunderstood, hated, discriminated against, attacked, etc.

So if you want to play it that way, priests have an even heavier cross to carry than homosexuals. Homosexuals don’t have it that hard then after all.

Yes well celibacy is giving up a good for a greater good. Not having homosexual acts is not giving up a good. It is refraining from a bad.

 

[Baelor]

It is not a more difficult vocation because there is no sex. It is more difficult because you are called to give up everything..

That is certainly true. The fact remains that marriage is the natural vocation, as God himself says.

So if you want to play it that way, priests have an even heavier cross to carry than homosexuals. Homosexuals don’t have it that hard then after all.

I do not contest that statement.

 

[SaintPatrick333]

I agree with most of what is said above fully, except this- homophobia is an invention. It is not an invention, but a cold fact- and an offense against the Catechism’s statement that homosexual persons should be treated with dignity and respect. I’m not talking about accepting the behavior- or even gay marriage- since they’re a non-negotiable issue; I’m talking about homosexuals being disowned, beaten to death, barred from jobs, and generally demeaned because of their actions- or even non-actions in the case of non-practicing homosexuals. And while homosexuality is a moral disorder, I still consider it utterly ridiculous to put them on the same level as pedophiles (who are child abusers, and do lasting harm outside of the mere act), and bestialists (since animals are NOT humans, which even prevents the idea of using an emotional connection as an excuse, as animals do not have human emotions). Homosexual acts generally occur in our world from a combination of lust and romantic attraction- the latter being the one lacking in the previous two disorders, one being created from pure lust and the other because of that and the need to have power over someone- and the reason the behavior is wrong is simply because it’s sex outside of marriage, since we know two men or two women cannot get married.

Most homosexual couples that I’ve personally known throughout life have had a relationship, or are presently in one, with a vast age difference. A lesbian at work is low 30’s and her girlfriend just turned 19 last year. To me, that’s “legal” pedophilia. There is a link between the two, though that doesn’t mean one stems from the other every single time. But it is foolish to say in many cases experiences of pedophilia don’t lead to homosexuality or other psychological perversions and disorders.

 

[Baelor]

That’s because there is no real definition for homophobia.

There is. You unjustifiably dismissed it.

Is there then such thing as Heterophobia?

Yes. Whether heterophobia exists or not is a separate issue.

Maybe all homosexuals are really just Heterophobic.

Some likely are.

 

[Baelor]

Actually, the top male serial killers from proven cases of murder have been homosexual.

So? That is not at all relevant.

So, we can hear all the time of supposed violence against homosexuals but if one shows homosexuals commit violence, you are saying that is irrelevant.

You are equating inherent aspects of a behavior with incidental attributes of a person who commits the same behavior.

Someone killing someone else because the victim is gay is completely different from a serial killer who happens to be gay killing for reasons completely unrelated to the sexual (dis)orientation of his victims.

Wait… Are you asking him to prove the absence of a definition for homophobia?

No, the question was why a perfectly reasonable definition was rejected.

Where is this rampant unjust discrimination you claim?

I will provide evidence once you acknowledge that all the other aspects of my post are correct, especially that I have successfully dismantled the OP’s claim that homophobia is an “invented evil.”

 

[atheistgirl]

Is there such thigh as Heterophobia?

Very convenient of you to avoid that question.

I’m not avoiding any question.

I’m waiting for the scholarly etymological source that proves homophobia is not a real word.

Once we have that, we’ll move onto your question.

You don’t get to avoid the question by asking a different question.

Sarah x

 

[Kaninchen]

I wonder what is the Catholic equivalent of ‘homosexualist’, as in ‘the Cath…whatever…ualist Agenda’?

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

Not really. The og post was about “he who controls the language controls the debate.” Everyone seems to ne discussing the language.

Point taken. But that doesn’t change the fact that there’s a lot of this going on: :slapfight: and not enough of this going on: :newidea:

The spirit of the OP’s thread feels violated. This is like every slapfight debate about homosexuality that I’ve seen on CAF. Nothing is being accomplished, just a lot of clever intellectual fencing.

The red herrings are flying fast and furious in here. And no, I don’t have the time to point them out.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Yes well celibacy is giving up a good for a greater good. Not having homosexual acts is not giving up a good. It is refraining from a bad.

I’m glad you made this distinction, thanks. Although in the end, the bottom line for both is that God called them to that way of living and both equally have as much free will to accept that or deny it.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

Don’t bother quoting it’s a neologism coined by Weinberg in the 1970’s as this is incorrect.

So, your scholarly source please?

Sarah x

I always assumed that it was a neologism (I don’t know who Weinberg is. I’ll google it).

Homo = same. Phobia = fear. It’s an easy fit, but not necessarily the “fear of gay people” but clearly the connotation is “fear of sameness.” These are just guesses of course.

You seem to be withholding better information than we have. What is your scholarly source that says explicity that homophobia isn’t a neologism? Genuinely want to know.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

I’m not avoiding any question.

I’m waiting for the scholarly etymological source that proves homophobia is not a real word.

Once we have that, we’ll move onto your question.

You don’t get to avoid the question by asking a different question.

Sarah x

I never claimed homophobia is not a real word, its not a real concept.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

I’m glad you made this distinction, thanks. Although in the end, the bottom line for both is that God called them to that way of living and both equally have as much free will to accept that or deny it.

God doesn’t call anyone to sin.