- Status
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
How is this for staying on topic…
Should I strive to overcome homophobia?
If you are suffering from an irrational fear of people who have same sex attractions then yes you should seek professional help.
If you have a moral, but rational, aversion to same sex behavior because your moral sensibilities are telling you there is something radically misdirected about individuals who are using organs that are biologically geared to procreation for the purpose of stimulation and gratification by themselves or with another person of their gender, then it is a morally defensible position (as I have shown in a number of unchallenged posts) and not a phobia, no matter how much the amateur psychologists tell you otherwise.
If your aversion stems from deep and consistent moral thinking on the subject, you don’t have homophobia, because phobias are, by definition, irrational fears. What you do have is a reasonable apprehension of trusting others just because their moral values are based on hedonism or some other pleasure principle. They are trying with all their strength to persuade you to buy into a belief system that lacks much in the way of principle at all.
Your moral reasoning may, in fact, be gasping for survival in a world that has lost its moral bearings. It may not be homophobia but the very different and real fear of being drawn into a moral morass called ethical relativism that offers little in the way of solid footing to support you.
It is a ploy to get you to sell out your moral values on the basis of what “everyone” thinks, despite the fact that they will freely admit that no one really has a grip on moral truth.
How is that for direct answer to the question in the opening post?
Still off topic?
M
Metropolis
Guest
As I said earlier I am not discussing this any further with you. Refer to the last portion of post 115.
F
fix
Guest
diversion.
H
Holly3278
Guest
The only reason you should change is if you feel hatred or animosity towards homosexuals. Do not change if you are only opposed to the “gay culture” which is the culture that promotes homosexuality, homosexual “marriage”, and homosexual adoption. This “gay culture” is also known as the “leftist gay rights movement” or simply the “gay rights movement”.
F
fix
Guest
As I said no takers.
M
Metropolis
Guest
Yes, because his posts weren’t helping the OP instead of trying to lecture us on the gay agenda while ignoring the fact I agree with him as a bisexual woman who does not partake in that sort of behavior and lives in a chaste lifestyle faithful to my faith and my husband, but you know, whatever, I clearly don’t understand the issue even though I have been living with SSA and resisting my acting on my urges. It may help if you actually read ALL my posts to see my actual position instead of what he as well as one other are trying to warp my words and make it out to say I am saying something totally different because I tell them this is not the place for that discussion.
Also starting a long debate on the subject would not help the OP (but why would I start a debate when I agree with his points which I have said already, but you are convinced I am a lier), I could play devil’s advocate, but this is about helping someone not debating about what the “gay agenda” is or if it is right or wrong. We should be helping the OP, that is what I think. It would be nice if they offered advice to the OP instead of just lecturing everyone on what the gay agenda is and how bad it is.
F
fpt
Guest
Some questions for discerning and my moral view from thye catholic teaching.
Hate the sin, love the sinner
What is the good acception of of definition of homophobia, in the catholic way? What are the constitutive elements of homophobia, in the catholic sense? What are the constitutive elements of homophobia that are immoral, in the catholic sense?
What are the constitutive elements of homophobia in action that are immoral, in the catholic sense? What are the constitutive elements of homophobia, in action that could be punished by the civil law or penal law, in the catholic sense? What are the constitutive elements of homophobia in action that should not be be punished by the civil law or penal law, in the catholic sense?
What are the constitutive elements of homophobia in thought via the speech, the writing, the cinema that are immoral, in the catholic sense? What are the constitutive elements of homophobia in thought via the speech, the writing, the cinema that are immoral that could be punished by the civil law or penal law, in the catholic sense? What are the constitutive elements of homophobia in thought via the speech, the writing, the cinema that are immoral that should not be punished by the civil law or penal law, in the catholic sense?
What are the constitutive elements of homophobia in ommission that are immoral, in the catholic sense? What are the constitutive elements of homophobia in ommission that could be punished by the civil law or the penal law, in the catholic sense? What are the constitutive elements of homophobia in ommission that should not be punished by the civil law or the penal law, in the catholic sense?
