Should I strive to overcome homophobia?

[agnes_therese]

But wouldn’t it be good for homosexuals to hide their tendencies. I mean, if they are not going to practice, why not keep quit about it, thus saving themselves, and others, a lot of embarrassment…

Spend a little time imagining what it would be like to spend your entire life trying to hide the fact that you are heterosexual.

 

[fissionu235]

Spend a little time imagining what it would be like to spend your entire life trying to hide the fact that you are heterosexual.

Good analogy, but I would add, and from people that hate you and some that would hurt you for knowing who you were.

 

[epan]

But wouldn’t it be good for homosexuals to hide their tendencies. I mean, if they are not going to practice, why not keep quit about it, thus saving themselves, and others, a lot of embarrassment…

When I was last in the US, there apparently was no embarrassment. I recall waiting at a cross walk and two men crossed the street in front of me holding hands. This was in San Diego, California, a conservative town.

 

[Metropolis]

When I was last in the US, there apparently was no embarrassment. I recall waiting at a cross walk and two men crossed the street in front of me holding hands. This was in San Diego, California, a conservative town.

I am from Cali and San Diego really isn’t conservative. Most of Cali is pretty liberal. Now within certain groups they aren’t accepting int that area, but overall it isn’t too bad. Even in liberal areas people with SSA still feel a need to hide due to how others treat them. I have heard family and friends say horrible things about bisexuals (of course not knowing that I am) and I am afraid of being disowned and hated by the people I love most.

 

[epan]

I am from Cali and San Diego really isn’t conservative. Most of Cali is pretty liberal. Now within certain groups they aren’t accepting int that area, but overall it isn’t too bad. Even in liberal areas people with SSA still feel a need to hide due to how others treat them. I have heard family and friends say horrible things about bisexuals (of course not knowing that I am) and I am afraid of being disowned and hated by the people I love most.

My perception is that it is mostly a generational thing. I can’t really imagine anyone under 30 being bigoted. There may be a small minority. As for the actual sexual activity, if you choose to be Catholic, then you choose to be gay and celibate. But the prejudice, abuse, persecution, hatred, much of which is denied to exist by that actual people who inflict it… that is going away rapidly as they die off.

As for shame, the tables are turning. Those who persecute are learning to feel ashamed.

As for the whole gay civil rights thing, anything not gained today, will happen within a decade or two.

Celibacy is a valid choice. Other choices might be right for non Catholics. But the days of persecution are over.

 

[trevor1055]

I despise the term “homophobia,” which technically would mean a fear of things that are the same or similar. The left has recrafted language just as taught so well by their master, Michel Foucault. Anyway, Christ calls us to love. That does not mean condoning homosexual activity or gay unions, etc., but we should always be a light of Christ to others!

 

[Bill_Martin]

You don’t have to like anybody, not even the Pope.

You do have to treat people with honor and respect. If you do that already, then I wouldn’t worry about not liking someone, as long as you don’t harbor hatred.

 

[Metropolis]

My perception is that it is mostly a generational thing. I can’t really imagine anyone under 30 being bigoted. There may be a small minority. As for the actual sexual activity, if you choose to be Catholic, then you choose to be gay and celibate. But the prejudice, abuse, persecution, hatred, much of which is denied to exist by that actual people who inflict it… that is going away rapidly as they die off.

As for shame, the tables are turning. Those who persecute are learning to feel ashamed.

As for the whole gay civil rights thing, anything not gained today, will happen within a decade or two.

Celibacy is a valid choice. Other choices might be right for non Catholics. But the days of persecution are over.

The days of persecution aren’t over. I guess many who do not have SSA don’t quite get how many people hate those that aren’t heterosexual. Heck, in Uganda right now there is a bill that the conservative party there is trying to get passed where being homosexual is punishable by death. I know that part of the world is very different, but persecution is no where near over. I have found hatred towards bisexuals from heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Non-heterosexuals are still being beaten and killed all the time in this nation due to their sexual preferences.

 

[fissionu235]

My perception is that it is mostly a generational thing. I can’t really imagine anyone under 30 being bigoted. There may be a small minority. As for the actual sexual activity, if you choose to be Catholic, then you choose to be gay and celibate. But the prejudice, abuse, persecution, hatred, much of which is denied to exist by that actual people who inflict it… that is going away rapidly as they die off.

