Homophobic

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1312186088' post='2279641']

the world is actually generally fine with the guys in white coats. It is just the corporatist schmucks and the people who elect them that seem to have a problem with them.
Of course, then they get to make their own little doppelgangers in white coats who say such amesome stuff as "tobacco is good for you", "coal is clean, and alternative energy is unfeasible", "mountain topping, clear cutting and strip mining are amesome for the environment, and even if they werent, the environment isnt even that necessary".[/quote]
Lovely set of straw-men caricatures there, but, alas, completely irrelevant, as none of that has anything to do with the homosexual debate or anything that was argued here.

Nice red herring, though.

I guess anyone not okay with homosexuality is a "corporatist schmuck," probably paid by Big Tobacco, or Big Oil, or Big Fill-in-the-blank Corporation-y types, because they hate gays, because, well, they're all corporation-y, see . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9rCc4SZNSI


[quote]I cant say i disagree with that basic premise, but i have yet to see any prominent disagreement with the scientific community(on a scientific matter) that isnt being spewed out by a rabidly politically biased person. Bonus points for them actually having no real claim to knowledge of the technology or science involved.[/quote]
In the time of Copernicus, geocentrism was the accepted consensus of the "scientific community". Simply agreeing or disagreeing with the common consensus of the time does not in itself prove a hypothesis true or false. Science is not democracy.




[quote]yup.

Im pretty sure the only people here who have been saying otherwise, have been the people crowing that the APA's past position on homosexuality validates their views on homosexuality being bad. of course, the APA and DSM are only valid sources on morality and the proper ordering of sexual attraction during the time periods in which they agree with your position.[/quote]
The APA's views were never a source on morality and the proper ordering of sexual attraction. Such views have nothing to do with science, nor can science determine human morality anyway.

The APA changed its "official stance" due to politics and changing mores, not scientific discoveries.


[quote]Not necessarily, i have a lot of respect for many catholic scientists and doctors. Of course, they could be quacks, but that is true of really any subsection of the medical field.




and so is the opposite stance.[/quote]
Which I never took.



[quote]Im fully capable of posting like that, but as i am posting on PM for my own enjoyment i see no reason to deny myself the pleasure of poking holes in overinflated windbags.


As soon as you can make a post that doesnt rampantly generalize and insult wide swaths of people, let me know. I am reminded of the "Kettle calling the Pot black" but at least a kettle can hold water.

see, its fun![/quote]
Windbag, deflate thyself.

[iheartjp2]

DISCLAIMER: This is not an attack on anyone. I'm simply explaining thoughts and feelings that I haven't been possessed to share here. I don't mean to offend or provoke opposition. I simply want to provoke thought. Real thought, not just passing thoughts one would have if he were feverishly typing a rebuttal.

[url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1722"]http://www.catholicn...lumn.php?n=1722[/url]

I got this from another forum in which I participate. Generally, from my perspective, the author makes a lot of blanket statements. He also doesn't consider that maybe, I don't know, not ALL straight priests who are serving are all that great. Another thing that annoys me is that this guy is basically saying that liberalism concerning the celebration of the liturgy is at least mostly due to an infiltration of homosexuals into the priesthood. If you apply his logic to our current situation in the Church, Jesuits are mostly closet-cases and charismatic Catholics are basically all gay.

Furthermore, as someone who is celibate and has been dealing with SSA as long as he can remember, I feel compelled to rant a bit. Does it ever possess anyone to ask US what we think is an acceptable or unacceptable way to treat us? Well, no, because according to many (not all, but many) who come to this site, we're all the same. We don't experience any temptation or weakness apart from our psycho-sexually well-ordered brothers and sisters. We don't need any "special treatment". Well, here's a different opinion:

[quote]The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.[/quote]

Those familiar with this quote may recognize it as paragraph 2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Are we to treat everyone with respect, compassion, and sensitivity? Of course we are. But compassion for what? Sensitivity with respect to what? Is it not a bit presumptuous to say that gay people who have chosen to bear their cross don't experience temptation/suffering that is any different from your own?

I can't kiss a guy and have that be okay. You can kiss your boyfriend. You can kiss your girlfriend. Maybe you wouldn't do it in public, but the fact is, God, the Church, society, they bless that kiss.

I can't hold hands with another guy in public and expect a faithful Catholic to look on that with any sort of "respect", "compassion", or "sensitivity" because they will automatically think that we're having sexual relations as well, whether we were or not.

