Homophobia doesn't exist (Cardinal Müller)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Edward_H
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In other words, homosexuals I know take no issue with men and women being married. Rather, they take exception to others dictating how homosexuals are supposed to live their lives. If one isn’t Catholic, they wonder why Catholics feel they should be bound to the Catholic way of thinking on this issue.
Click to expand...
This is EXTREMELY important to keep in mind.

As a Catholic who is gay/has SSA, perhaps the primary reason I intend on following church teaching on marriage is PRECISELY because it is a church teaching.

That is, every other part of me would want to fall in love, have a romantic relationship, and get married to another man. My Catholic faith informs me more, which is why I don’t readily go that route.

So naturally, many gay people who are not Catholic simply have no incentive to follow the Catholic understanding of marriage.

NOTE/P.S.: It does no good to bring up the natural law argument. For at the end of the day, that is always an abstract and intellectual exercise. Those kinds of argument usually never click unless you’re already willing to follow the Catholic (or some other Christian) worldview. To get a good idea of this fact, simply ponder the reality that perhaps the vast majority of non-Catholic gay people are readily willing to fall in love and get married.
 
Last edited:
Edward_H said:
redneck”…that sounds mighty judgmental of you, besmirching farmworkers who work in the fields.
Click to expand...
Actually, the term redneck was coined during the civil war in the united states. At the time, it referred to
scottish immigrants who were in the military.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
40.png
mrsdizzyd:
And what do you think belies hatred?
Click to expand...
Why does everyone assume if you hate something you also fear it? I’ve never understood that.
Click to expand...
I didn’t assume anything. I asked a question, which is what you do when you don’t want to assume you know something about someone.

:roll_eyes:
 
My apologies then, it seemed you were implying that hatred belied fear.
 
One need not read his agenda book to know him.

His too many articles over the years in America paint a rich and sad portrait of his views and clever tendencies.

Not a penny to him.
 
Hmmmmm…
Overall, the book was about dialogue and prayer, rather than moral theology. (As a Catholic priest, I have also never challenged those teachings, nor will I.)
Click to expand...
He then proceeds in the article mentioned above, in America Magazine, to plainly state the church’s teaching, based on Scripture and natural law.
 
Last edited:
America magazine?

It’s not a hallmark of scholarship.

It’s his own rag; he was the editor, he “quaffed” it.
 
Last edited:
So does that imply they aren’t really Fr Martin’s words?

I don’t get it.

It could be a piece written on his personal blog for all that matters. The point is that it’s a recent piece clearly discussing the church’s teaching, written by him.

And besides, I like America Magazine.
 
Last edited:
JanSobieskiIII said:
My apologies then, it seemed you were implying that hatred belied fear.
Click to expand...
Well, this is a subjective question, so there isn’t a right or wrong answer.

There are several theories that suggest that fear belies hate. For instance, in-group out-group theory. This suggests that we fear things that are different. It argues that hate is driven by love and aggression. We love our in-group and show aggression towards anything or anyone that is perceived as a challenging, threatening, or dangerous (the out-group).

So, in the case of this thread, Catholics would be the in-group and LGBT+ people would be the out-group. This theory would suggest that Catholics show aggression toward LGBT+ people because they fear that LGBT+ people threaten and may harm their faith (traditional marriage, Life, institutional structures like the priesthood, etc. )

However, this is just one theory… there are others like projection or lack of self-compassion. Then there are also social reasons. Some people are taught to hate, and they may have never thought critically about whether or not the teaching had merit.

I’m sure there are other theories that have nothing to do with fear. That’s why I asked the question.

It’s not just a question for Semper. Anyone can feel free to chime in. (I’m really just trying to elevate the discussion.)
 
Last edited:
Honest question, here. What is it about the gay lifestyle that you hate so much? Hate is such a strong
word. What is the gay lifestyle you are referring to? The gay people I know live the same lifestyle as the
straight people I know. They live in a house, they work a steady, respectable job, they love their families,
They enjoy going to the theater and picnics and sporting events. The only difference between them and
the straight people I know, truthfully, is that they put their body parts in places straight people may or may not put theirs. I don’t get it. I don’t care one whit where a straight couple puts their body parts. Do you? Do you go around saying, “I hate the lifestyle of straight people who engage in sodomy?”. I doubt it. So, I ask honestly, what about a gay person’s lifestyle do you feel so strongly about that you feel you “hate” it?

I am not just asking you, as I hear so often about how people hate the lifestyle. I don’t know what they mean. Obviously there are very flamboyant gay people, but truthfully, they aren’t the norm. Just as there are heterosexual people who engage in less than appropriate public behavior. However, for them, I don’t
usually hear people saying “I hate that lifestyle”. They may say they hate PDA. But that is different then saying one hates a whole lifestyle.
 
I understand that, but is someones sex life their lifestyle? Here is what I think. I think a person’s sex life is usually a small part of their entire life. I think the word lifestyle refers to how a person approaches their life in general. Where do they live, where do they work, do they drink or do drugs, are they honest, etc etc etc. It is a whole compilation of choices they make in life, and what the end result looks like.

When we refer to gay sex as a lifestyle, it diminishes the people you are talking about to nothing more than
the choices they make about where to put their body parts. It is offensive, because they are so much more than that. Catholics say it all the time, that we are more than our sexual orientation. And yet, we will tell someone we love them but we hate their “liffestyle”. I guess what I am saying is it is a remark that denegrates the person as a whole, as opposed to a (very) small aspect of who they are. This kind of thing
is a simple semantic issue, but it is what can cause so much annimosity between people. I really do believe it would be better to say “I don’t like what you do with your body, because you seek sexual gratification outside of marriage and I don’t think it is moral”. Direct, to the point, and not talking about the
big picture of how someone lives their life.

Just my observation. I am sure there are folks who will disagree. But that is the way I see it.
 
Last edited:
Wow thats nice, catholic1seeks mentions how minorities are attacked and you respond with:
Edward_H said:
Pederasts are minorities, serial adulterers are minorities.
Click to expand...
Thats casting legitimate minorities in what should be a civil discourse in with pederasts. You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too in this clever little word play of yours.
 
You missed the point that minorities isn’t a useful term…you or someone else used it first and I showed how poor it is.
 
Okay instead of “minority” (which, usually and in this context, is not merely referring to a small population but a discriminated against or marginalized group), then how about “vulnerable groups” who have been alienated by certain sectors of society, including the church?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top