As for shame, the tables are turning. Those who persecute are learning to feel ashamed.

As for the whole gay civil rights thing, anything not gained today, will happen within a decade or two.

Celibacy is a valid choice. Other choices might be right for non Catholics. But the days of persecution are over.

 

[epan]

The days of persecution aren’t over. I guess many who do not have SSA don’t quite get how many people hate those that aren’t heterosexual. Heck, in Uganda right now there is a bill that the conservative party there is trying to get passed where being homosexual is punishable by death. I know that part of the world is very different, but persecution is no where near over. I have found hatred towards bisexuals from heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Non-heterosexuals are still being beaten and killed all the time in this nation due to their sexual preferences.

Agreed. I was referring to the US. A better way to say it would be that as a country, we are on the downhill side of it. The momentum can’t be stopped. But, there is a ways to go. Something like 30 states have passed constitutional amendments which will be overturned, and so on…

On the global front, it’s another story, entirely. But the fact that heads of state will condemn the Ugandan effort, and that companies will pull out to let them feel the financial price of persecution, is all good.

As I have opined… civil rights are never gained quickly enough for the oppressed. It does take some time. But this is the inexorable momentum of the past several centuries. It happens slowly though.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Agreed. I was referring to the US. A better way to say it would be that as a country, we are on the downhill side of it. The momentum can’t be stopped. But, there is a ways to go. Something like 30 states have passed constitutional amendments which will be overturned, and so on…

On the global front, it’s another story, entirely. But the fact that heads of state will condemn the Ugandan effort, and that companies will pull out to let them feel the financial price of persecution, is all good.

As I have opined… civil rights are never gained quickly enough for the oppressed. It does take some time. But this is the inexorable momentum of the past several centuries. It happens slowly though.

Agreed. And its cyclical. The more people that come out the faster progress is made, which in turn helps people come out. Because of the movement to get people out of the closets a lot of people find themselves with gay children, siblings, friends, etc. They witness their lives and realize that they are just like everybody else. Eventually they realize that they should be treated as such. In my own life its been a privilege to watch several people go from homophobic (whether anyone likes that word or not it fits) bigots to flat-out activists because they’ve seen what discrimination does to the people they love.

 

[Seeker1961]

Before you make a generalization about any group-homosexuals, women, people of color…put YOURSELF in that sentence. Insert the term “Catholic” to that generalization instead of the group you are maligning and think about how you would feel hearing it. Think about how you do feel when others marginalize or demonize a group you belong to.

As for highlighting the accomplishments of gay people-don’t we mention Catholics like that? There was a whole thread here a while back, “I didn’t know So and So was Catholic”, where popular people who were Catholic were discussed. Celebrities who were known for practicing their faith were highlighted and promoted. Why wouldn’t other groups do the same thing? They are role models for someone.

The only message about gay people I got growing up was that they were evil, going to Hell, and that everyone hated them. I grew up with gay people whose lives might have taken an entirely different direction if they hadn’t been convinced that they were already damned by their attractions alone. One in particular that I went to High School with might even have lived until graduation instead of slicing his wrists because he saw no positive future for his life.

No matter what you think about the sins other people commit, the ground at the foot of the Cross is level. Nobody has a right to place themselves on a pedestal for their righteousness and look down their nose at others.

 

[Metropolis]

I think self-righteousness is a major contributor in why people marginalize others. It is easy to judge others unfairly and put others down when you think that you are better than, or “more holy” than others.

 

[einna]

Before you make a generalization about any group-homosexuals, women, people of color…put YOURSELF in that sentence. Insert the term “Catholic” to that generalization instead of the group you are maligning and think about how you would feel hearing it. Think about how you do feel when others marginalize or demonize a group you belong to.

As for highlighting the accomplishments of gay people-don’t we mention Catholics like that? There was a whole thread here a while back, “I didn’t know So and So was Catholic”, where popular people who were Catholic were discussed. Celebrities who were known for practicing their faith were highlighted and promoted. Why wouldn’t other groups do the same thing? They are role models for someone.

The only message about gay people I got growing up was that they were evil, going to Hell, and that everyone hated them. I grew up with gay people whose lives might have taken an entirely different direction if they hadn’t been convinced that they were already damned by their attractions alone. One in particular that I went to High School with might even have lived until graduation instead of slicing his wrists because he saw no positive future for his life.