The practice of homosexuality is immoral by nature, by essence, by substance, by matter. The homosexual acts are immoral. The acts of promoting of homosexuality, the homosexualism theory, the gender theory are immoral acts. The fact of saying that two men or two women are a couple is naturally wrong and illogic, it is a negation of the reality. Two men or two women is not the same situation than one woman with one man: the fact of saying the contrary is the negation of the reality of the dual humanity.
The love between two women or two men is not the same than the love between a woman and a man. Conjugal love is only for two people of different genders?
Sexual desire, sensual desire, physical love between two men or two women are deeply immoral are deeply against the nature, are deeply against the narural moral order of the humanity.
Am i against the homosexuality, Yes I am? Am I in favor of Homophobia, I do not think so, except if you take their wrong acception, I can not be okay with them and I do not have to be okay with them: it is my catholic duty.
As catholic, I do not have to enter in the homosexual logic, I have to fight her against by the speech, by my behaviors, by the respect of the natural moral law in respecting my conscience (the objection of conscience has to be otherwise it is totalitarism, a dictature, thus, I have the natural right to try to defend me if violence from the State law, from the police…etc. Self defence can be moral under special conditions.
F
fix
Guest
It does address the subject. It expounds on the topic.
F
fix
Guest
You are making an artificial separation. The OP’s question is not separate from the poster’s points. The poster goes into a deeper analysis of the problem. That depth is unwanted but why?
E
edwest2
Guest
F
fix
Guest
See post #74. I think that says it all.
M
Metropolis
Guest
It has nothing to do with whether or not we should hate all homosexual people just because of their attractions (and the hate of the op has nothing to do with whether they act on their actions, they just hate all gay people and if they find out someone is gay they will stop liking them). Other people have made this post about what gay agenda is (which doesn’t apply to all people with SSA because we are a diverse community and there are plenty of chaste people with SSA out there who don’t believe in same sex marriage or same sex relationships, ect.), the definition of homophobia (which isn’t really pertinent because the op made it clear they hate gay people instead of being afraid of them), politics, media, and everything but helping the OP. The thing is you and some others don’t actually care about helping the OP, they just care about lecturing about common knowledge stuff about what some in the LGBT community want. So lets give the OP advice instead of further derailing the thread. I am done with you guys because I have better things to do with my time (like spending the day with my hubby who has the day off) then debating you guys on whether it is appropriate to derail the thread with information that isn’t going to help the OP with their problem.
F
fix
Guest
IOW, you do not like Peter Plato’s position therefore it is off topic.
Peter related his points back to the OP issue. I do not know how much more clear and relevant it must be.
M
Metropolis
Guest
Ok, one last thing. I just said that I agreed with him, so stop saying I said something to the contrary. I agree with him, but he is off topic henceforth why I think he should post that in another thread. You should actually read my posts. I agree with all of his posts as someone who has SSA and is living CHASTELY according to church teaching. So I don’t know where you are pulling that I don’t agree with him. I have said that he is right a few times, it just has NOTHING to do with the thread.
So think what you want of me, say I am lying, say I don’t agree with him even though I made it CLEAR that I do, because it is clear you are not listening and already made up your mind about what you want to think I believe vs. what I actually believe.
F
fix
Guest
How on earth can it have nothing to do with this thread? It has everything to do with it. He even became very very specific about his answer to the OP.Ok, one last thing. I just said that I agreed with him, so stop saying I said something to the contrary. I agree with him, but he is off topic henceforth why I think he should post that in another thread. You should actually read my posts. I agree with all of his posts as someone who has SSA and is living CHASTELY according to church teaching. So I don’t know where you are pulling that I don’t agree with him. I have said that he is right a few times, it just has NOTHING to do with the thread.
If you have read his posts in this thread you will see he has not been emotional at all. He has made his position without being uncharitable or sensationalistic. No one is accusing you of lying. The problem is that you keep claiming his posts do not have anything to do with the OP when they clearly answer his question and explore the topic in great depth.
M
Metropolis
Guest
You said I didn’t agree with him and that was the reason why I was saying what he said was irrelevant even though I said multiple times I did agree with his posts. They are still off topic. Let’s agree to disagree and actually go back to try to help the OP. I am going to block you and a few others now because I don’t need any people twisting my words anymore.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
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.
- Status