F
friardchips
Guest
…sorry, I didn’t mean to brush you off; if you were saying that you have OCD then I wish you the best in carrying your cross, sincerely.
Take care.
Take care.
- Status
R
Rob_Arnzen
Guest
F
friardchips
Guest
I feel I have a duty not to dignify those vile responses with an answer. Your words are not Christian.
Take care and God bless.
Take care and God bless.
R
Rob_Arnzen
Guest
You never seem to have a problem smacking other posters on the side of the head with your rhetorical bricks.
If you don’t like receiving it, then perhaps you should not be handing it out.
.
F
friardchips
Guest
I suggest you cease to stop trying to rope others into your malicious attack. Not good practice.
There is a difference between being rhetorical to being personally insulting just as there is a difference between argument for the sake of progressing in discussion to being rude because you don’t know how to frame a well-reasoned and polite argument.
If it hurt your pride being wrong earlier then this is not my fault (?) You were given chances to back out, pushed it further, and when proven wrong returned with an insult. If you are scared of being incorrect (which there is no shame in being because no one is judging you if you get something wrong) then don’t post. Simple solution.
Over and out.
God bless.
R
Rob_Arnzen
Guest
F
friardchips
Guest
Originally Posted by friardchips:
Look, if you feel bad that you were wrong (?) well, no one is judging you, including me.
All is well.
Originally Posted by Rob_Arnzen:
Look, if you feel bad that you were wrong (?) well, no one is judging you, including me.
All is well.
S
sw85
Guest
Let me try to summarize my views here for clarity’s sake.
Let’s define “homophobia” as “hatred of sodomites” (or fear, but I don’t think anyone’s using the word in that sense here – and I say “sodomites” rather than “homosexuals” because the relevant category here is people who act on their sexual appetites rather than merely harbor them). Whether or not “homophobia” is a sin, then, depends on what we mean by the word “hatred”.
The liberal understanding of “hatred,” in this case, is negative feelings. To “hate” sodomites means to be disgusted by sodomy, to think it is a disordered behavior, and to work against the gay lobby’s political agenda.
The meaningful Catholic understanding of “hatred” is volitional – it means willing evil upon someone, where “evil” is taken holistically (not merely as suffering, since, after all, we should demand that criminals be punished for their crimes). In that sense, “hatred” is the opposite of “charity,” of willing the good for another for that other’s sake.
So when we speak of “homophobia,” we may mean either (a) dislike/disgust about sodomy or toward sodomites, either particular ones or more generally, or (b) wishing evil upon sodomites.
If (a), then homophobia is not a sin, because it is an emotion without involvement of the will. Of course it may lead to the involvement of the will, if for instance a person acts on their disgust by beating up a gay person, but then the sin is the act of beating up the person, not feeling disgusted by them.
If (b), then homophobia is a sin, but note, not because of who is the object of the hatred. We are not allowed to wish evil upon sodomites any more than we are allowed to wish evil upon black people or white people or rich people or poor people or fat people or foreigners or Protestants or anyone else. So talking about “homophobia” (on that understanding of the word) arbitrarily singles out one instance of a general class of immoral behaviors (hating people) and treats it as if it were morally different from the rest, when it isn’t.
Given that it’s not a meaningful moral category in itself, we should really avoid talking about “homophobia” as a moral phenomenon, precisely because it is a category invented by leftists to express leftist ideas and advance a leftist agenda. You can see it all throughout this thread, where you have people actually speaking as if merely being repulsed by the thought of sodomitical acts were sinful! This is a logical consequence of appropriating the vocabulary of the Church’s enemies. We should, rather, speak about the evils of wishing evil upon people, and the moral praiseworthiness of wishing good upon people merely for their own sake, even your enemies.
Let’s define “homophobia” as “hatred of sodomites” (or fear, but I don’t think anyone’s using the word in that sense here – and I say “sodomites” rather than “homosexuals” because the relevant category here is people who act on their sexual appetites rather than merely harbor them). Whether or not “homophobia” is a sin, then, depends on what we mean by the word “hatred”.