No matter what you think about the sins other people commit, the ground at the foot of the Cross is level. Nobody has a right to place themselves on a pedestal for their righteousness and look down their nose at others.

Great post.

 

[edwest2]

I think self-righteousness is a major contributor in why people marginalize others. It is easy to judge others unfairly and put others down when you think that you are better than, or “more holy” than others.

Aren’t you doing the same thing by stating that? Also, generalizations, without facts, are almost always wrong. What Catholics here are trying to do is not offer “opinions,” which are usually worthless, but to pass on Church teaching.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Metropolis]

Aren’t you doing the same thing by stating that? Also, generalizations, without facts, are almost always wrong. What Catholics here are trying to do is not offer “opinions,” which are usually worthless, but to pass on Church teaching.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Peace,
Ed

I said it was a major contributor, not the only one. Also using logic and experience can lead you to that conclusion. To put others down, you have to put yourself above. To hate a whole group of people for something they can’t control, you have to see yourself as better than their group. I think that the Church would agree that self-righteousness is a bad thing. I in no way said homosexual activity is okay, but people with same sex attractions can’t control their attractions, they can only control what they do with it. I actually know alot about that because I am a chaste and happily married bisexual. I cannot control being attracted to both genders, but I can choose not to act on my same sex attraction. Hate the sin, love the sinner. Hating people due to something they can’t control like same sex attraction is unfair, uncharitable, and I think generally stems from self-righteousness. It is fine to condemn homosexual acts, but it is way different to condemn or hate the person.

The OP is prejudice against all homosexuals just because of a few bad experiences with some. That is wrong. I don’t hate all heterosexuals even though I have plenty of bad experiences with them. I am able to understand that their sexual attractions have nothing to do with them mistreating me. Heck I even married a heterosexual.

p.s. Your link has nothing to do with what I was saying. I certainly was not condoning homosexual activity, which you would have seen if you read my former posts and certainly not condoning homosexual unions. So I am not sure why you would think that your link was somehow pertinent to what I was saying.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think self-righteousness is a major contributor in why people marginalize others. It is easy to judge others unfairly and put others down when you think that you are better than, or “more holy” than others.

This may also be a major contributor to why people do not want to pursue ethical thinking to its appropriate end. Even if their own moral senses tell them some action is wrong, the unwillingness to appear “holier than thou” and, perhaps, even the accusations of it may be dissuasive to right moral thinking. Think about who launches the “holier than thou” accusation. It is usually someone with a moral agenda of some kind, typically in opposition to the one stated.

That is why I think the OP was quite careful about saying these were his authentic moral “feelings” and did not want to portray them as anything else.

Before you make a generalization about any group-homosexuals, women, people of color…put YOURSELF in that sentence. Insert the term “Catholic” to that generalization instead of the group you are maligning and think about how you would feel hearing it. Think about how you do feel when others marginalize or demonize a group you belong to.

This is an untenable moral position because it presumes to “lump in” homosexuality as a legitimate moral behavior. Let’s apply this thinking, as you say, to “any group.”

"Before you make a generalization about any group - sex addicts, murderers, thieves, child abusers, pimps, stamp collectors, politicians, lawyers…put yourself in that sentence. Think about how you would feel if others were to marginalize one of these groups if you belonged to it.

The problem with this argument is that it presumes that your presence in the group is going to nullify your moral feelings about the kind of behavior undertaken by the group, the moral rightness of that behavior and any truthful conclusions you could arrive at as a member.

I understand this is a difficult point to understand, but just my membership in a group is not what legitimizes that group. That should not be the basis upon which anything is justified morally. My being a pimp does not make pimping legitimate. To argue that others don’t know what it’s like to be a pimp and therefore they should be more tolerant of the pursuit is an appeal to egoism. Your claim is that one must have their ego embrace the behavior before they have any right to make a judgement about the behaviour. The snake, in other words, was right, Eve had to taste the fruit before she really understood the full moral implications of the act. No one else, not even God presumably, would have a right to judge her action until they, too, took a bite.

So far, the argument against the opening post has been an appeal to emotion and nothing but. Here’s how it breaks down

Qoeleth stated he has certain feelings about homosexual behavior (disgust, repulsion, etc) that he is naturally inclined to have.

Others have raised grave concern about his natural inclination of being repulsed by homosexual behavior because there do exist in the world certain individuals who have certain feelings or inclinations, attractions really, towards others of their same sex.

