Should I strive to overcome homophobia?

[Qoeleth]

This indicates a very subtle nuance to your apparent “homophobia.” It sounds like what you are saying is that what makes you uncomfortable is anyone who goes around displaying their sexuality and sexual orientation in public, regardless of whether they are heterosexual or same sex attracted, as if everyone else should take the same monomaniacal view of sex as they do.

My guess is that you would be equally disgusted by heterosexuals who paraded themselves down the street dressed ostentatiously and flaunting their sexuality as if they were very convinced that engaging in sex itself is the only redeeming feature of being human. It could well be that what you are actually adverse to is the demeaning of humanity, a kind of reduction of the human individual to nothing more than a creature that has sex, as if that is the ultimate meaning of what it is to be human.

The fact that many “gay” individuals portray their specific sexual preclusion as what identifies them as who they are, as if their “orientation” is what defines their nature, is itself troubling. Perhaps something deep down in you is at odds with this move to extract and reduce the essence of what it means to be human down to how they “engage sexually.” The fact that they would portray their own humanity essentially in that way is evidence to you of a lack of deep understanding and that is why you feel you have not much in common with them as individuals.

It could also be that your deep sense of reverence for sexuality as a very intimate and spiritual part of us and which is essentially tied to the mysterious and awe inspiring capacity, endowed to us by God as the means by which new human beings are brought into existence, has been disturbed. Your reaction may be a profound annoyance towards anyone who would cheapen the sacredness of that gift by treating it so casually and without due regard for its intended end.

There is a deep and primordial sense in us that rebels against the cheapening of sex to mere hedonistic gratification or public display. It is a kind of sacred intuition that rises up to resist publicity precisely because we know that when “the world” has access, it will trample and demean anything it gets its hands on. It is a kind of “Britney Spears” effect, a paparazzization of everything sublime and meaningful. Perhaps this is what revulses your whole being?

When lobbyists who really have little in the way of understanding as to the meaning of sexuality are attempting to co-opt by legislation and education the right to dictate their view to all future generations as to the real meaning and nature of sexuality, this, perhaps, is what you find disturbing?

Your apparent “homophobia” may be the avenue by which your primordial spirit has chosen to not let you accept a fraudulent and substandard facsimile in place of a deep and sublime reality when it comes to understanding the nature of sexuality.

Of course, you do have to understand that this post must be taken “tongue and cheek” since, it, too, is completely off topic. The “tried and true” fare, that you are obviously biased against and hating of homosexuals, was offered to you on styrofoam, as befits all fast food, shortly after your opening post.

I think you are right. I am probably not really ‘homophobic’. I would also feel uncomfortable with someone displaying openly a sinful hetrosexual relationship. I would also feel uncomfortable with a married couple talking to me openly about their sex life.

I agree that sex is too much ‘served up openly today’. By nature, thoughts of sex pop up constantly- it is hard to escape lust. But if we are reminded on the media of it constantly, by images and words, it becomes so much harder to maintain purity of heart.

Practically all cultures have had some kind of taboo on refering to sex (although it is always ‘there’). I think there is a wisdom to this practice.

Heterosexuals do not find it necessary to ‘advertise’ what they are (and the ones that do so aggressively and distastefully, I tend to suspect as being latent homosexuals, or at least psychosexually immature). But some (not all) homosexuals do. When this happens, I feel it is like a challenge. Should I ‘pretend’ I am OK with it, or display discomfort? Neither seems to be quite a satisfactory answer.

For this reason, I prefer to ‘turn a blind eye’- to hear no evil, see no evil and think no evil, as much as I can. Maybe this is best- keeping sexuality out of the picture as much as necessary, and then, when necessary, glossing over it with euphemisms. This is the traditional Western way. Maybe it is best…

 

[Metropolis]

Well, I grew up around many people from the LGBT community (I have actually even had three transgendered friends when people think of them as rare) and I never had any of them try to discuss their sex life with me except one bisexual male friend. On the other hand I have had plenty of heterosexual non-married friends have tried discussing their sex lives with me.In these cases I just told them I was uncomfortable discussing such things and all of them had stopped and none were angry that I didn’t want to discuss such things.