The liberal understanding of “hatred,” in this case, is negative feelings. To “hate” sodomites means to be disgusted by sodomy, to think it is a disordered behavior, and to work against the gay lobby’s political agenda.
The meaningful Catholic understanding of “hatred” is volitional – it means willing evil upon someone, where “evil” is taken holistically (not merely as suffering, since, after all, we should demand that criminals be punished for their crimes). In that sense, “hatred” is the opposite of “charity,” of willing the good for another for that other’s sake.
So when we speak of “homophobia,” we may mean either (a) dislike/disgust about sodomy or toward sodomites, either particular ones or more generally, or (b) wishing evil upon sodomites.
If (a), then homophobia is not a sin, because it is an emotion without involvement of the will. Of course it may lead to the involvement of the will, if for instance a person acts on their disgust by beating up a gay person, but then the sin is the act of beating up the person, not feeling disgusted by them.
If (b), then homophobia is a sin, but note, not because of who is the object of the hatred. We are not allowed to wish evil upon sodomites any more than we are allowed to wish evil upon black people or white people or rich people or poor people or fat people or foreigners or Protestants or anyone else. So talking about “homophobia” (on that understanding of the word) arbitrarily singles out one instance of a general class of immoral behaviors (hating people) and treats it as if it were morally different from the rest, when it isn’t.
Given that it’s not a meaningful moral category in itself, we should really avoid talking about “homophobia” as a moral phenomenon, precisely because it is a category invented by leftists to express leftist ideas and advance a leftist agenda. You can see it all throughout this thread, where you have people actually speaking as if merely being repulsed by the thought of sodomitical acts were sinful! This is a logical consequence of appropriating the vocabulary of the Church’s enemies. We should, rather, speak about the evils of wishing evil upon people, and the moral praiseworthiness of wishing good upon people merely for their own sake, even your enemies.
F
friardchips
Guest
So do you mean simply being kind towards others and speaking well of them - looking for God in each person, without judgement?
R
Rob_Arnzen
Guest
S
Sky_River
Guest
What’s the difference between disapproving of a person’s sinful lifestyle, and hating them? The Bible says to not be unequally yoked with sinners, so I do believe your perception of a person should be influenced by how they behave (including their sins), but at what point does that cross the line into hatred or bigotry?
E
edwest2
Guest
When I was in high school I was beaten up twice by a classmate who only wanted to prove he could do so. At the time, parents would talk to their bruised and beaten son and then talk to the parents of the bully. In Detroit, it is not unusual for black on black violence to occur just because somebody dissed somebody, or belonged to a different gang, or just because. There is no meaning when a celebrity appears on TV to tell people to ‘stop being homophobic.’ The police or other authority should deal with that particular offender or offenders and not go with the “they are all like that.” Homophobic.
If you don’t agree with ‘gay rights,’ then you’re a homophobe. That’s psychological warfare in action. Homophobia is a word used to stigmatize everyone - except for the few who support whatever ‘gay rights’ means.
Wake up people. I can’t tell if the person walking passed me is gay, bisexual, an adulterer or other. And I don’t think about it. No group should be made to feel guilty for something they haven’t done. The police don’t arrest people who look like criminals, or the entire neighborhood if a crime happens. Only the criminal who committed the crime.
Criminal acts against people for being gay or other perceived or actual enemy is one thing. Homophobia explains nothing.
Peace,
Ed
F
friardchips
Guest
I am sorry to hear this. Not a pleasant experience…
If you don’t want to answer then I’ll mind my own business: did you lived in a gang area - going by your knowledge of the problems that occur(?)
Where does this happen though?
I don’t think anyone here is supporting gay rights exactly; just being nice to people by taking them as they are. It doesn’t mean you have to accept what might happen behind closed doors and as you went on to say - we don’t think about that anyway, and I think every Christian at some point has petitioned against laws which threaten the sanctity of life such as married gay couples raising children.
I agree with this statement because otherwise we end up with ‘thought-police’. But this does go both ways IMHO. On the one hand it’s plausible to presume some people are made to feel bad if they feel something negative and maybe they find it difficult to combat negative thoughts about a section of the community, or a person, but then if that hangs over the *possible suffering person * who is the target of negative feeling, and people hold it against them, then even thinking about that person in a negative way can show itself and affect that person and it sends ripples of tension through a community.
