Homophobic

[Papist]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1311436778' post='2274320']
You were being hit on. And they were being friendly. I wouldn't take it personally.
[/quote]
That is a very strange way of being friendly.

[Deus te Amat]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1311436778' post='2274320']
You were being hit on. And they were being friendly. I wouldn't take it personally.
[/quote]

So, it's okay for gay people to hit on men that are already in a serious relationship?

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1311284464' post='2273188']
Not quite. If someone of the same gender 'hits on you', they're trying to entice you to something which is a perversion by its very nature. [ETA: something irredeemable.] At least if it's someone of the opposite gender, that approach can be made into something good and holy, i.e. courtship and a valid, even sacramental marriage.
[/quote]

oh good to know construction workers hooting at girls walking down the street can be made into a good and holy courtship, ending in a sacred marriage. that sounds like a plot to a hollywood movie that i would walk out of.

sorry dude, i love ya tons, but we aint on the same side in this case.

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1311308402' post='2273566']
flames are fun. red is fun. redheads are the funnest. (M-T will back me up on this.)
[/quote]

agreed! my lovely girlfriend is a redhead :D

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1311433618' post='2274301']
Why? If they hit on you then they find you attractive. That's a compliment. It doesn't mean you have to go have sex.
[/quote]

also agreed. I treat it the same way as getting hit on by a girl i am not attracted to. maybe with a bit more laughter

[Luigi]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1311433618' post='2274301']
Why? If they hit on you then they find you attractive. That's a compliment. It doesn't mean you have to go have sex.
[/quote]

I understand what you're saying. And "no means no." But there are a couple of other elements to consider.

1. How someone hits on you. This applies whether it's cross-gender or same-gender. There are ways of showing interest while still being polite or even just non-threatening. And then there are ways of showing interest such as Papist details. This applies not only to sexual orientation but to social class, what's appropriate to say to strangers, and so forth. (Maria Shriver told this story on Jay Leno about how she met Arnold Swartzenegger: "I was at a charity tennis tournament with my mother. He walks up to us as we're talking and says to me - right in front of my mother! - 'You've got a really great arse!' No hello, no introduction, nothing!" She went ahead and married him anyway, and you see what it got her.)

2. Social expectations. If I was raised with, or have developed, the social expectation (and maybe it's not completely social, maybe it's centered in my personality, but you know what I mean) that sex is/should be heterosexual, that it's not just a physical activity, that you get to know someone before you jump in bed with them, whatever else, then it will throw me for a loop when I'm approached by someone with homosexual assumptions. We're always uncomfortable when someone throws us for a loop with unexpected social assumptions.

For instance, observant Muslim women won't shake hands with a man, even in America, even if it's part of the normal American social exchange of business introductions. If you're the one that extended a hand and was refused, then you fall all over yourself questioning what you've done wrong, you're embarrassed and can't figure out why, you're scrambling around in your brain for some other way of doing business introductions, etc. It's unsettling until you learn the expectations. I'll let Papist speak for himself, but I would guess that his expectation when he was at the parties with his girlfriend was that people wouldn't hit on him, especially people of the same gender.

3. Identity. Still based on social/personal expectations. If an unexpected someone hits on me, it causes me to start questioning what I did to create the impression that I was available. And when a person of the same gender hits on me, I have to question what I'm doing that creates the impression that I'm gay. Which is perhaps more unsettling than thinking I've violated some social convention I wasn't even aware of.

4. "No means no." But when they won't take 'no' for a first, second, or third answer, then they're violating social conventions, which is unsettling. This goes back to what's appropriate to say to someone in what situation.

5. Maybe it's a compliment, and maybe it's just desperation on the hitter's part.

[SoylentGreene]

I think the acceptance of homosexuality has done more harm to our society than anything else - after abortion.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='SoylentGreene' timestamp='1311438806' post='2274341']
I think the acceptance of homosexuality has done more harm to our society than anything else - after abortion.
[/quote]
I don't agree with this. I think protestantism has done far more damage (arguably even including leading to the popular thought of homosexuality as not sinful).

[SoylentGreene]

[Jaime]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1311381894' post='2274080']
I don't think so. Kujo's denial of the sinfulness of homosexual activity contradicts Scripture, which I think is a clear enough example of heresy.
I suppose I should have been more specific and said "I still believe that you hold heretical opinions", but I was being less formal at the time so I figured it would be understood. In any case, I will amend my statement to that if you think it better.
[/quote]

There is a huge difference between someone holding heretical views and someone being a heretic.

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='franciscanheart' timestamp='1311311932' post='2273639']
People?
[/quote]

I don't know what you're asking.