Now I have had plenty of Lesbian, Gay, Bi, and Transgendered friends and they haven’t just brought up their sex life with me. Not some of these people have been some of my closest friends. They may have talked about general problems they had with their partners, but generally not sexual issues. They knew I wasn’t approving of their sexual or gender issues, but that didn’t stop us from being friends, but then again I have had Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan, Sikh, Hindu, ect. friends as well. They knew I didn’t hold the same religious views, but I could still be friends with them. Now a few have discussed gay marriage with me and we debated on the issue and were still friends even though we disagreed deeply.

If these gay people you are meeting are actually talking about their sexual practices with you, just tell them you are uncomfortable discussing such things and I really doubt they would be all that offended.

 

[epan]

I will be honest, in admitting my homophobia. I am a person from a remote area, where homosexuals do not exist. When I was growing up, ‘F…’ was the name given to any dishonest, pretentious or morally deficient person. When I saw more of the world, all the homosexuals I met were also pretentious, malicious city-dwellers. Also, I hate all those homosexual TV shows, and the particular brand of witless, degenerate humor…

Consequently, I feel antipathy towards homosexuals. I like males and females to be properly defined. And I remember the words of Leviticus, of course.

I do not really consider myself homophobic- I am not afraid of them, I just don’t really like them and the culture they are associated with. Should I try to change, and, if so, why, and how?

It occurs to me, that with the changes that we are in the midst of, that you will simply grow more comfortable, over time. I wouldn’t worry about it too much.

 

[fordhamstudent]

Vatican II calls the Church to recognize the “signs of the times” This means that we analyze and monitor changes in culture and society and be pastorally sensitive to them. I believe that the Church has shown this kind of pastoral care and sensitivity and has heeded the call of the Council on this issue. It is difficult to deal with modern shifts in identity and this issue is only one of many. I would just keep a pastoral orientation to people who do not identify with traditional gender roles and sexuality. Showing love and care is always best and even on points of disagreement be cordial and kind as befits a Christian disposition and a person of good manners. Clearly, this issue will not go away and the best tonic for us is to speak in love and leave judgment for those in ecclesiastical authority.

 

[John_of_Woking]

I think the term homophobia is used as a stick to beat those who follow Traditional Jewish & Christian teaching on Marriage. Of course no one should be bullied because of sexual orientation or anything for that matter. They should be taught the Gospel in love. For those with same sex attraction that will be an introduction to NARTH or a life of celibacy in imitation of Christ.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It occurs to me, that with the changes that we are in the midst of, that you will simply grow more comfortable, over time. I wouldn’t worry about it too much.

What you are implying here is that same sex behavior is fundamentally not problematic and as soon as a large majority of society sees it as such, then everyone who has some averse sense of it will become accustomed to it.

The issue I have with this view is your presupposition that same sex behavior is not problematic.

I’d like to propose a parallel situation to help the OP (and hopefully others) be enlightened (perhaps) of where they, themselves, stand regarding same sex behavior.

Take the issue of over-eating that leads to morbid obesity. In the past, obesity was seen as the natural result of gluttony. You were fat simply because you could not control your appetite for food, that was the “simplistic” and apparently self-evident view.

Morbidly obese individuals were targeted for ridicule and sometimes bullying because they exhibited quite plainly the side effects of their lack of will, their “sin” of gluttony.

However, a better understanding of psychology and nutrition has effectively altered this simplistic idea because we know that overeating likely has a variety of causes.