Straight people aren't called to celibacy. Gay people are.

See the difference?

Disagree with me if you like. I'm just sick of people disregarding the thoughts and, yes, feelings of gay people. Yes, what we think on this matter is inherently connected to what we FEEL. Guess why? We have had the privilege (if you can even call it that) of feeling something on the matter for most if not all of our lives. The reason many straight people here have no feelings on the matter is that this issue never hit home to them. I'm not talking about gay friends or family. I'm talking about the deepest, most remote recesses of their heart and mind. The plea that probably every Christian who has ever faced this dilemma has had resounding from the bottom of their soul at least once: God, please take this away.

But it doesn't go away.

And while we sit and struggle and fight, it seems that everyone has an opinion on the matter that they want to give. Some are more compassionate than others. Some are more sensitive than others. My opinion doesn't differ from that of any one of you, but I sit. I struggle. I fight. I deal with this on a daily basis and none of you do. I understand that you don't want to feel like someone's suffering more than you are over something as little as a temptation, but I do. And so do others. We're often more depressed because this "temptation" causes us to feel isolated. It's often said to be caused by life-altering and, in some cases, traumatic experiences such as the absence or abuse of a same-sex parent. How can this be "the same" as a man being tempted to think about an attractive woman sexually? Where's your "sensitivity"? Can't you see that many of us are wounded? Don't studies about us tell you anything?

Do our struggles impair many of us to be priests, fathers to God's children. Yes, it does. Does it do so to all? No, it doesn't.
Another thing gay men don't do is create confusion when it comes to the liturgy all because of their own insecurities. The writer of this article clearly has no idea what he's talking about when he basically blames mass confusion on gay men. (No pun intended).

This is the post I made on that thread. This is my raw, uncensored (though not profane), honest thought on the matter discussed by the article. In it you'll find why I believe certain individuals must keep up a facade of callousness toward those like me:

[quote]Yyyyeeeaaaahhh, I agree with the general consensus of the group. This psychological linking of homosexuality to inherent narcissism, insecurity, and overall mental arrested development is an attempt to, once again, "medicalize" same-sex attraction. It's not just a disorder that can be a cross and a burden. It's a disease that makes us absolutely unable to reach our full potential as men (and women, but with respect to the aforementioned drivel, particularly men) of God and of His Church. The fact that the author also relied on the opinion of a NARTH member, as stated by JoshuaG, is further evidence of this author's agenda. I honestly think that some Catholics need to think of gay people this way. If they give us our full dignity as whole human beings who are merely flawed and riddled with imperfection as much as the next hetero, they have no reason to condescend to us as our "healers". They would have to admit to themselves that if they really loved or cared about us as Christ does, that they would need to walk this journey hand-in-hand with us, feel our pain, understand our struggle. They can't bring themselves to do that, therefore they create a smoke screen that prevents them from seeing us as we are.

This is why I think consideration of all men who wish to enter the seminary should be taken not only at one standard, but more meticulously, on a case by case standard. Not everyone, hetero or not is fit for the priesthood, regardless of whether they sense a calling. The fact of the matter is that many men who struggle with SSA would make great priests. There are also many heterosexual men who are, were, or would make horrible priests. They don't like looking at this matter objectively for some reason, though.
[/quote]

Homophobia was coined to mean fear of homosexuals. Well, I'm not a practicing homosexual and neither are many who feel that God is calling them to give their lives to the Church in the service of priesthood. Now, I don't feel called to be a priest. For those that do, I don't think they should be turned away simply because someone who thinks he knows how gay men feel is telling the world that gay men are emotionally inadequate. Not all are, and therefore not all should be deemed as such. No, this article was not written in the spirit of homophobia. It was written in a spirit far more pathetic: the fear of the gay man.

</endrant> Phew.

[Luigi]

iheartjp2-

Thanks for the above post (I don't want to quote the whole thing because it'd would wind up with quotes inside quotes inside quotes).

I started this thread hoping to come up with a more accurate word than 'homophobia' because I consider it a misnomer. But, of course, sticking to the posted topic has never been a Phatmass strength, so the topic quickly expanded to the more general theme of homosexuality. I think we need a word that expresses non-support-of-homosexual-activity - not based on someone's attributing fear of the other person's supposed latent homosexuality, not based on past events, not based on political agendas, not based on religion, not based on hatred - just non-support-of-homosexual-activity for whatever reason. To me, it's the same battle as 'pro-life' vs. 'pro-choice' - people are trying to influence the thoughts of the undecided public by subtly planting the 'right' perspective in their minds through use of the 'right' terminology, all of which reminds me of Orwell's [u]1984[/u]. And I don't think it works anyway - I don't give a lot of credence to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.

