Is Catholicism inherently homophobic?

[pErvinalia]

[Scot Dutchy]

He was not de-frocked but de-pants. He can keep the dress.

[Seth]

Murderaphobic, adultryaphobic, and stealaphobic too.
Homophobia is probably the most miss used word in the English langauge; a phobia is an irrational fear or aversion.

An absurd post. It is certainly not irrational to fear or oppose murder or stealing in any society. One could argue that adultery (not including couples in open relationships) is potentially damaging, but I'll call that one 50/50. Homosexuality by consenting adults, on the other hand, is no one's fucking business except the participants, and so phobia is a reasonable description.

Can you say "HIV/AIDS?"

What a daft comment. Can you say "influenza"?

What was the primary infection vector of HIV/AIDS at the beginning of it's human infection?

The point is that neither homosexual nor heterosexual sexual behavior are beyond public interest or regulation and therefore it is someone's fucking business beyond the participants under certain circumstances. However, I would agree that MOST homosexual sexual activity, like MOST heterosexual sexual activity, is justifiably private behavior that the law has no business interfering with.

That being said, that doesn't mean that social opinion is the same thing as the law or that social opinion is obliged to be accepting of this or that sexual behavior and extend the benefits of social acceptance to sexual actors who engage in sexual behavior that social opinion finds repugnant or displeasing.

Thus, it behooves everyone engaging in sexual behavior to keep their sexual practices private and, if they wish to enjoy social acceptance and intercourse with those of differing sexual orientation, not shove their private sexual practices in other people's face in a fruitless and harmful attempt to force others to socially accept them.

In short, deliberately targeting a Christian baker (for example) by demanding that he violate his religious beliefs and then suing him and putting him out of business is not helpful to the cause of homosexual social acceptance. Like radical Atheism, radical homosexuality does far more harm to the cause of homosexual social acceptance, as witnessed by the fact that at least one Christian baker couple who were pilloried and attacked by gays has received GoFundMe donations amounting to more than half a million dollars by people who sympathize with their victimization at the hands of radical homosexuals. That proves that rather than generating good feelings and acceptance among non-homosexuals, such acts merely deepen the divide and are counterproductive to the goal of social acceptance of homosexuality.

[Seth]

Murderaphobic, adultryaphobic, and stealaphobic too.
Homophobia is probably the most miss used word in the English langauge; a phobia is an irrational fear or aversion.

An absurd post. It is certainly not irrational to fear or oppose murder or stealing in any society. One could argue that adultery (not including couples in open relationships) is potentially damaging, but I'll call that one 50/50. Homosexuality by consenting adults, on the other hand, is no one's fucking business except the participants, and so phobia is a reasonable description.

Can you say "HIV/AIDS?"

What a daft comment. Can you say "influenza"?

Exactly. AIDS is not a threat from homosexuals to the rest of society.

It was. And like any STD it places certain sexual behavior within the purview of the law.

And, in Africa, it's mostly spread by heterosexual intercourse anyway...

This ain't Africa.

It is probably true that the AIDS epidemic made some sections of society more homophobic than they would have been without it, but this was truly an irrational fear...

Not really. Any STD is of concern to society and therefore it is not "irrational" for society to make laws controlling sexual behavior to prevent the spread of disease. The point is that the statement that homosexual sexual behavior is "no one's fucking business" is simply not true. ALL sexual behavior, homosexual, heterosexual or otherwise, can and often is within the purview of the law and within the purview of social acceptance as well. Whether any particular practice should be regulated or subject to social opprobrium is a much more detailed issue, but homosexuals are no more immune from scrutiny than anyone else is.

Exi should be examining Seth's posts with interest, if he wants to be accurate in labelling posts as vile and homophobic...

Indeed. And in doing so he, and those with the wit to do so, will find that my posts are neither.

[Seth]

Yeah definitely. But there's always been suspicion about Seth. He's an ardent defender of Christianity and supernaturalism.

You're wrong, again. I'm an ardent defender of logic, rationality and reason. You just happen to present me with unlimited opportunities to attack illogic, irrationality and unreason.

[Seth]

Yeah definitely. But there's always been suspicion about Seth. He's an ardent defender of Christianity and supernaturalism.

He is actually a Bishop in the Reformed Church of Paranoia.

He has recently been defrocked on suspicion of being a covert Marxist...

I think this qualifies as a personal attack. Suspend yourself forthwith.

