Is Homophobia a sin?

[Joie_de_Vivre]

HELLOOO? This isn’t Fred Phelps beating up gays, it’s gays beating up gays, and the gay-friendly administration ignoring violence against pregnant women BECAUSE THAT IS POLITICALLY CORRECT AND CULTURE NORMATIVE, RIGHT? Is the true issue narcissism with homosexual males ignoring the rights of gennies, genetic females?!?

Gay men are in fact statistically less likely to have “experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime” than heterosexual men according to the NISVS.

Part of the issue is that police won’t take it seriously.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

How often do you hear people railing against heterosexuals engaging in oral sex with their opposite sex partner?

What difference does what I hear make?

As far as orientation, when you say neither sadism or masochism is quantifiable as an orientation, you are either saying “under Federal law” or “using my own definition”. In the ordinary meaning of the word “orientation”, any inclination to direct the sexual impulse towards an object or person is an orientation.

.

 

[friardchips]

…And lastly and most importantly, we don’t know how well WE would fair if WE were the ones who had an involuntary attraction to the same sex rather than the opposite sex.

I’d like to think I’d be chaste and celibate for my whole life if I was attracted to women, but if I am completely honest with myself, I really don’t think I’d be able to manage it.

A compassionately honest comment.

 

[LokisMom]

You stated that sado-masochism is a fetish, not an orientation.

For those suffering from the two disorders noted, it is an orientation.

.

Neither one of those links you posted said that it was a sexual orientation, nor did it say it was not a fetish.

Again, this doesn’t matter anyway. It doesn’t change anything, so i don’t know what your point it.

 

[Jerurussia]

Here’s “The Atlantic” article on homosexual-on-homosexual violence. In short, “homophobia” is rampant among homosexuals. The hormonal reasons are a given. Take your dual-gender name and double-entendre “toit” and turn it around and go help this at-risk community from full-blown endo-homophobia: STOP HOMOSEXUAL-ON-HOMOSEXUAL VIOLENCE! Keepin’ it real… Help start a male-only domestic violence shelter. Stop what Alice Von Hildebrand calls TUA CULPA, “You’re guilty!” But thanks for the offer of a long guilt trip.

theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/a-same-sex-domestic-violence-epidemic-is-silent/281131/

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

Neither one of those links you posted said that it was a sexual orientation, nor did it say it was not a fetish.

Look up the meaning of the word “orientation”.

Both are orientations by definition.

.

 

[LokisMom]

Look up the meaning of the word “orientation”.

Both are orientations by definition.

.

Mmmmm, no. Sorry, we’ll just have to disagree on this.

o·ri·en·ta·tion
noun

the determination of the relative position of something or someone (especially oneself).
“the child’s surroundings provide clues to help in orientation”

the relative physical position or direction of something.
plural noun: orientations
"two complex shapes, presented in different orientations"
synonyms:	positioning, location, position, situation, placement, alignment
"the orientation of the radar station"

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

Mmmmm, no. Sorry, we’ll just have to disagree on this.

I don’t engage in that sort of “resolution”. You made a statement about what is and is not a sexual orientation.

Our sexual impulses can be directed toward persons or things or actions. In the case of a sadist the sexual impulses are directed toward infliction of pain and/or degradation upon another. In the case of a masochist they are directed toward having pain and/or degradation inflicted upon one’s self.

That is as much an orientation as any other. Defining yourself as correct is not an argument.

.

 

[friardchips]

I don’t engage in that sort of “resolution”. You made a statement about what is and is not a sexual orientation.

Our sexual impulses can be directed toward persons or things or actions. In the case of a sadist the sexual impulses are directed toward infliction of pain and/or degradation upon another. In the case of a masochist they are directed toward having pain and/or degradation inflicted upon one’s self.

That is as much an orientation as any other. Defining yourself as correct is not an argument.

.

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.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

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.

Provide an authoritative citation for that position.

Your posted articles earlier didn’t prove anything either.

To you, apparently.

Defending yourself as correct doesn’t make up for a lack of a point, lack of argument and, from your posts, seemingly unsound reasoning.

Ah, the pot calling the kettle black.

Thank you for your personal opinions gussied up as authoritative statements.

.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

What difference does what I hear make?

As far as orientation, when you say neither sadism or masochism is quantifiable as an orientation, you are either saying “under Federal law” or “using my own definition”.** In the ordinary meaning of the word “orientation”, any inclination to direct the sexual impulse towards an object or person is an orientation.**

.

On what basis do you judge that ordinary?

Here’s “The Atlantic” article on homosexual-on-homosexual violence. In short, “homophobia” is rampant among homosexuals. The hormonal reasons are a given. Take your dual-gender name and double-entendre “toit” and turn it around and go help this at-risk community from full-blown endo-homophobia: STOP HOMOSEXUAL-ON-HOMOSEXUAL VIOLENCE! Keepin’ it real… Help start a male-only domestic violence shelter. Stop what Alice Von Hildebrand calls TUA CULPA, “You’re guilty!” But thanks for the offer of a long guilt trip.

theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/a-same-sex-domestic-violence-epidemic-is-silent/281131/

This sounds like someone parodying a Republican.