For example, if a person’s metabolism lacks a crucial nutrient, that individual’s body will continue to flag hunger until it receives the necessary amount of the missing nutrient. This means that because of the manner in which foods are processed before they are sold, appropriate amounts of a number of required nutrients may be stripped out of foods before they go to market. Unless a person is very careful about the type and variety of food they eat, together with leading an active lifestyle, they may be fighting a constant battle against obesity. Our modern treatment of food in combination with a passive lifestyle has given rise to high numbers of obese individuals.

Consider a parallel between the OP’s feelings about same sex behavior and a possible reaction to a someone being “fat.”

It may be that a person’s weight could still be the result of gluttonous and sinful behavior, but it might be that eating habits, economic situation, lack of activity, or some other deep psychological reason may be at play in making them over eat.

Knowing all this, we may recognize that overweight individuals should not be the target of bullying or ridicule and that we should be more sensitive to what makes them obese, but that, in itself, does not mean we should accept the state of obesity as a good thing. Nor need we accept that overeating, as a behavior, is a good thing. Our understanding of why the person does what they do assists us in better understanding the person, but our concern for them leads us to want to help them better understand the forces at play causing their overindulgence. Our concern for the individual does not imply that we must love or tolerate their behavior. We recognize the behavior as wrong because it not conducive to their well-being.

Now if an obese person claimed it is their right to indulge themselves because the act is so pleasurable to them, there is nothing wrong with eating because it’s natural and therefore we should stop trying to help them, then we would become suspicious that either

1. They really are sinfully gluttonous.
2. They are so psychologically addicted to food that that addiction is what makes them blind to seeing that overeating is a problem.

If we lived in a society of gluttons who made it a point to promote the pleasures of eating food indiscriminately, that is with no concern as to variety or quantity, because, they claim, it has no relationship to human biology, should we not become concerned?

Their case would rest on the fact that food should be a pleasure in itself, separate from its requirement to keep us alive and therefore, as a powerful pleasure, they should be allowed to pursue only its pleasurable aspects independent of biological need. Furthermore, we should be tolerant of the obesity that results because they are doing nothing more than pursuing the pleasure of food that everyone shares, though, admittedly, with more gusto.

It seems to me that if these “gluttony” lovers were viewed by onlookers in a negative light, these independent “analysts” would be correct in their less than glowing assessment. This would be nothing more than trumpeting the sin of gluttony as a virtue, when indeed it is not.

Notice this negative view by independent analysis, need not be extended to include those who overindulge because of a disturbed metabolism or due to psychosocial causes, because the eating behaviors of these individuals would be recognized by them as regrettable and, though difficult to change, as problematic even by them.

The crucial difference is when problematic behaviors, that we know are problematic from biology (just as we know obesity is not a healthy state biologically), are promoted as innocent or even virtuous. This attempt to override normal biology should present red flags to our moral sensibilities. Gay rights advocates are basically telling us to ignore the red flags, that these flags mean nothing and are, in fact, false flags even though these flags are raised from a crystal clear understanding of the way human anatomy and biology works.

So, Qoeleth, perhaps it is your moral thinking at play here and it is not willing to allow you to be duped into a false interpretation of what is going on with regard to gay behavior. Your aversion may be “hanging in there” until you apply a correct analysis to same sex behavior, just as it might be applied to over-eating behavior. It may not be a one size fits all aversion, but that does not mean the aversion is completely unfounded or need be abdicated.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Um, the OP just described the precise symptoms of it.
And also, your word origin is incorrect.
The term homophobia, according to the encyclopedia, was created by psychologist George Weinberg in the Sixties and it was first used to refer to heterosexual men’s fear that others might think they are gay.

Actually, no he didn’t describe the precise symptoms because he expressly denied that he experienced any “fear” of homosexuals themselves, but instead an antipathy towards specific behaviors that he felt were dishonest or pretentious.

