Why do you refute a charge that you are "homophobe?"

[estesbob]

What happens if science can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is genetic? Will our RCC accept that or will the RCC contend that it is a disease or a disorder?

The church has made it clear that it doesn’t matter how one ends up with same-sex attraction the key is whether or not they act on it.

I am an alcoholic. Because of this I can’t drink. Matters not to me whether it is genetic or not, and I guarantee you that in my drinking days the cop that pulled me over for drunk driving didn’t care either,

 

[latin_rite]

They could not refute me much longer, so they charge me as a homophobe. Last time I know I was in the ignore box. I did pointed out that the label is just an excuse to end the discussion because they could not fight back.

If you were in my shoes, how would you defend yourself when someone call you a homophobe?

Yeah they like to throw that title around a lot. It’s the way of the world. if you don’t agree with some groups 100% they label you as intolerant. If you disagree with something israel is doing then you’re a anti semite, or if you don’t think homosexuality is natural you’re a homophobe. When once called a homophobe i replied “hey i’m not a homophobe just cause i don’t like homosexuality. I don’t like grapefruits doesn’t mean i’m scared of becoming one”

 

[Kristopher]

…This inclination, which is objectively disordered,…

I checked, again, the same paragraph in my Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) and it does clearly state: homosexuality is something not chosen, but this might of course mean nothing contrary to the same paragraph at the Vatican’s Catechism website. I looked at the edition of my CCC, and it was of 1990’s sometime; so, knowing all catechisms inferior to the CCC must not be contrary to the CCC, but seeing somewhat of a discrepancy between what I expect are two different editions: I have to wonder–just what exactly was the reason for the change between the two: how was erroneous data included in an edition of the CCC on such an important matter as homosexuality, and how one might become of such an orientation on the matter–whatever the case: it does not seem to me, the statement “homosexuality is not chosen”, is a statement on morality–right? It has more to do with the development either of morality or of immorality. There sure is a world of difference between “inclination” and “not chosen”. Considering most peoples behavior, sexually, with such terms as “unplanned pregnancy” and whatever else, it is easy to see how sleeping with another person either of the same sex, or of the opposite sex is regarded as something “not a choice”.

 

[jmcrae]

Considering most peoples behavior, sexually, with such terms as “unplanned pregnancy” and whatever else, it is easy to see how sleeping with another person either of the same sex, or of the opposite sex is regarded as something “not a choice”.

The Catechism is referring to the mental condition of the person as not being chosen.

But the person is still rational, and is still required to choose chastity, regardless of his condition.

Obviously, the majority of men are not sexually attracted to other men. But there are some who are. Nobody knows why - they don’t know why. But it doesn’t matter why, because they have to choose to be chaste. They can’t sleep with other men, even though they are sexually attracted to them.

God does not condemn us for what we are tempted to do - only for sins actually committed.

 

[Seeks_God]

The Catechism is referring to the mental condition of the person as not being chosen.

But the person is still rational, and is still required to choose chastity, regardless of his condition.

Obviously, the majority of men are not sexually attracted to other men. But there are some who are. Nobody knows why - they don’t know why. But it doesn’t matter why, because they have to choose to be chaste. They can’t sleep with other men, even though they are sexually attracted to them.

God does not condemn us for what we are tempted to do - only for sins actually committed.

Very well said…
SG

 

[lak611]

The Catechism is referring to the mental condition of the person as not being chosen.

But the person is still rational, and is still required to choose chastity, regardless of his condition.

God does not condemn us for what we are tempted to do - only for sins actually committed.

Very true! Chastity is necessary for everyone. The only legitimate expression of sexual relations is between a husband and wife. Everybody else, male or female, straight or gay, must be celibate.

 

[estesbob]

I checked, again, the same paragraph in my Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) and it does clearly state: homosexuality is something not chosen, but this might of course mean nothing contrary to the same paragraph at the Vatican’s Catechism website. of the opposite sex is regarded as something “not a choice”.

The praragrap does not make it clear that homosexuality is not chosen. In fact it goes out of its way to make two points.

