Is Catholicism inherently homophobic?

[Brian Peacock]

Categorising the state of being of LGBT people as disordered and a moral failing is reasonable how?

[Seth]

Categorising the state of being of LGBT people as disordered and a moral failing is reasonable how?

How is it unreasonable? It's a private club. It's entitled to hold whatever opinions it chooses to hold. That does not mean that its stance on homosexual sex or homosexual orientation is "phobic" in nature. If you don't like its opinions or doctrines then don't go to church there and for crying out loud don't demand to be married there. It's just that simple.

[JimC]

Categorising the state of being of LGBT people as disordered and a moral failing is reasonable how?

How is it unreasonable? It's a private club. It's entitled to hold whatever opinions it chooses to hold. That does not mean that its stance on homosexual sex or homosexual orientation is "phobic" in nature. If you don't like its opinions or doctrines then don't go to church there and for crying out loud don't demand to be married there. It's just that simple.

In other posts I've clearly said that any given church has the right not to marry gay people. However, that should stop where it belongs, within the walls of the church. In Ireland, the Church did its utmost to interfere with secular law, saying that catholics would sin if they voted for gay marriage in civil ceremonies. That is where it is none of their fucking business, and thankfully more and more people around the world are ignoring the ignorant rants of bronze age woo merchants on issues outside their own walls...

[Brian Peacock]

Categorising the state of being of LGBT people as disordered and a moral failing is reasonable how?

How is it unreasonable? It's a private club. It's entitled to hold whatever opinions it chooses to hold. That does not mean that its stance on homosexual sex or homosexual orientation is "phobic" in nature. If you don't like its opinions or doctrines then don't go to church there and for crying out loud don't demand to be married there. It's just that simple.

It's a private club that operates within the public square and stakes a normative claim to default moral rectitude while broadcasting its moral condemnation of the state of being of those they vehemently disfavour. You're right in only one respect here: I don't like the opinions or doctrines of the Holy See, but that fact does not immunise their hypocrisy from due criticism nor does it limit my ability to criticise. This is a thread about that criticism and does not represent a demand that LGBT Catholics must be married therein.

[Seth]

Categorising the state of being of LGBT people as disordered and a moral failing is reasonable how?

How is it unreasonable? It's a private club. It's entitled to hold whatever opinions it chooses to hold. That does not mean that its stance on homosexual sex or homosexual orientation is "phobic" in nature. If you don't like its opinions or doctrines then don't go to church there and for crying out loud don't demand to be married there. It's just that simple.

In other posts I've clearly said that any given church has the right not to marry gay people. However, that should stop where it belongs, within the walls of the church. In Ireland, the Church did its utmost to interfere with secular law, saying that catholics would sin if they voted for gay marriage in civil ceremonies. That is where it is none of their fucking business, and thankfully more and more people around the world are ignoring the ignorant rants of bronze age woo merchants on issues outside their own walls...

Well, I dispute that the Catholic church as a church interferes with secular law. I've not seen any Bishops around here testifying before Congress asking that some Catholic version of Sharia law be imposed. On the other hand, Catholics as individuals are absolutely free to have their religion inform their political decisions (just as you are free to have your irreligion inform yours) and they are absolutely free to demand that their elected representatives serve their moral, ethical and religious interests since that's a large part of what they elected them to do. As for church officials telling members they would sin in voting for gay marriage, well, once again it's a private club and it's none of your business what the church tells its members about moral issues, including moral issues in the secular sphere.

That's where the whole "free speech" thing comes to the fore. Just because YOU think they are "woo merchants" and engage in "ignorant rants" doesn't make it even a little bit true, it just means you are demonstrating bigotry and intolerance for diversity of opinion, specifically religious opinion with which you disagree. How...undemocratic...of you.

If gay marriage in civil ceremonies cannot be approved by the democratic majority without the Catholic vote, then self-evidently the social mores of the society do not align with the desires of gays to marry, and that is nothing more or less than a perfectly valid exercise of democracy. Do you disagree? If so, on what basis do you argue that the will of the majority should be subject to and controlled by the desires of the minority, and how far does your support for the notion of individual rights overcoming a majority democratic decision go?