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1311316200' post='2273650']
This may surprise you, but the Catechism doesn't call it "objectively" disordered, rather "morally" disordered.You seem to be splitting hairs. What relevance does it have that you are focusing on the behavior and attitudes of homosexuals, rather than the homosexual themselves, maybe so it doesn't seem like you are discriminating against them?You are merely repeating doctrine, without even evidence that this is doctrine or dogma. This isn't evidence. Almost the whole of the scientific and medical communities refuses to call homosexuality a disorder or illness of any kind. So if the only people claiming it is disordered are religious because of doctrine, then it is a subjective accusation. Relevance? This is a doctrinal assessment, concerning norms, not how objectively that homosexuality is disordered.You haven't shown how it is inappropriate.Again, this is not evidence, it is doctrine, a subjective determination. One that flies in the face of the modern scientific and medical consensus on the matter.

So it seems the ONLY evidence for homosexuality being objectively disordered is a non-existent reference in the Catechism. Which is not objective and is not evidence. As someone accurately put it, its pulling the party line.
[/quote]

I don't have the time or place of mind to find a reference in the Catechism (which one, by the way?). I used to be that guy, who would get into online arguments and then go and find a whole bunch of text I could dump on the screen to make myself look smart. Find the reference yourself.

Still, the Catechism regards morality as objective, and breaks it down quite matter-of-factly. Therefore, "morally" disordered = objectively disordered. Also, I think another time it uses the term "intrinsically disordered." That also sounds very definitive to me, in an "objective" sort of way.

Stop playing word games and actually read the Catechism (and try to understand it), which, from a Catholic standpoint, ABSOLUTELY trumps any sort of "scientific study" or "scientific conclusion" that some people put together based on popular statistics.

As for my statement that homosexuality needs to be distinguished from homosexual - that's a very wide margin here. They are very different things. They're even different types of words. Homosexuality implies an action, where homosexual implies a type of person. Yes, it's a disorder, and when you act on it, it's called "homosexuality".

Nihil IS arguing for the Church in this case. The idea of romance exists to unite two people in sacramental marriage. Two heterosexual people can have such a relationship, in a holy way, but two homosexual people (of the same gender, mind you) cannot. Any attempt at romance between two homosexual persons of the same gender is sinful. "Hitting" on someone also needs to be defined. If you define it as inappropriate sexual advances, then yes, that's absolutely sinful. If you define it as appropriately asking someone to dinner, that's entirely fine.

Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, here, but isn't it true that any person who holds an opinion contrary to Church teaching on a matter of Faith or Morals is a heretic? So, does the matter of heresy simply boil down to interpretation of Church teaching? That seems really lame to me. Is the teaching of the Church really so unclear that people are translating it for themselves, like the Protestants do with the Bible?

[revelations]

[img]http://www.funnyhub.com/content_images/4325_2163_homosexuals-are-gay.jpg[/img]

[fides' Jack]

I don't even know what that means...

[kujo]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1311453974' post='2274453']

I don't have the time or place of mind to find a reference in the Catechism (which one, by the way?). I used to be that guy, who would get into online arguments and then go and find a whole bunch of text I could dump on the screen to make myself look smart. Find the reference yourself.[/quote]

"Proof? I don't need no stinkin' proof!!!"

[quote]Stop playing word games and actually read the Catechism (and try to understand it), which, from a Catholic standpoint, ABSOLUTELY trumps any sort of "scientific study" or "scientific conclusion" that some people put together based on popular statistics.[/quote]

Let's play a game.

How about we NOT cast doubt on "science" (by that, I mean rational statements that can be proven with empirical research)? Let's also not talk smack about "popular statistics," which, to be sure, has to be the lamest phrase ever uttered on Phatmass. What statistical measure or method would ever be "popular?"

[Jaime]

[quote]Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, here, but isn't it true that any person who holds an opinion contrary to Church teaching on a matter of Faith or Morals is a heretic? So, does the matter of heresy simply boil down to interpretation of Church teaching? That seems really lame to me. Is the teaching of the Church really so unclear that people are translating it for themselves, like the Protestants do with the Bible?
[/quote]

I think that's a bit simplified. I don't have a problem with anyone stating (when it's true) that someone is holding a heretical position. But we don't declare people heretics, the Church does. And even then, the Church is will only do it as a last resort. If you're a heretic, you are excommunicated. You are outside the Church. No one on a Catholic forum should ever refer to another on the forum as a heretic.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1311458433' post='2274493']
I think that's a bit simplified. I don't have a problem with anyone stating (when it's true) that someone is holding a heretical position. But we don't declare people heretics, the Church does. And even then, the Church is will only do it as a last resort. If you're a heretic, you are excommunicated. You are outside the Church. No one on a Catholic forum should ever refer to another on the forum as a heretic.
[/quote]
agreed.

[revelations]

*edit

Edited July 23, 2011 by revelations