I don’t engage in that sort of “resolution”. You made a statement about what is and is not a sexual orientation.

Our sexual impulses can be directed toward persons or things or actions. In the case of a sadist the sexual impulses are directed toward infliction of pain and/or degradation upon another. In the case of a masochist they are directed toward having pain and/or degradation inflicted upon one’s self.

That is as much an orientation as any other. Defining yourself as correct is not an argument.

.

Indeed however sexual impulse≠sexual orientation.

Provide an authoritative citation for that position.

To you, apparently.

Ah, the pot calling the kettle black.

Thank you for your personal opinions gussied up as authoritative statements.

.

Sexual orientation
refers to the sex of those to whom one is sexually and romantically attracted.
Categories of sexual orientation typically have included attraction to members of one’s own sex (gay men or lesbians), attraction to members of the other sex (heterosexuals), and attraction to members of both sexes (bisexuals). While these categories continue to be widely used, research has suggested that sexual orientation does not always appear in such definable categories and instead occurs on a continuum (e.g., Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953; Klein, 1993; Klein, Sepekoff, & Wolff, 1985; Shiveley & DeCecco, 1977) In addition, some research indicates that sexual orientation is fluid for some people; this may be especially true for women (e.g., Diamond, 2007; Golden, 1987; Peplau & Garnets, 2000).

source

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

This sounds like someone parodying a Republican.

When you run out of intelligent substantive comments, which you have, ad hominems are more or less the last resort, eh?

source

The American Psychological Association is free to call a dog’s tail a leg and conclude dogs have five legs.

That has nothing at all to do with reality and the APA has repeatedly made clear it is politicized and responsive to lobbying by special interest groups.

Orientation has to do with the object(s) to which the human sexual impulse is directed. That is true whether any particular body, be it the APA or Congress, has capitulated to the vociferous LGBT lobby.

.

 

[friardchips]

Provide an authoritative citation for that position.

To you, apparently.

Ah, the pot calling the kettle black.

Thank you for your personal opinions **gussied up ** as authoritative statements.

What are you trying to say here - bits underlined (?)



So, why don’t you prove why your article-links have anything to do with the subject, which you still haven’t done, and after several people have pointed it out? Maybe because you can’t(?) Maybe you can but I am not the one that has posted links so why should I have to do your work for you? I am responding to something that you posted after you didn’t back up with any kind of angle.

I don’t really think this has anything to do with the thread but whatever is said on the CCC is all anyone needs to know, if there is anything. Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree, as you suggested previously there might be. Unless of course you so drastically want to be prove yourself right (or be proved wrong).

 

[friardchips]

…until you back up why you posted what you posted then why has anyone the need to bother trying to refute?

 

[sw85]

Heterosexuals manage to not hate heterosexual sodomites so why are they unable to not hate homosexual sodomites?

What’s this got to do with anything? The point is that feelings of dislike or distrust or contempt are morally irrelevant in themselves. So it is no more “a sin” to be repulsed by anal sex between two men than it is between a man and a woman. Nor is it “hatred” in the morally relevant sense to experience such revulsion. Because the love we are called to have is not about our feelings but about the disposition of our will.

I think you are mistaken here. For example, in one of the psalms it reads: “And I hate them with a perfect hate, and they are foes to me”. (not about sodomites but about foes to God). But Jesus completed the Old Testament with Himself. And he quite clearly said to not only “love your neighbour as yourself”, but also to “love your enemy”. …

I don’t strictly disagree with any of this but, again, my problem is equivocating over what is meant by “hatred.” If you mean emotional dislike, then it’s not morally relevant. We are not called not to experience dislike or disgust (as if such a thing were in our control), we are called to will what is best for others, regardless of what we feel.

Not sure this makes any reasonable sense (?)

It’s not so difficult. We are called to love (in the volitional sense) all people, including our enemies. Not merely sodomites. So “homophobia” (in the volitional sense of wishing ill upon sodomites) is, in a moral sense, a meaningless and irrelevant category, because it arbitrarily singles out some instance of a sin from others that are morally identical to it. It’s true that I’m forbidden from hating (volitionally) sodomites, but I’m also forbidden from hating pornographers and serial killers and ignoramuses and so on, and it is not especially worse (or better) for me to hate sodomites than it is to hate any of these other groups. So to talk about “homophobia” as a sin is rather like talking about “even-day arsonry” or “summer-month cookie theft” as sins. It’s just not a meaningful category in itself, morally speaking, even if it’s useful in other categories (legal, medical, scientific, etc.).

I am surprised, saddened, and disappointed to see so many fellow Catholics defending homophobia… defending disgust and/or hate towards another person simply because they are involuntarily attracted to people of the same sex.

This is not cool, guys.

No one’s “defending” disgust. I’m saying, at least, that it, like other emotional states, is morally neutral in itself.

How often do you hear people railing against heterosexuals engaging in oral sex with their opposite sex partner?