So, the claim is that Qoeleth is wrong because he has certain natural feelings, but that he should abandon these because others have certain other feelings, also apparently “natural,” they they should be allowed to follow. For some undisclosed reason their feelings should trump his feelings. The question Qoeleth is asking, and quite legitimately so, is why should their feelings take precedence over his? It would seem unfair to legitimize some feelings and not others, no?

More importantly, he is asking why should those particular feelings (same sex attractions) be legitimized when people are inclined to have all kinds of “feelings” about things that lead to morally questionable practices. Feelings or attractions are not the best indicators of right conduct precisely because they lead, frequently without thought or reason, to nasty consequences.

The ultimate moral question in dispute here is, “Why should these feelings of same sex attraction be legitimized when many ostensibly equal and even more commonly experienced feelings are not?”

Most people are inclined to have feelings of anger or hate towards others and most of us have been in “this group” many times in our lives. Why is it not legitimate to give into these feelings and carry out what we are feeling? It would appear that “just feeling” something is not sufficient to give a mode of behavior moral approval, nor should it be when it comes to feelings of same sex attraction. Yet that would seem to be the only point being made in support of the position.

Aristotle had it fundamentally right when he claimed that emotions should be ordered to properly reasoned ends. It seems to me that Queleth has properly ordered emotions because they are in line with the appropriate ends of sexual capacity. Others are arguing he should disorder his emotions and align them instead because of claims that no proper ends exist when it comes to sex. This group, fundamentally, is proposing that sex has no purpose except to be gratified. These people need to read Nichomachean Ethics to gain a different perspective, one not grounded on impulse.

I am still waiting for someone to properly address the amorous alien problem in post #18 and explain why sexual relations with this alien would be any more wrong that with another person of the same sex?

 

[Seeker1961]

This may also be a major contributor to why people do not want to pursue ethical thinking to its appropriate end. If their own moral senses tell them some action is wrong, the unwillingness to appear “holier than thou” and, perhaps, even the accusations of it may be dissuasive to right moral thinking. Think about who launches the “holier than thou” accusation. It is usually someone with a moral agenda of some kind, typically in opposition to the one stated.

That is why I think the OP was quite careful about saying these were his authentic moral “feelings” and did not want to portray them as anything else.

This is an untenable moral position because it presumes to “lump in” homosexuality as a legitimate moral behavior. Let’s apply this thinking, as you say, to “any group.”

"Before you make a generalization about any group - sex addicts, murderers, thieves, child abusers, pimps, stamp collectors, politicians, lawyers…put yourself in that sentence. Think about how you would feel if others were to marginalize one of these groups if you belonged to it.

The problem with this argument is that it presumes your presence in the group is going to nullify your moral feelings about the kind of behavior undertaken by the group, the moral rightness of that behavior and any truthful conclusions you could arrive at as a member.

I understand this is a difficult point to understand, but just my membership in a group is not what legitimizes that group. That should not be the basis upon which anything is justified morally. My being a pimp does not make pimping legitimate. To argue that others don’t know what it’s like to be a pimp and therefore they should be more tolerant of the pursuit is an appeal to egoism. Your claim is that one must have their ego embrace the behavior before they have any right to make a judgement about the behaviour. The snake, in other words, was right, Eve had to taste the fruit before she really understood the full moral implications of the act. No one else, not even God presumably, would have a right to judge her action until they, too, took a bite.

So far, the argument against the opening post has been an appeal to emotion and nothing but. Here’s how it breaks down

Qoeleth stated he has certain feelings about homosexual behavior (disgust, repulsion, etc) that he is naturally inclined to have.

Others have raised grave concern about his natural inclination towards homosexual behavior because there exist in the world certain individuals who have certain feelings or inclinations, attractions really, towards others of their same sex.

So, the claim is that Qoeleth is wrong because he has certain feelings, mind you that are quite “natural,” but that he should abandon these because others have certain other feelings, also apparently “natural” they they should be allowed to follow. For some reason their feelings trump his feelings. The question Qoeleth is asking, and quite legitimately so, is why should their feelings take precedence over his? It would seem unfair to legitimize some feelings and not others, no?