1. No one knows why people are attracted to memeber of the same sex

I"ts psychological genesis remains largely unexplained."

1. It is a grevious sin to act on this attarction regardless of how one comes by it:

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. ***

---

---

---

 

[hasikelee]

Namecalling in a discussion is a signal to to make it clear that you desire a higher level of interaction, ask for peace and when they turn red in the face, leave very quickly.

Someone who has shut down the flow of information with namecalling, nitpicking, ad homs or other attacks is not worth it. Move on before others simply see you associated with the ugliness.

 

[JohnWilliams]

He responded when i said that you would not force a cat and a dog to mate. Since it was against their nature. They aren’t buying the fact that homosexuality is unnatural.
.

That is because their whole heresy, that is leading some churches even further down the path of apostasy, hangs on this single point. Having been kicked out of the Episcopal Church by Satan the day they ordained Robinson, I am somewhat familiar with their argument.

We are all likely familiar with the following verses:
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rom/Rom001.html#26

You see the Episcopal Church makes the spurious claim that homosexuality is the natural use - for homosexuals - or they would be convicted by the book of Romans.

Sadly they are encouraging these poor people to remain in their sad, self-desctuctive, and unrepentant states when rehabilitation rates for homosexuals may run as high as 30 - 50%. Many go on to lead normal healthy happy family lives. Sy Rogers has a great ministry. syrogers.com/
He spoke powerfully at Calvary Chapel that you can access in streaming video in the archives. calvaryftl.org/AWMedia/archive/index.cfm

Exodus International is the largest referral organization. exodus-international.org/exodus_faqs_success.shtml

Even more sadly the next verse: Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

So do the folks you are chatting with even have the ability to discern the difference between right and wrong in their present state? Very sad. We can only pity them.

 

[Valke2]

Very true! Chastity is necessary for everyone. The only legitimate expression of sexual relations is between a husband and wife. Everybody else, male or female, straight or gay, must be celibate.

Then how come I don’t see post after post after post on this forum hotly debating the issue of unmarried heterosexual sex? Other than mentioning it to bolster an anti-gay argument, it never seems to be a burning issue.

 

[dapper]

Then how come I don’t see post after post after post on this forum hotly debating the issue of unmarried heterosexual sex? Other than mentioning it to bolster an anti-gay argument, it never seems to be a burning issue.

Great post and idea. Let’ start one.

 

[JohnWilliams]

Then how come I don’t see post after post after post on this forum hotly debating the issue of unmarried heterosexual sex?

I think it is a given. My pastor mentions it quite frequently. He covers all the bases that way.

Other than mentioning it to bolster an anti-gay argument, it never seems to be a burning issue.

It’s not an issue because we understand what is right and wrong, but dig this. Robinson, the homosexual that the Episcopal Church ordained as Bishop, divorced his wife and left the home of his wife and two minor daughters in the late 1980s. Later (I don’t know how much) he shacked up with his homosexual squeeze . The Episcopal Church ordained him in 2003 while in that - what they were fully aware was an unmarried and non-celibate homosexual - relationship.

1Timothy 3:1 This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Timothy 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Timothy 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Timothy 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Timothy 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Timothy 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Is it any wonder then that Robinson checked himself into an alcohol rehab center last spring? When God allowed the Church this example it would seem that he intended to smack it right upside the head with it.

(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) 1 Timothy 3:1 | pistoV <4103> {FAITHFUL [IS]} o <3588> {THE} logoV <3056> {WORD:} ei <1487> {IF} tiV <5100> {ANY} episkophV <1984> {OVERSEERSHIP} oregetai <3713> (5731) {STRETCHES FORWARD TO} kalou <2570> {OF GOOD} ergou <2041> {A WORK} epiqumei <1937> (5719) {HE IS DESIROUS.}

 

[JohnWilliams]

New American Bible:
1
1 This saying is trustworthy: 2 whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task.
2
Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach,
3
not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money.
4
He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity;
5
for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?
6
He should not be a recent convert, so that he may not become conceited and thus incur the devil’s punishment. 3
7
He must also have a good reputation among outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, the devil’s trap.
8
4 Similarly, deacons must be dignified, not deceitful, not addicted to drink, not greedy for sordid gain,
usccb.org/nab/bible/#1timothy

 

[estesbob]

Then how come I don’t see post after post after post on this forum hotly debating the issue of unmarried heterosexual sex? Other than mentioning it to bolster an anti-gay argument, it never seems to be a burning issue.