[JimC]

I'm not about to suggest Bishops being forbidden to make statements or arrested if they do, but I, like many others, find such statements about what civil law should be, spoken from a position of implied moral superiority to be interfering twaddle, and I'll call it so. Luckily, people around the world are increasingly ignoring attempts by various churches to stick their noses into secular law; little by little, their attempts to impose church morality on the wider community are being seen as empty rhetoric, and ignored...

[Seth]

Categorising the state of being of LGBT people as disordered and a moral failing is reasonable how?

How is it unreasonable? It's a private club. It's entitled to hold whatever opinions it chooses to hold. That does not mean that its stance on homosexual sex or homosexual orientation is "phobic" in nature. If you don't like its opinions or doctrines then don't go to church there and for crying out loud don't demand to be married there. It's just that simple.

It's a private club that operates within the public square and stakes a normative claim to default moral rectitude while broadcasting its moral condemnation of the state of being of those they vehemently disfavour.

So what? You are a "private club" that operates within the public square and stakes a normative claim to default moral rectitude while broadcasting your moral condemnation of those you vehemently disfavor. What, exactly, is the difference?

You're right in only one respect here: I don't like the opinions or doctrines of the Holy See, but that fact does not immunise their hypocrisy from due criticism nor does it limit my ability to criticise. This is a thread about that criticism and does not represent a demand that LGBT Catholics must be married therein.

So, what you're saying is that it's a fully-formed strawman argument. Unsurprising in the least.

You are correct that you are free to criticize, and I am free to dissect and debunk your criticisms using reason, logic and fact. Just because you think there is hypocrisy involved doesn't mean its the Catholic church that's engaging it it. Criticize away, but realize that you may not necessarily get to do so unchallenged and unrefuted, as is the ardent desire of most anti-Catholics and Atheists I've ever encountered. Indeed, the very essence of this forum is precisely that you get to say whatever you like and so do I. I like that very much.

[Seth]

I'm not about to suggest Bishops being forbidden to make statements or arrested if they do, but I, like many others, find such statements about what civil law should be, spoken from a position of implied moral superiority to be interfering twaddle, and I'll call it so.

An opinion you're fully entitled to hold and espouse, just as I'm fully entitled to espouse the opinion that your opinion is a manifestation of intolerant bigotry and discrimination against a rather large body of the public who happen to have the right to have their religious beliefs inform their secular lives and laws.

Luckily, people around the world are increasingly ignoring attempts by various churches to stick their noses into secular law; little by little, their attempts to impose church morality on the wider community are being seen as empty rhetoric, and ignored...

Little by little indeed, given the fact that eighty percent of the world's population are NOT Atheists and DO believe in some form of religion, which they have a right to see reflected in their secular laws because...well...democracy.

It can kinda suck being on the short end of the democracy stick, can't it? That's why we here in the US have the Constitution, which enunciates and protects certain rights as unalienable, fundamental and natural, precisely so that they are beyond the reach of the tyranny of the democratic majority, be it left-wing or right-wing in nature.

That's worked out quite well for us.

[Brian Peacock]

Categorising the state of being of LGBT people as disordered and a moral failing is reasonable how?

How is it unreasonable? It's a private club. It's entitled to hold whatever opinions it chooses to hold. That does not mean that its stance on homosexual sex or homosexual orientation is "phobic" in nature. If you don't like its opinions or doctrines then don't go to church there and for crying out loud don't demand to be married there. It's just that simple.

It's a private club that operates within the public square and stakes a normative claim to default moral rectitude while broadcasting its moral condemnation of the state of being of those they vehemently disfavour.

So what? You are a "private club" that operates within the public square and stakes a normative claim to default moral rectitude while broadcasting your moral condemnation of those you vehemently disfavor. What, exactly, is the difference?

The content and context of the claims. if we were to get into some real discussion on the specifics I would inevitably be drawn to making a number of moral arguments. However, I would not categorise them as normative moral claims because I stake no claim to absolute morality, certainty, correctitude, infallibility, or that my view must necessarily be adopted by, or applied to, all humans. I do not seek, nor do I have the power or authority, to oblige or enforce agreement other than through the force of my argument. However, The Holy See does stake a claim to absolute morality, certainty, correctitude, infallibility, and to having the power and authority to oblige and enforce (to some extent, both within their flocks and without) their view regardless of the merit of their arguments.

I did not ask if the Holy See were allowed to be bigoted hypocrites, I asked how is publicly categorising the state of being of LGBT people as disordered and a moral failing reasonable? if they categorised those with brown skin as disordered moral reprobates we'd call their bigoted hypocrisy racism, on this particular matter we simply call it homophobia.