I will be honest, in admitting my homophobia. I am a person from a remote area, where homosexuals do not exist. When I was growing up, ‘F…’ was the name given to any dishonest, pretentious or morally deficient person. When I saw more of the world, all the homosexuals I met were also pretentious, malicious city-dwellers. Also, I hate all those homosexual TV shows, and the particular brand of witless, degenerate humor…

Consequently, I feel antipathy towards homosexuals. I like males and females to be properly defined. And I remember the words of Leviticus, of course.

I do not really consider myself homophobic- I** am not afraid of them**, I just don’t really like them and the culture they are associated with. Should I try to change, and, if so, why, and how?

It is you who interpret what he said as “fear.” Of course, you could defend your analysis by claiming he is in denial, but what, specifically, are your skills in psychology that would allow you to do that from his wording alone? Perhaps the fact that he explicitly denied fear shows that he is fearful under a general theory that when anyone denies a characteristic they, by that fact, must secretly have it?

My Socratic nature bristles at the idea the no one can really know themselves and can only be known by others who simply have to listen to what is said and assume the opposite is true. We are all inveterate liars when it comes to revealing our true feelings, then? When someone says, “I love you!” that really means the opposite?

 

[epan]

What you are implying here is that same sex behavior is fundamentally not problematic and as soon as a large majority of society sees it as such, then everyone who has some averse sense of it will become accustomed to it.

The issue I have with this view is your presupposition that same sex behavior is not problematic.

…

So, Qoeleth, perhaps it is your moral thinking at play here and it is not willing to allow you to be duped into a false interpretation of what is going on with regard to gay behavior. Your aversion may be “hanging in there” until you apply a correct analysis to same sex behavior, just as it might be applied to over-eating behavior. It may not be a one size fits all aversion, but that does not mean the aversion is completely unfounded or need be abdicated.

Thank you for telling me what I am implying, but I think your response was more about what you are inferring. Regardless of the verbosity, you can probably tell that there is a difference between the two concepts. But the bottom line is that things are changing in society, and we all need to adapt in the healthiest way possible. That actually, is a pretty good definition of mental and emotional health… how well one adapts to change in life.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Thank you for telling me what I am implying, but I think your response was more about what you are inferring. Regardless of the verbosity, you can probably tell that there is a difference between the two concepts. But the bottom line is that things are changing in society, and we all need to adapt in the healthiest way possible. That actually, is a pretty good definition of mental and emotional health… how well one adapts to change in life.

Perhaps I was inferring it. Please straighten me out, then.

Were you not implying that same sex behavior is unproblematic? If not, why were you advising that the OP should just “grow more comfortable” with it and not worry about it?

It occurs to me, that with the changes that we are in the midst of, that you will simply grow more comfortable, over time. I wouldn’t worry about it too much.

I really am open to correction, but I need a cogent reason to do so. That is my nature as a rational person. My reason tells me to only adapt when the behavior I am adapting to is, minimally, morally or pragmatically neutral, not just because “everyone else” is doing so.

Why should I adapt to people’s unhealthy eating habits if reason tells me they are fundamentally disordered? The same applies to disordered sexual behaviors. I have not seen a convincing argument to the contrary. Your curt dismissal that I “probably” see the difference between the two does not amount to an argument against treating the two cases alike.

 

[Faithdancer]

First, the word homophobia is not a clinically recognized term. In other words, no doctor recognizes it as real since it does not describe a valid disorder.

I’ve worked with homosexual persons and the only way I knew they were homosexual was because I was told, otherwise, it was not discussed. Not knowing your particular circumstances, I’ve only rarely been exposed to homosexuals who wear ladies’ high heels or dresses or makeup.

The Christian approach, as defined by the Church, is to respect everyone. However, this sort of behavior, once it is made public, is a scandal. Men should not be dressing like women and declaring they are gay, as in gay pride parades or as ‘drag queens’ on TV.

Unlike black people or Oriental people, the average homosexual person cannot be identified unless wearing something as described above.

You use the word malicious which describes behavior that straight people engage in as well. Were the homosexual people you saw pretentious in a mean way? Or were they just acting out what you think is over the top gay behavior?