Probably because we do not have a lot of people coming to these forums trying to tell us there’s nothing wrong with unmarried heterosexual sex. In addtion homosexual sex can never be licit. The activity itself is** always** disordered and sinful. The same cannot be said for heterosexual sex.

 

[Kristopher]

…God does not condemn us for what we are tempted to do…

Right, I agree: temptation is not sinful, but of course should there be attraction to a variety of people, male or female and the thoughts become desirous toward these other people for sexual relations, or the words express desires: then we have a mortal sin–I tend not to regard attraction as a basis for sexual orientation, but desire for sexual relations that I consider to be a basis for sexual orientation: sexual relations with the same sex must always be a mortal sin, but sexual relations with the opposite sex in thought, word, or deed–need not always be a mortal sin.

 

[jmcrae]

Right, I agree: temptation is not sinful, but of course should there be attraction to a variety of people, male or female and the thoughts become desirous toward these other people for sexual relations, or the words express desires: then we have a mortal sin–I tend not to regard attraction as a basis for sexual orientation, but desire for sexual relations that I consider to be a basis for sexual orientation: sexual relations with the same sex must always be a mortal sin, but sexual relations with the opposite sex in thought, word, or deed–need not always be a mortal sin.

True - within the bounds of the marriage covenant, they are actually sacred - it is their very sacredness within that bond that makes them so sinful outside of it.

 

[Kristopher]

I should clarify what I mean: I understand marriage between two people of the Catholic Faith to be a sacrament, a means of grace, (And perhaps incorrectly, and this must be complicated by mixed marriages of two different faiths; though, it should maybe not all exclude the one person of the Catholic Faith–anyways), because in the commitment there is room for God’s grace to build His church, etc.

I do not consider sexual relations between a man and a woman to ever be anything sacred: it makes no sense that it would be anything sacred. I cannot consider any desire anyone might have, (Again, perhaps incorrectly), for the opposite sex to be at all sinful, if the desire is for a family, for children, the receptitivity to it–no matter what might come of the situation, no marriage, no family, no real effort to actually provide in a relationship to the opposite sex; what is requisite of a commitment between two people, for love to exist.

 

[Lion]

Ouch. I wouldn’t do that.

That’s not really loving the sinner - hating the sin.

One of the posters said she has friends who have chosen homosexuality and friends who believe they were born that way and both groups she just sees as “people.” I think it’s important the remind her that we view them as people also. EVERYONE is created in the image of God and worthy of respect. However, if they engage in homosexual sex, they are sinning… but that sin is no worse than my sin or your sin. We are a fallen bunch… ALL in need of a Savior.

At any rate, I’m not sure I’d debate too much on that site… you’re never going to win and it’s just going to make you mad. I’ve wasted time arguing over a similar issue and at the end of the day, I just wanted to :banghead: . Pray for their conversion instead. And pray for those souls who suffer with this horrible desire.

YES! Great response!! :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

[Syele]

Then how come I don’t see post after post after post on this forum hotly debating the issue of unmarried heterosexual sex? Other than mentioning it to bolster an anti-gay argument, it never seems to be a burning issue.

You don’t see it because not many people come to a Catholic forum to say people there are afraid of pre-marital sex because they believe it’s wrong and that Catholics are predjudiced against people who like pre-marital sex.

Try posting a thread with such accusations and I’m sure you’ll get some more hot debates on the subject.

 

[Riley259]

Very true! Chastity is necessary for everyone. The only legitimate expression of sexual relations is between a husband and wife. Everybody else, male or female, straight or gay, must be celibate.

You summed up the bottom line very succinctly.