You're right in only one respect here: I don't like the opinions or doctrines of the Holy See, but that fact does not immunise their hypocrisy from due criticism nor does it limit my ability to criticise. This is a thread about that criticism and does not represent a demand that LGBT Catholics must be married therein.

So, what you're saying is that it's a fully-formed strawman argument. Unsurprising in the least.

You are correct that you are free to criticize, and I am free to dissect and debunk your criticisms using reason, logic and fact. Just because you think there is hypocrisy involved doesn't mean its the Catholic church that's engaging it it. Criticize away, but realize that you may not necessarily get to do so unchallenged and unrefuted, as is the ardent desire of most anti-Catholics and Atheists I've ever encountered. Indeed, the very essence of this forum is precisely that you get to say whatever you like and so do I. I like that very much.

Yeah, nice try, but quite besides the point.

When the Holy See (invoking the authority of their nominated deity) publicly advocate withholding civil and legal rights for LGBT people which they would otherwise advocate and claim for themselves and their flocks, then they are being hypocrites, just as various brands of Islam, or Evangelical Christianity, or any other group of anti-LGBT bigots would be, and indeed are, if and when they do the same.

[pErvinalia]

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.

You don't do details. Or facts. Or anything cogent. As can be clearly seen by the fact that you don't know who said what.

[pErvinalia]

Categorising the state of being of LGBT people as disordered and a moral failing is reasonable how?

How is it unreasonable? It's a private club. It's entitled to hold whatever opinions it chooses to hold. That does not mean that its stance on homosexual sex or homosexual orientation is "phobic" in nature. If you don't like its opinions or doctrines then don't go to church there and for crying out loud don't demand to be married there. It's just that simple.

It's a private club that operates within the public square and stakes a normative claim to default moral rectitude while broadcasting its moral condemnation of the state of being of those they vehemently disfavour.

So what? You are a "private club" that operates within the public square and stakes a normative claim to default moral rectitude while broadcasting your moral condemnation of those you vehemently disfavor. What, exactly, is the difference?

You deserved that, Brian. You let him move the goal posts and then attempted to kick a goal in the new position. You need to refuse to address his bullshit tactics and make him stick to his original claim.

I'm available for tutoring in how to deal with Seth's logical fallacies for a reasonable rate. Bring a friend (JimC could be a good one, as he got caught in the net as well)!

[JimC]

The net had too many holes to catch anyone...

I am asserting that private clubs can make their own rules within the club, certainly (as we do in Rationalia).

However, when that private club attempts to impose those rules on the rest of society, they can be told to fuck off. They, as can anyone, make rational arguments for a particular stance as part of the wider discussion, but they cannot appeal to some supposed superior virtue of their private club (like, the bible tells us that homosexuality is wrong...). Neither should they (as the church did in Ireland) effectively try to force their congregation to vote in a particular way on a secular issue by implying that hellfire awaits those with the temerity to vote opposite to the position of the church.

[Hermit]

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...

You don't do details. Or facts...

And whenever he does assert something to be a fact, like, say, "in the early days HIV/AIDS was found predominantly in homosexual males", he has a tendency to get it wrong. The historical fact about the spread of HIV/AIDS is that in the early days it spread among African communities that hunted chimpanzees. There is no evidence that homosexuality played a dominant or even significant role.

I invite all those who habitually deny the Wikipedia as a valid source of information whenever such information does not suit their views, to follow the links it provides in their attempt to discredit it. The invitation is particularly aimed at those people who are themselves quite happy to quote stuff from sites with an obvious spin due to their respective agendas, be they of the Breitbart or the Mother Jones ilk.

[pErvinalia]

Wikipedia is a tool of Alinsky and Marx. Except when it isn't.

[JimC]

It is true, of course, that after the early days of AIDS in Africa, it's initial spread in the West was mostly (though by no means exclusively) among the gay community. But this is utterly irrelevant to Seth's claim that the AIDS epidemic makes homophobia somehow reasonable. In fact, homosexuality has steadily become more acceptable over the years - virulent widespread homophobia, and heavy legal sanctions were more common before the early AIDS era, less so after...

As always, Seth is fighting the changing zeitgeist with all the meagre skills at his command...