Isn't "homophobe" the wrong word?

[johnlal]

That depends on who is defining that term.

It depends on what the definition of “is” is!

What does this have to do with violence?

Nothing.
As I have said-- people have been known to act out against gay people because they have an aversion to gay people. Other people claim they penalize gay people because of religion. Either of the two are motivating factors in penalizing gay people. Before we enact laws that can affect peoples’ lives we have to examine our motives. Simply pretending that homophobia doesn’t exist doesn’t cut it. The original poster of this thread would like to simply pretend that homophbia doesn’t exist. That’s lazy. The responsible way to enact legislation is to acknowledge that homophobia does exist, that some people have an irrational aversion to gay people, and THEN to search one’s soul, ask the hard questions, and determine whether the law we are passing is motivated by true morality, or by an irrational aversion to gay people. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand.

 

[fix]

And calling hatred truth doesn’t change the hatred either.

But, it is not only subjective it is objective. We both cannot be right.

I am sufficiently aware of your post history, fix.

Good, then you know I have never supported hate in any manner. And, I would be careful not to accuse me of things in violation of forum rules.

 

[Sanctus_Vir]

Those (like myself) who recognize active homosexuality for what it is… intrinsically sinful… are often referred to as “homophobes”; one who is afraid of active homosexuality.

I’ve decided not to take it anymore. I’ve coined my own phrase; “homotaedet”. One who is disgusted by active homosexuality.

Click here for entire posting

I agree. That’s why God made Adam and Eve. not Adam and Adam or Eve and Eve.

 

[fix]

It depends on what the definition of “is” is!

This entire thread has been about defining homophobia. We see there is a debate, yet you dismiss it.

Nothing.
As I have said-- people have been known to act out against gay people because they have an aversion to gay people. Other people claim they penalize gay people because of religion. Either of the two are motivating factors in penalizing gay people. Before we enact laws that can affect peoples’ lives we have to examine our motives. Simply pretending that homophobia doesn’t exist doesn’t cut it. The original poster of this thread would like to simply pretend that homophbia doesn’t exist. That’s lazy. The responsible way to enact legislation is to acknowledge that homophobia does exist, that some people have an irrational aversion to gay people, and THEN to search one’s soul, ask the hard questions, and determine whether the law we are passing is motivated by true morality, or by an irrational aversion to gay people. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand.

I underlined the words that you used to point out the propaganda aspect of this issue. I would say we need the exact opposite. We need those who support the gay agenda to search their souls to understand why they are misguided.

To claim there is a penalty applied to people because they are not allowed a same sex marriage and such is akin to claiming there is a penalty in not allowing bank robbery. It is to play with language and attempt to mishape people’s minds.

 

[Nepenthe]

I accuse nothing, fix. But I do urge your charity, and when you do not understand some people, to leave such matters in the hands of your authority – not as you may interpret, but in their hands entire. Their ways are not my ways, but they seem to understand something of mercy and gentleness.

And I doubt you know what I think is right. Do not presume, either.

 

[fix]

I accuse nothing, fix. But I do urge your charity, and when you do not understand some people, to leave such matters in the hands of your authority – not as you may interpret, but in their hands entire.

And I doubt you know what I think is right. Do not presume, either.

If you urge charity then please do not call charity hate. What do you mean about leaving things in the hands of authority? Do Catholic citizens have no right to voice their views?

 

[Nepenthe]

As citizens, assuredly you do. As Catholics? I am not sure, do you? Even if it makes you heterodox? Are you still Catholic if such views disagree with the church and magisterium? I do not know, and I would not presume to.

You have changed a little I think, from when I first noticed your posts some time back, and very much towards the charitable. And I thank you warmly. We aren’t enemies, you know? Different yes, but not enemies.

And I do not call charity hate, ever.

 

[fix]

As citizens, assuredly you do. As Catholics?

Catholics can’t be good citizens?

I am not sure, do you? Even if it makes you heterodox? Are you still Catholic if such views disagree with the church and magisterium? I do not know, and I would not presume to.

Once baptized Catholic one is always Catholic even if one is not in full communion with the Church. But, I do not see your point?

You have changed a little I think, from when I first noticed your posts some time back, and very much towards the charitable.

Thank you for monitoring me. I appreciate the interest.

And I thank you warmly. We aren’t enemies, you know? Different yes, but not enemies.

And I do not call charity hate, ever.

I do not think of you as an enemy. I certainly disgaree with you, but I hold no animosity. We can disagree without hating each other.

As for charity we know it is no virtue to neglect the truth. When people publicly advocate for vice we have an obligation to speak up in some way. Catholics are called to be signs of contradiction in the culture. Too often, especially right here, speaking the truth in any tone is immmediately called uncharitable. The problem is not always the speaker it often is the hearer hears only what he wants and disregards the rest.

 

[Nepenthe]

I am still unclear as to what we disagree about, fix.

And anyone can be a good citizen in the US I hope, with no issues of faith or lack of faith, so long as secular law is maintained. We can do better, I know, but that’s the basics.

 

[fix]

I am still unclear as to what we disagree about, fix.

And anyone can be a good citizen in the US I hope, with no issues of faith or lack of faith, so long as secular law is maintained. We can do better, I know, but that’s the basics.

I am confused by your posts. Catholics understand homosexual acts are always evil. This thread asks about the term homophobia. We have argued the term is mostly used to silence those who reject the so called gay agenda.

When arguments are presented that explain why people reject that agenda we immdiately get posts that claim we are uncharitable, afraid of homosexual people, hate mongering, etc.

You stated I ought to leave this issue in the hands of the authorities. Again, I ask what you mean?