I didn't read the link in your post - I take you at your word that the writer is out of line.

I appreciate your openness. You've contributed not only a personal perspective but an insider's experiential perspective. There's a lot to be learned from that. And your perspective does a lot to humanize the situation - at least for those who are open to humanization. Because the point of all canon law and all theology is the salvation of souls... and all souls reside in human beings... and Catholicism is so heavily communal, which means dealing with outher human beings... the problem is that all human beings are so different... But that's the difference between just reading theology and being pastorally trained - it's easier to read, memorize, and quote stock phrases that it is to know how to pastorally encourage, guide, support, etc. And keep in mind that almost no one on this board has been pastorally trained, even if they've read every Church document they've ever met.

So, thanks.

And there are orders out there - maybe not dioceses any more - that will take individuals with SSA as long as they've been celibate for X number of years.

Peace of the Lord be wtih you.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1312677986' post='2282648']
Now why would parents feel a little funny about children who get together with people of their same sex. Hmmmmm.... Boy isn't that a tough question.. [/quote]

Except that many parents (and other relatives) now are beginning to accept it is as normally as heterosexual marriage - or simply giving up the fight.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1312779045' post='2283244']
iheartjp2-

Thanks for the above post (I don't want to quote the whole thing because it'd would wind up with quotes inside quotes inside quotes).

I started this thread hoping to come up with a more accurate word than 'homophobia' because I consider it a misnomer. But, of course, sticking to the posted topic has never been a Phatmass strength, so the topic quickly expanded to the more general theme of homosexuality. I think we need a word that expresses non-support-of-homosexual-activity - not based on someone's attributing fear of the other person's supposed latent homosexuality, not based on past events, not based on political agendas, not based on religion, not based on hatred - just non-support-of-homosexual-activity for whatever reason. To me, it's the same battle as 'pro-life' vs. 'pro-choice' - people are trying to influence the thoughts of the undecided public by subtly planting the 'right' perspective in their minds through use of the 'right' terminology, all of which reminds me of Orwell's [u]1984[/u]. And I don't think it works anyway - I don't give a lot of credence to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.

I didn't read the link in your post - I take you at your word that the writer is out of line.

I appreciate your openness. You've contributed not only a personal perspective but an insider's experiential perspective. There's a lot to be learned from that. And your perspective does a lot to humanize the situation - at least for those who are open to humanization. Because the point of all canon law and all theology is the salvation of souls... and all souls reside in human beings... and Catholicism is so heavily communal, which means dealing with outher human beings... the problem is that all human beings are so different... But that's the difference between just reading theology and being pastorally trained - it's easier to read, memorize, and quote stock phrases that it is to know how to pastorally encourage, guide, support, etc. And keep in mind that almost no one on this board has been pastorally trained, even if they've read every Church document they've ever met.

So, thanks.

And there are orders out there - maybe not dioceses any more - that will take individuals with SSA as long as they've been celibate for X number of years.

Peace of the Lord be wtih you.
[/quote]

Thank you, Luigi, for that kind response. Yes, I often forget that while there are people who are trained to deal with these matters in a sensitive way many of them are not at PM.

It's just been a huge discouragement for certain people to just say whatever they feel like saying and then do things like invoke Jesus' comments toward the Pharisees and other sinners or even 'love' as justification for their calloused and snide attitudes when dealing with touchy subject matter. This one is especially difficult to bear that with because, for me, it's more than just 'subject matter'. It's an ever-present reality. In addition, I would challenge anyone who thinks that way with this:

Jesus, who is God, and therefore is also love personified, conveyed perfect love through all that He did and said. While we may think Jesus was being snide or snarky when speaking to the Jewish leaders in such a way, what he chose to say and how he said (however that was), was said out of perfect, divine love. Now, in that light, to compare any action that you might perform to ANYTHING Jesus did is childish at best and an imperious misunderstanding at worst. Without taking into account that you cannot see someone's heart as He can, cannot read their thoughts as He can, and cannot, for your own life, bring yourself to love as He does, you overlook the most important part of imitating Christ: you must not look solely at Christ's actions, but at his truths revealed in Scripture, tradition, and the words of Mother Church. That truth is that since our love is imperfect, we cannot do all that Jesus did who literally is perfect love. Yes, we all have feelings, and while it's not justified to allow them to get in the way of our thinking, they, like our cognition are gifts from God. They allow us to truly experience life and not just recount it as it factually happens around us. Running over someone's feelings and not caring isn't okay.
Okay, wow. Definitely got a little emotional again. ^_^;;
</endrant>

