Is Catholicism inherently homophobic?

[pErvinalia]

And AIDS, let alone HIV, isn't a death sentence any more.

[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?

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.

Ah, but I am not a private club, I am an individual agent. The votaries, officiates, and laity of The Holy See are not afforded such freedom.

[pErvinalia]

Whether something is logically reasonable doesn't depend on whether it is enacted publicly or privately. If the logic is busted then it doesn't matter. There's no such thing as objective morals. So the church claiming moral failings doesn't make sense under any reasoning (other than a churchy relative moral framework).

[Brian Peacock]

Indeed. And it was not I who said that the actions of The Holy See had implications for their congregations alone.

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...

Many attitudes towards the disease are enmired in the legacy of Crumplean fears generated around its arrival in the West - the spectre of an existential threat to a Western way of life. Those with a pruriently proscriptive attitude to sexual intimacy also considered it a (self)righteous indictment and just punishment for and on those whose life-style choices and state of being they could not, or were not allowed, to accept. The Holy See's attitude and response to AIDS/HIV is appalling, where their prohibitions against condoms and women taking control of their reproductive health have condemned a great many to avoidable suffering, particular across Africa.

[JimC]

Brian Peacock wrote:

The Holy See's attitude and response to AIDS/HIV is appalling, where their prohibitions against condoms and women taking control of their reproductive health have condemned a great many to avoidable suffering, particular across Africa.

[Scot Dutchy]

They need those souls. It does not matter about the ones dying they are already accounted for. Souls were always a major priority for the catholic church. Bugger the women get the souls. How many women have suffered at the nun's hands giving birth. Mother's life was not important and there were always a lovely home for the orphans.

[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?

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.

That might speak more to your wussitude than be an argument against Catholics.

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.

So what? Maybe they are right and you're wrong. Maybe not. But as long as they don't put you on the wheel and turn the thumbscrews their opinions on morality are just as valid as yours, as is their right to petition government to inculcate those morals into society according to democratic processes.

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?

Why is it unreasonable? It's an opinion.

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.

One cannot choose to be black, white, yellow or brown. One can choose not to engage in sexual acts. Opinions about the moral probity and value of sexual acts are matters of societal judgment and democratic decision making. If the majority doesn't want you to screw in anything but the missionary position, then you are obliged by democracy and the will of the majority to comply...or are you making a claim that democracy does not have the authority to regulate individual behavior, and if so, what is your rationale for such an exception?

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.

Why are they hypocrites? They so advocate because they believe that such rights are detrimental to society precisely because those demanding such rights are distinguishable by their behaviors from the rest of society. If they believe that sodomy is morally corrupt and harmful to society because it violates some commandment of God and therefore they argue against laws that would ratify and support the right of persons to commit sodomy how are they being hypocritical?

You falsely assume that moral judgments that are unfavorable to gays are inherently wrong and that, in this case, denying gay marriage while supporting heterosexual marriage constitutes hypocrisy. It doesn't because the conditions of the two groups are not the same. Catholicism denies church-sanctified marriages and argues against civil gay marriages because it believes that marriage is something that can only occur between one man and one woman and cannot occur between members of the same sex as a matter of definition of the word and natural fact, and therefore the state has no business defying either God or nature by applying that term to homosexual domestic partnerships. However right or wrong this opinion might be in your opinion it's not hypocritical at all, it's entirely consistent with their belief structure and it's an opinion they are entitled to hold and espouse.

[Seth]

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.

...In Africa...before it spread to the rest of the industrialized world, where the primary vector for transmission became sexual contact among male homosexuals before it once again found its way into the heterosexual population.

You're trying to elide the truth through temporal shenanigans, which is dishonest argumentation.

[Seth]

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.

Except for one small thing; that's never a claim that I've made, ever, and you know it, so you're just lying through your teeth again.

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...

Indeed, but beside the point entirely.

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

Sounds like a personal attack to me. Suspend yourself forthwith.