 

[Nepenthe]

No, as I understand it, Catholics understand homosexual acts to be ‘disordered.’

Are your innermost sexual thoughts entirely orderly? If so…well, I worry about you right there.

And yes, the so-called Gay Agenda is indeed so-called. I have no idea what anyone means by that term. It’s nonsense.

And as to uncharitability, fear and hatemongering, how can you say these are not factors, both in larger social context and your own personal views? I really do understand how unnerving it must be, but I think there’s some overreaction here.

And as to your authority, I refer you to the catechism of the RCC.

 

[fix]

No, as I understand it, Catholics understand homosexual acts to be ‘disordered.’

Are your innermost sexual thoughts entirely orderly? If so…well, I worry about you right there.

It is a philosophical distinction. Any inclination not ordered to the good is disordered.

And yes, the so-called Gay Agenda is indeed so-called. I have no idea what anyone means by that term. It’s nonsense.

There is no organized political effort to get the public accept homosexual acts as normal and acceptable?

And as to uncharitability, fear and hatemongering, how can you say these are not factors, both in larger social context and your own personal views?

They are not factors but are red herrings and straw men. Again, any time one shows that homosexual acts are wrong we see the false charges of homophobia used.

I really do understand how unnerving it must be, but I think there’s some overreaction here.

And as to your authority, I refer you to the catechism of the RCC.

The CCC and Vatican documents are quoted by me all the time. Where does my stated position differ from what the Church teaches?

 

[Nepenthe]

So then, we are at accord, the Catholic Church deems homosexual acts ‘disordered’ yet not one’s state of being. Very well, if one is Catholic, or a member of any faith with such restrictions.

But if those involved are not Catholic, why do you worry, if relations are among consenting adults? It is no burden to you, and any harm done to themselves and each other is as much in the participants’ powers as those arising from heterosexual relations.

 

[fix]

So then, we are at accord, the Catholic Church deems homosexual acts ‘disordered’ yet not one’s state of being.

The acts are intrinsically evil and the inclination is objectively disordered.

Very well, if one is Catholic, or a member of any faith with such restrictions.

No, it applies to all of humanity. The teachings are not made up. The teachings are an explanation of what is objectively true and real.

But if those involved are not Catholic, why do you worry, if relations are among consenting adults?

As I stated above the acts are wrong no matter how one graps, or fails to grasp, what is true. It would be like saying bank robbery is only wrong for Catholics.

It is no burden to you, and any harm done to themselves and each other is as much in the participants’ powers as those arising from heterosexual relations.

The problem is not only what happens in private, but the desire to change civil law in an effort to change hearts and minds. This would be much less of an issue if those involved did not seek to legitimize behavior that is wrong.

 

[davidv]

So then, we are at accord, the Catholic Church deems homosexual acts ‘disordered’ yet not one’s state of being. Very well, if one is Catholic, or a member of any faith with such restrictions.

But if those involved are not Catholic, why do you worry, if relations are among consenting adults? It is no burden to you, and any harm done to themselves and each other is as much in the participants’ powers as those arising from heterosexual relations.

The Church does not deem the act disordered, she deems them as “acts of grave depravity”. See article 2357 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church below. 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.
What is disordered is the attraction.

 

[johnlal]

I underlined the words that you used to point out the propaganda aspect of this issue. I would say we need the exact opposite. We need those who support the gay agenda to search their souls to understand why they are misguided.

OK, here is an example of the inequity:

1. A couple gets married. The Wife moves into her husband’s house. Her name is never put on the deed. For years, she contributes her salary to the couple’s mortgage. Twenty years later, the house is paid off. The Husband files for divorce. He argues that the deed is in his name alone, and the wife gets nothing. The Court disagrees. Because the couple was married, she gets partial ownership of the house as marital property.
2. A man moves into the home of another man and they live together as a family. They would get married if the law would allow them to. Both parties contribute towards the mortgage. Twenty years later, the house is paid off. The couple breaks up. The one partner argues that the deed is in his name alone. He is correct. The other partner loses his interest in the property.

Couple A gets different treatment under the law than does Couple B. The only difference between the two is sexual orientation. This causes a true financial hardship to the guy in scenario number 2. This doesn’t have anything to do with religion, and only has to do with property rights and the rights of persons to order their financial affairs as they wish.

 

[fix]

OK, here is an example of the inequity:

1. A couple gets married. The Wife moves into her husband’s house. Her name is never put on the deed. For years, she contributes her salary to the couple’s mortgage. Twenty years later, the house is paid off. The Husband files for divorce. He argues that the deed is in his name alone, and the wife gets nothing. The Court disagrees. Because the couple was married, she gets partial ownership of the house as marital property.
2. A man moves into the home of another man and they live together as a family. They would get married if the law would allow them to. Both parties contribute towards the mortgage. Twenty years later, the house is paid off. The couple breaks up. The one partner argues that the deed is in his name alone. He is correct. The other partner loses his interest in the property.

Couple A gets different treatment under the law than does Couple B. The only difference between the two is sexual orientation. This causes a true financial hardship to the guy in scenario number 2. This doesn’t have anything to do with religion, and only has to do with property rights and the rights of persons to order their financial affairs as they wish.

Couple A and B are significantly different. One is married and one is not. It is not merely a legal construct but a fundamental difference. The authentically married have certain rights and obligations others do not.

Also, if two non married people live together and share resources there are legal ways of sorting things out without claiming marriage.

It seems you want to make things equivalent that are not. Why? That is the point of these threads. These are not equivalent issues. One side wants to make it that way because it serves a larger purpose.