No matter why the word came about, and whether it was silly to begin with, and whether it is used to cause a conflagration against Christians, it is still a word. I thought earlier that prejudice would be a better word as it veers around such ambiguity. What do you think? I do think homophobia is a word still though that maybe accidently serves to highlight a real fear. I don’t think it can just be ruled out completely - look at the violence in Africa - as there is never an excuse for violence against vulnerable people and this can stem easily from not knowing how to ‘love’ people with kindness because of inner tension.
If a word comes about that has to make Christians try harder and in some cases re-evaluate their own faith-life then it can be a healthy thing.
As someone who experienced violence I would think that you understand how a bad thought can turn into violence because the person who abused you physically had a thought initially to do so too. Where do we draw the line at any kind of prejudice. As a Christian one has a duty to keep a mind on one’s thoughts. Difficult in some cases but that is another reason why we need God to help us - not only to see and to speak but also to think with compassion. This is a daily commitment.
I would counter-argue and suggest that homophobia is a word but stems from something bigger and less ambiguous: Christians don’t seem to understand how they are to be or to feel or to see or to speak when confronted with controversial issues. Do you think this is a true statement?
I believe we must always keep our own souls in check because this is the thing that leads to good fruit.
God bless.
F
friardchips
Guest
…edwest2, just in case, I am not implying or insinuating anything in my post, as I know things can sometimes be taken two ways - I mean everything simply as it is written and with goodwill.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Anything yet?I have to go but I will have a look tomorrow. It doesn’t matter anyway because it will be in Scripture or some document somewhere. If our reason and faith tells us certain things then these will have been covered by theologians of the Church. Anyway, thanks for the conversation. God bless.
F
friardchips
Guest
I haven’t looked yet! Not sure I’ll find anything. 
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
“Sexual orientation” is a highly ambiguous term loaded with hidden false assumptions.Sexual orientation is a term clearly recognised as being heterosexual, bi-sexual or homosexual.
If one has a sexual liking for anything that is not a human gender, then this is a fetish.
The term orientation or fetish has nothing to do with whether a sexual preference is disordered and not much to do with this thread.
Your posted articles earlier didn’t prove anything either. Defending yourself as correct doesn’t make up for a lack of a point, lack of argument and, from your posts, seemingly unsound reasoning.
With all due respect.
An “orientation” describes the perspective of a subject toward an object. A sexual orientation therefore describes a person (subject) by the object toward which they are sexually attracted: a homosexual is someone oriented toward someone of the same sex, a bisexual toward both sexes, a pedophile toward children, a sado-masochist toward giving or receiving pain, etc.
.
By definition, there are an unlimited number of potential sexual orientations. The “gay” movement, however, arbitrarily recognizes only four orientations: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered (i.e. transvestites and transsexuals).
Why?
Because to recognize other orientations – pedophilia, for example – would draw attention to the importance of distinguishing between orientation and conduct, when a major purpose of sexual orientation theory is to legitimize and protect homosexual conduct by obscuring this distinction.
F
friardchips
Guest
Hi. I found just this on here - the Vatican website: scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2358
'Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.’
Also, earlier on in a post I wrote the dictionary meaning for terms to do with orientation if you check it out. In post 155.
All the best for now.
'Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.’
Also, earlier on in a post I wrote the dictionary meaning for terms to do with orientation if you check it out. In post 155.
All the best for now.
R
robertmidwest
Guest
Well said.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
I remember that discussion. I believe I said:
Sexual orientation is a term that is used by “gay” activists to deceive both policy makers and the public about the nature of homosexuality. It frames the debate about homosexuality in such a way that the average person is tricked into accepting “gay” presuppositions without challenge. This is even true of those people who continue to oppose the homosexuals’ political goals. Once the presuppositions have been accepted, especially when they become “law” in anti-discrimination policies, resistance to rest of the “gay” agenda becomes much more difficult.
- Status