[Seth]

He was not de-frocked but de-pants. He can keep the dress.

It's no a dress, it's a kilt, like the one you're wearing.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah definitely. But there's always been suspicion about Seth. He's an ardent defender of Christianity and supernaturalism.

You're wrong, again. I'm an ardent defender of logic, rationality and reason.

[rasetsu]

You're wrong, again. I'm an ardent defender of logic, rationality and reason.

“Facts are ventriloquist’s dummies. Sitting on a wise man’s knee they may be made to utter words of wisdom; elsewhere, they say nothing, or talk nonsense, or indulge in sheer diabolism.”

― Aldous Huxley, Time Must Have A Stop

[Brian Peacock]

What was the primary infection vector of HIV/AIDS at the beginning of it's human infection?

Infected chimp meat.

[Seth]

What was the primary infection vector of HIV/AIDS at the beginning of it's human infection?

Infected chimp meat.

And from there whence?

[Seth]

You're wrong, again. I'm an ardent defender of logic, rationality and reason.

“Facts are ventriloquist’s dummies. Sitting on a wise man’s knee they may be made to utter words of wisdom; elsewhere, they say nothing, or talk nonsense, or indulge in sheer diabolism.”

― Aldous Huxley, Time Must Have A Stop

Why thank you, what a kind compliment of my words of wisdom.

[Brian Peacock]

What was the primary infection vector of HIV/AIDS at the beginning of it's human infection?

Infected chimp meat.

And from there whence?

I'm not going to be led by the hand into saying that AIDS is a gay disease - or the gay disease. I'll leave that path for others to follow. What's HIV/AIDS got to do with the bigotry of the Holy See?

[Seth]

What was the primary infection vector of HIV/AIDS at the beginning of it's human infection?

Infected chimp meat.

And from there whence?

I'm not going to be led by the hand into saying that AIDS is a gay disease - or the gay disease. I'll leave that path for others to follow. What's HIV/AIDS got to do with the bigotry of the Holy See?

I wasn't going to assert that, I was merely leading you to the obvious fact that in the early days HIV/AIDS was found predominantly in homosexual males. That is a historical fact. All that means however is that eRv's statement that homosexual sexual activity "is no one's fucking business" is demonstrably false, as I pointed out in detail.

All sexual activity has the potential to become a matter of public interest and regulation, regardless of who the participants are or what their sexual orientation might happen to be. Therefore, homosexuals are no more, and no less subject to public scrutiny regarding sexual practices that have public health consequences than anyone else is.

That is the ONLY point I'm making. Accept that argument and there is no need to lead you by the nose to it instead.

[Seth]

What's HIV/AIDS got to do with the bigotry of the Holy See?

Well, nothing really, but that's not something I was arguing.

bigot play
noun big·ot \ˈbi-gət\
Simple Definition of bigot

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

The key word here is "unfairly." Bigotry can be nothing more than a pejorative term used by those who insist on universal unquestioning and uncritical acceptance and support for some person or group.

However, if the dislike is not "unfair" it's not really bigotry. Bigotry is often used inappropriately to condemn those who hold negative opinions about a group of people by those who are themselves bigots towards the exercise of the right of freedom of association. If I am a Broncos football fan and I "strongly dislike" Raiders fans am I a bigot or am I merely an avid football fan?

Bigotry always has a self-serving element of subjectivity in its usage. Is a strong dislike of pedophiles "unfair" and therefore "bigoted?" I don't think so. Is a strong dislike of Catholics bigotry? What exactly is an "unfair" dislike anyway? Everybody dislikes something, so does that make them all bigots merely because someone else deems that dislike to be "strong" or "unfair?"

I think not.

Is the Holy See "bigoted?" That depends on your subjective understanding of Catholic doctrine, which is not what you seem to think it is. As I have explained, the Catholic church welcomes homosexuals into its membership. What it does not welcome however is homosexual sexual acts committed by its members. That, it deems, is a sin and holds that the sinner should repent and not sin again and it tries hard to convince the sinner to do so and offers him or her a great deal of spiritual and social support in that quest for obedience to God. That's anything but bigotry.

The fact that the Church refuses to sanctify gay marriage isn't bigotry either because it's not "unfair", it doesn't demonstrate hate or a refusal to accept gays or even a dislike of gays, it's merely against the church's rules to extend that particular sacrament to gay couples. That ain't bigotry or homophobia.