What is happening on TV is terrible. There is nothing normal about “Hey everybody. Look, we’re just like you except for the gay sex part or the women’s clothes.” And the whole gay marriage issue goes against natural biology.

We are called to love people but we shouldn’t encourage them in their sin by enabling it or being indifferent to it. God has a better way for all of us to live - as chaste single people, whether gay or straight. Each person decides to engage in sex, without being told by the State or Church. We’ve got porn addicts here, and masturbation addicts. But you’re right, there is a gay lifestyle based mostly on open sexual expression, sometimes in public.

The Church and God will not force you to follow Church teaching but it is the better way - as difficult as that may be for some of us. It appears some crosses are heavier for some than others and for some, certain bad behaviors are easily avoided, but for others, the same behaviors are not. Be vigilant. The devil, a real being, is always looking to trip us up.

Peace,
Ed

Right on, Ed, as usual. “Love the sinner and hate the sin.” No, that’s not enough for those living the active homosexual lifestyle. We are supposed to love their sin too, in fact not consider it sinful but “normal.” When confronted with the choice between appeasing the militant homosexual movement and remaining true to Catholic moral teachings,too many so-called Catholics choose the former. Christ, as He states in Rev. 3, will spit them out of His mouth.

 

[TerryOfromCA]

Should I strive to overcome homophobia?

Oh please. There is no such thing as homophobia. Its a made up word designed to make normal people look like they are the ones with the mental disorder, and the disordered people (homosexuals) look like they are normal. Don’t bite into the hype.

 

[mitex]

In my honest opinion people who harbour intense hatred or antipathy towards homosexuals are the ones in need of therapy.

Actually, homophobia is a genuine pathological fear of and intense derision felt for people with same-sex attraction, who should rather receive our compassion and support because of this condition. I don’t think your homophobic, however you do seem to have an unfairly discriminatory attitude to homosexuals based upon the few that you have met. That’s like feeling antipathy towards every single Jew on earth because you met some whom you didn’t like or get along with.

People do not choose to experience sexual attraction to the same gender nor should they feel ashamed, disgusted or hateful of themselves for simply being the way nature made them. They do choose whether to act out those inclinations and are fully accountable if they do but so are heterosexuals who fornicate or commit other sexual sins. To discriminate against someone on the basis of their sexuality is just as inherently lacking in humanity as to discriminate against someone because of their race, sex or physical features and no less unacceptable.

Yes, one does have to find a way of overcoming homophobia or hatred for gays. It isn’t acceptable, Christian, moral or healthy nor will it make our world a better place in any way, shape or form.

Holy Mother Church teaches us:

Homosexuality, as a sexual orientation, is accepted in Catholicism as beyond the control of homosexual people themselves. Homosexuality is not something that we consider, as do many Christian denominations apart from say ultra-liberal Protestants, to be “sinful” or even in need of change in the individual. We differentiate homosexuality (which isn’t sinful in itself) from homosexual acts which are sinful choices.

Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

The commentary on this part by Fr James Martin reads:

There are Gay Catholics out there who are proud homosexuals but are not sexually active and are faithful to Catholic teaching: lifeteen.com/gay-catholic-and-doing-fine/

He calls himself, “Gay, Catholic and doing fine” but not sexually active.

He is a couragrous and devout Catholic gay man in his late twenties.

Why on earth, would you harbour antipathy towards such a beautiful person created in the image of God because of his sexuality? He is your brother!

Thank you. It’s people like you who remind me that there are many good, kind, and compassionate people in the Catholic Church. I have an exclusive homosexual orientation and I struggle with celibacy.

To the OP homosexuals exist and I think you should work on being compassionate, and loving towards them. I am a celibate homosexual. You can still be traditional to Catholic teaching on sexuality while responding to what the Catechism says “respect, sensitivity, and compassion.”

And Terry what you said was wrong; homophobia does exist. Take it from me.