More importantly, he is asking why should these particular feelings (same sex attractions) be legitimized when people are inclined to have all kinds of “feelings” about things that lead to morally questionable practices. Feelings or attractions are not the best indicators of right conduct precisely because they lead, frequently, to nasty consequences.

The ultimate moral question in dispute here is, "Why should these feelings of same sex attraction be legitimized when many ostensibly equal and even more commonly experienced feelings are not.

Most people are inclined to have feelings of anger or hate towards others and most of us have been in “this group” many times in our lives. Why is it not legitimate to give into these feelings and carry out what we are feeling? It would appear that “just feeling” something is not sufficient to give a mode of behavior moral approval, nor should it be when it comes to feelings of same sex attraction.

Sexual attraction is not behavior and therefore those who are attracted to the same sex are not any more evil than anyone else. Hating people because they are homosexual or for any other reason is a common pastime, but that doesn’t make it right. Defend it with all the pretty words you like, but hatred towards others is hatred towards others.

 

[fix]

Sexual attraction is not behavior and therefore those who are attracted to the same sex are not any more evil than anyone else. Hating people because they are homosexual or for any other reason is a common pastime, but that doesn’t make it right. Defend it with all the pretty words you like, but hatred towards others is hatred towards others.

You do not address his points. He made very cogent and powerful arguments that should be answered.

 

[fix]

The problem with this argument is that it presumes that your presence in the group is going to nullify your moral feelings about the kind of behavior undertaken by the group, the moral rightness of that behavior and any truthful conclusions you could arrive at as a member.

I understand this is a difficult point to understand, but just my membership in a group is not what legitimizes that group. That should not be the basis upon which anything is justified morally. My being a pimp does not make pimping legitimate. To argue that others don’t know what it’s like to be a pimp and therefore they should be more tolerant of the pursuit is an appeal to egoism. Your claim is that one must have their ego embrace the behavior before they have any right to make a judgement about the behaviour. The snake, in other words, was right, Eve had to taste the fruit before she really understood the full moral implications of the act. No one else, not even God presumably, would have a right to judge her action until they, too, took a bite.

So far, the argument against the opening post has been an appeal to emotion and nothing but. Here’s how it breaks down

Qoeleth stated he has certain feelings about homosexual behavior (disgust, repulsion, etc) that he is naturally inclined to have.

Others have raised grave concern about his natural inclination of being repulsed by homosexual behavior because there do exist in the world certain individuals who have certain feelings or inclinations, attractions really, towards others of their same sex.

So, the claim is that Qoeleth is wrong because he has certain natural feelings, but that he should abandon these because others have certain other feelings, also apparently “natural,” they they should be allowed to follow. For some undisclosed reason their feelings should trump his feelings. The question Qoeleth is asking, and quite legitimately so, is why should their feelings take precedence over his? It would seem unfair to legitimize some feelings and not others, no?

More importantly, he is asking why should those particular feelings (same sex attractions) be legitimized when people are inclined to have all kinds of “feelings” about things that lead to morally questionable practices. Feelings or attractions are not the best indicators of right conduct precisely because they lead, frequently without thought or reason, to nasty consequences.

The ultimate moral question in dispute here is, “Why should these feelings of same sex attraction be legitimized when many ostensibly equal and even more commonly experienced feelings are not?”

Most people are inclined to have feelings of anger or hate towards others and most of us have been in “this group” many times in our lives. Why is it not legitimate to give into these feelings and carry out what we are feeling? It would appear that “just feeling” something is not sufficient to give a mode of behavior moral approval, nor should it be when it comes to feelings of same sex attraction. Yet that would seem to be the only point being made in support of the position.

Aristotle had it fundamentally right when he claimed that emotions should be ordered to properly reasoned ends. It seems to me that Queleth has properly ordered emotions because they are in line with the appropriate ends of sexual capacity. Others are arguing he should disorder his emotions and align them instead because of claims that no proper ends exist when it comes to sex. This group, fundamentally, is proposing that sex has no purpose except to be gratified. These people need to read Nichomachean Ethics to gain a different perspective, one not grounded on impulse.

I am still waiting for someone to properly address the amorous alien problem in post #18 and explain why sexual relations with this alien would be any more wrong that with another person of the same sex?

This is a wonderful post. I wish more people would read it and respond. You have explained the most fundamental problem with this entire issue.

Those who defend the homosexual agenda base their arguments on emotion. Not deep reasoned arguments, just emotion.