Not often. Because there isn’t an oral sex lobby shutting down orphanages, clamoring for the redefinition of “marriage,” demanding the “right” to be sold other people’s children, harassing and bullying people (personally and legally) for failing to be sufficiently supportive of their sexual lifestyle, endeavoring to humiliate and silence oral-sex fiends who quit that lifestyle, or attempting to gun down nonprofit offices, as happened not long ago to the FRC. Nor is there so much of a concerted effort to shove positive depictions of oral sex in the faces of people, including children, all the time, on TV, in the streets, in schools, on campuses, etc. When those things start happening you might start seeing something different.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

So, why don’t you prove why your article-links have anything to do with the subject, which you still haven’t done, and after several people have pointed it out? Maybe because you can’t(?)

Or perhaps refuting someone’s personal opinions, based on nothing more than an apparent conviction of being right, isn’t worth my time or of probable benefit to other readers of the discussion.

.

 

[friardchips]

Or perhaps refuting someone’s personal opinions, based on nothing more than an apparent conviction of being right, isn’t worth my time or of probable benefit to other readers of the discussion.

.

---

True! Point taken. It is not as if I have thundered home dictionaries meanings and plastered them on here along with CCC quotes, so here is the irrefutable Oxford dictionary (online) meaning, the least I’m prepared to do because of the crude subject matter:

oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fetish

‘A form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc.’

No mention of gender preference.

oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sexual-orientation?q=sexual+orientation

‘A person’s sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.’

Only mentions gender preference.

I hope this helps.

Wishing you the best in your journey!

God bless.

 

[friardchips]

What’s this got to do with anything? The point is that feelings of dislike or distrust or contempt are morally irrelevant in themselves. So it is no more “a sin” to be repulsed by anal sex between two men than it is between a man and a woman. Nor is it “hatred” in the morally relevant sense to experience such revulsion. Because the love we are called to have is not about our feelings but about the disposition of our will.

I don’t strictly disagree with any of this but, again, my problem is equivocating over what is meant by “hatred.” If you mean emotional dislike, then it’s not morally relevant. We are not called not to experience dislike or disgust (as if such a thing were in our control), we are called to will what is best for others, regardless of what we feel.

It’s not so difficult. We are called to love (in the volitional sense) all people, including our enemies. Not merely sodomites. So “homophobia” (in the volitional sense of wishing ill upon sodomites) is, in a moral sense, a meaningless and irrelevant category, because it arbitrarily singles out some instance of a sin from others that are morally identical to it. It’s true that I’m forbidden from hating (volitionally) sodomites, but I’m also forbidden from hating pornographers and serial killers and ignoramuses and so on, and it is not especially worse (or better) for me to hate sodomites than it is to hate any of these other groups. So to talk about “homophobia” as a sin is rather like talking about “even-day arsonry” or “summer-month cookie theft” as sins. It’s just not a meaningful category in itself, morally speaking, even if it’s useful in other categories (legal, medical, scientific, etc.).

No one’s “defending” disgust. I’m saying, at least, that it, like other emotional states, is morally neutral in itself.

Not often. Because there isn’t an oral sex lobby shutting down orphanages, clamoring for the redefinition of “marriage,” demanding the “right” to be sold other people’s children, harassing and bullying people (personally and legally) for failing to be sufficiently supportive of their sexual lifestyle, endeavoring to humiliate and silence oral-sex fiends who quit that lifestyle, or attempting to gun down nonprofit offices, as happened not long ago to the FRC. Nor is there so much of a concerted effort to shove positive depictions of oral sex in the faces of people, including children, all the time, on TV, in the streets, in schools, on campuses, etc. When those things start happening you might start seeing something different.

I think I know what you’re saying but the word can be taken to mean more than ‘an aversion to’. It is a stupid word in one way, I agree, because it leaves so many grey areas: if it means this then this and this, if it only means this then this and this; I think a better word would be ‘prejudice’ because this counts all minorities and vulnerable people and people on the edge, although not all minorities or these others have a ‘disorder’ but can be the victims of ‘…isms’ and labelling and stuck in categorized pigeonholes to make life simpler for the well-to-do and self-opinionated. But still, this word ‘prejudice’ allows room for having a natural aversion to but still being kind, and then enables being able to distinguish between hating a person because they are a certain way and not liking the disorder but still loving the person.

To reiterate: when it comes down to it the word is sinful if meaning this that leads to this and not sinful if it just means this but can turn into something sinful…blah, blah, blah…you know. Blah, blah, blah! Really, we just have to be kind. This is what Christians are called to DO - DO kindness! I don’t think you’d disagree here with that statement - to WILL, as you said, niceness, is what DOing kindness sometimes is. We can’t always ‘feel’ love - we are in the ’ must feel something good’ era - sometimes we just have to pray for help to be gracious. But through that willing of doing kindness comes a deeper conversion of really just wanting to help (the plank taken out and 'loving one’s enemy and neighbour as oneself). IMHO.

Do we agree?

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

I hope this helps.

It helps me understand Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

.

 

[friardchips]

It helps me understand Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

.

I would say that the link between these 'illnesses (?) and OCD is a bit tenuous but possible; nevertheless, if it has helped you understand something new then it has been worth the education, I hope.

All the best.