I think the phrase for which you're trying to find a term, that's absolutely perfect. I don't think you'll actually find a word that conveys the meaning of non-supporter-of-homosexual-activity to as great an extent as this. I think we sometimes give our brothers and sisters on the other side of the fence too much credit. Not everyone realizes that this is ALL that we are: non-supporters-of-homosexual-activity. I think if we showed more love and (especially) concern in our words and actions regarding this topic, we wouldn't have to explain why we're not 'homophobes' in the first place. As Catholics, our Church does a wonderful job of speaking out compassionately and unoquivocally for us on a number of things. If we just took that one step further and brought that reality to people who need to hear it, whether they're gay or straight, we would probably have a ton less trouble with many issues.

Just my $0.02.

[stevil]

[quote name='iheartjp2' timestamp='1312765056' post='2283155']
but I sit. I struggle. I fight. I deal with this on a daily basis and none of you do.[/quote]

It is a shame that you have been taught to believe that the Catholic way is the truth. Most of society today would accept you for who you are and would like that you find true love and would not bat an eyelid with regards to whether you choose to express your love physically or not.
I am amazed that a person in your position can accept the Catholic teachings without requiring proof. You live your life in a daily struggle worrying about what an imagined god might think of what you do in your own privacy with the person you love.

[Jaime]

[quote name='iheartjp2' timestamp='1312797280' post='2283277']
Thank you, Luigi, for that kind response. Yes, I often forget that while there are people who are trained to deal with these matters in a sensitive way many of them are not at PM.

It's just been a huge discouragement for certain people to just say whatever they feel like saying and then do things like invoke Jesus' comments toward the Pharisees and other sinners or even 'love' as justification for their calloused and snide attitudes when dealing with touchy subject matter. This one is especially difficult to bear that with because, for me, it's more than just 'subject matter'. It's an ever-present reality. In addition, I would challenge anyone who thinks that way with this:

Jesus, who is God, and therefore is also love personified, conveyed perfect love through all that He did and said. While we may think Jesus was being snide or snarky when speaking to the Jewish leaders in such a way, what he chose to say and how he said (however that was), was said out of perfect, divine love. Now, in that light, to compare any action that you might perform to ANYTHING Jesus did is childish at best and an imperious misunderstanding at worst. Without taking into account that you cannot see someone's heart as He can, cannot read their thoughts as He can, and cannot, for your own life, bring yourself to love as He does, you overlook the most important part of imitating Christ: you must not look solely at Christ's actions, but at his truths revealed in Scripture, tradition, and the words of Mother Church. That truth is that since our love is imperfect, we cannot do all that Jesus did who literally is perfect love. Yes, we all have feelings, and while it's not justified to allow them to get in the way of our thinking, they, like our cognition are gifts from God. They allow us to truly experience life and not just recount it as it factually happens around us. Running over someone's feelings and not caring isn't okay.
Okay, wow. Definitely got a little emotional again. ^_^;;
</endrant>

I think the phrase for which you're trying to find a term, that's absolutely perfect. I don't think you'll actually find a word that conveys the meaning of non-supporter-of-homosexual-activity to as great an extent as this. I think we sometimes give our brothers and sisters on the other side of the fence too much credit. Not everyone realizes that this is ALL that we are: non-supporters-of-homosexual-activity. I think if we showed more love and (especially) concern in our words and actions regarding this topic, we wouldn't have to explain why we're not 'homophobes' in the first place. As Catholics, our Church does a wonderful job of speaking out compassionately and unoquivocally for us on a number of things. If we just took that one step further and brought that reality to people who need to hear it, whether they're gay or straight, we would probably have a ton less trouble with many issues.

Just my $0.02.
[/quote]


That's more like a nickel!

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312806156' post='2283289']

It is a shame that you have been taught to believe that the Catholic way is the truth. Most of society today would accept you for who you are and would like that you find true love and would not bat an eyelid with regards to whether you choose to express your love physically or not.
I am amazed that a person in your position can accept the Catholic teachings without requiring proof. You live your life in a daily struggle worrying about what an imagined god might think of what you do in your own privacy with the person you love.
[/quote]

1. who gives a flip what society accepts today? society in Jesus' time didn't accept what He had to say either, yet He changed the entire world by teaching His message in a span of 3 short years.
2. true love? what is true about a relationship where 'sex' can never produce life? i ain't talking individuals with medical issues, i'm talking about that lifestyle in general, so don't even be silly and go there. it is utterly sterile. the parts don't even fit together right, for crying out loud.
2. sex is not an expression of love. one can love someone without sexuality coming into play.
3. proof? prove to me that God does not exist. or at least prove to me that everything came from nothing, including thought, emotion, logic, math, and physics. Proof? Try something far more compelling and powerful: faith.
4. this whole thing would be moot if it WAS kept as 'what you do in your own privacy with the person'. problem is that the SSA activists want to ram it down our throats, call us haters simply for not believing in a way acceptable to them, force the schools to teach our kids it is normal, change the definition of marriage, and brainwash society into thinking that homosexuality and being homosexual/having SSA is the same thing. keep it private? I WISH!

Edited August 8, 2011 by Groo the Wanderer

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1312754676' post='2283112']
Lovely set of straw-men caricatures there, but, alas, completely irrelevant, as none of that has anything to do with the homosexual debate or anything that was argued here.

Nice red herring, though.

Windbag, deflate thyself.
[/quote]



MOMMY! MOMMY!



LOOK MOMMY!






[img]http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/files/original/Pot-calling-the-kettle-black-734818.jpg[/img]

[4588686]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1312827661' post='2283387']
problem is that the SSA activists want to ram it down our throats,
[/quote]

That would be traumatic. I guess I now better understand your hostility to and fear of homosexuality.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1312208417' post='2279697']

brought to you by the same 'scientists' who perfected cold fusion a few years back? ppffftt
[/quote]
The University of Newcastle had something to do with cold fusion? I'd rather like to see a link...[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1312677986' post='2282648']
[i][b]BUT THEY'RE JUST BORN THAT WAY!!!![/b][/i]

Would that agree with evolutionary theory? Let's see.. The heterosexuals reproduce, and the homosexuals don't.......... Hmmm...
[/quote]
Individuals with Turner Syndrome also don't reproduce. If you can't reproduce, you aren't born that way, because that doesn't agree with the theory of evolution.

People afflicted with Turner Syndrome must choose to be that way. QED

Edited August 8, 2011 by USAirwaysIHS

[4588686]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1312831225' post='2283404']
Individuals with Turner Syndrome also don't reproduce. If you can't reproduce, you aren't born that way, because that doesn't agree with the theory of evolution.

People afflicted with Turner Syndrome must choose to be that way. QED
[/quote]


A major breakthrough in genetics!

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1312831494' post='2283407']


A major breakthrough in genetics!
[/quote]
An excerpt:
[quote name='My CV']
PhD in Human Genetics and [i]"Evolution"[/i]
[b]Patriot Bible University[/b], Graduated 2011 (Online Course)
Studied under Rev. Dr. Kent Hovind, PhD, MD, DDiv, DD, DO, DMD, DDS, GED

Areas of research: How dinosaurs never existed, how to pray away the gay, flipping burgers
Dissertation: Shut up you stupid liberal athiest, I will beat your arse.[/quote]

Edited August 8, 2011 by USAirwaysIHS

[stevil]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1312827661' post='2283387']
this whole thing would be moot if it WAS kept as 'what you do in your own privacy with the person'. problem is that the SSA activists want to ram it down our throats, call us haters simply for not believing in a way acceptable to them, force the schools to teach our kids it is normal, change the definition of marriage, and brainwash society into thinking that homosexuality and being homosexual/having SSA is the same thing. keep it private? I WISH!
[/quote]
I've never seen two people having homosexual sex in public before, I doubt it is common place.
I am certainly against people having sex in public. But then again, it would draw a crowd and give them something to talk about.

Edited August 8, 2011 by stevil

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312832100' post='2283413']
I've never seen two people having homosexual sex in public before, I doubt it is common place.
I am certainly against people having sex in public. But then again, it would draw a crowd and give them something to talk about.
[/quote]

amazing how you completely missed the point.....but then again, that was your point, huh?