rationalskepticism.org

Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:

Kazaman wrote:Well, at least you aren't shy. I likewise find it highly suspicious that the non "gay-affirming" Church and scriptures were raised in highly homophobic times and places. It seems like a bit of populism was involved even then. That was not, however, how I envisioned the question. I was implying that you have given absolutely no reason for anyone, even yourself were you to decide to form opinions sensibly, to agree with you or your faction. Why is homosexuality so immoral to you?

I don't know if it would be fair to describe ancient Mediterranean culture as "homophobic". But anyhow, I'm not even trying to get you to agree with my faction. I'm simply trying to show that, given our positions are what they are, we are behaving sensibly.

I was referring to the pre-Roman Levant, Roman Judea, the post-Roman Occident and the Byzantine Empire specifically, not Ancient Rome and Roman Greece, which were obviously tolerant to some degree (although not, notably, from the standpoint of formal marriage, and even in casual sexual partnerships there was a considerable amount of stigma). Anyhow, that's a tangent that would be interesting but unfortunately irrelevant.

Kazaman wrote:
Now, you seem to have misread what I said, because I did not claim celibacy or abstinence necessarily stripped anyone of humanity, but that the Vatican's stance (and yours, naturally) strips homosexuals of their humanity. It does so by painting them as lost souls who need guidance and help, who have, as you said, some sort of "condition" which needs curing. It does so without justification.This disgraceful and deplorable attitude is what creates the toxic and divisive culture which I described and I challenge you, again, to justify your opinion in some substantive way, especially in the face of its consequences.

My stance would be that all human beings on Earth are "lost souls who need guidance and help" and every single one of them has a "condition which needs curing", namely sin. Does this strip them of their humanity? Well yes, in a way it does, because whenever we sin we lose something of the image of God wherein mankind was created. But embracing sin will never allow us to regain our lost humanity; we can only attain it by rejecting sin. I really don't see how this doctrine can be interpreted as "toxic and divisive", because all humans are in this together.

I can't believe it. I really cannot believe it, and I have no idea how I could have possibly put it any clearer. Homophobic policies, no matter their perceived egalitarian nature or lack of considerable severity, validate homophobic behaviour. Can you imagine how sickening it would be to read this as I did when I was in Catechism?

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 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.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

My bold, obviously. To a closeted homosexual, it doesn't matter whether they call for compassion and respect, because in the context of things such as "disordered," "condition" and "chastity," that is entirely empty of any its usual connotations. It reads instead as though their existence if pitiable and sad, and to be honest when I was taught that in Catechism my stomach lurched and I felt physically ill.

Policies such as that validate homophobic behaviour. They validate parents who disown and abandon their children based on their homophobia, which happens a just over a quarter of LGBT youth. It validates homophobic slurs, heard on average two-dozen times per day PFLAG Canada. It creates an environment where systemic discrimination by the government is pushed by a sufficient plurality of the population, such as we see in many countries, including the United States. This creates a divisive and toxic culture, where homosexuals have higher rates of self-harm, substance abuse and mental illness. 30% if all suicides are committed by LGBT youth. 43% of transgender youth attempt or commit suicide. This is a direct result of the propagation of homophobic and transphobic hatred and propaganda. Do you still remain willfully ignorant of the consequences of your position? Most importantly, do you still refuse to justify your position?

Kazaman wrote:You clearly cannot fathom what I mean by shame. This is a regret for something which cannot be changed. This is a shame for feeling. A shame for wanting to love. A shame for wanting companionship. A shame, yes, for physical attraction. They feel fearful and ashamed because they know that people will hate them if they act on their love and attraction; their family, their friends, their peers. They feel ashamed because they hear and read, every day, casual conversation of whether their love and attraction is considered moral. They read and hear condemnations of their love and attraction. They feel like they are broken, perverted, pathetic, disturbed. They blame it on themselves. Have you ever felt shame like that? Have you ever had your friends abandon you because you wanted to be open and honest with them? Have you ever felt that you could never truly be close to your family? Have you ever been scared that you might be left to live without a family? How dare you dismiss that and then have the nerve to call yourself compassionate.

I've never felt it to such a degree, no. But I've certainly felt plenty of shame and guilt in my life.

Of course you haven't felt shame to that extent, but I have and when I did I was in the same religion and shared many of the same moral beliefs as you. Can you understand how it seems so absolutely ridiculous to me that you have no problem saying the Catholic doctrine of sin is egalitarian when they systematically discriminate against people of non-heterosexual orientations? These are not arbitrary things which can be willingly changed or given up with work and therapy, for fuck's sake. It's not like drugs or violence. It's a fundamental aspect of someone's nature and it can be no more changed to conform to the misguidedly and disgustingly castigatory policies of the Catholic Church than a black African could change their skin tone to be accepted into Mormon priesthood.

Contrary to popular belief, we Christians don't consider ourselves perfect. And we think that the best way to get rid of those feelings is to stop doing the things which cause them.

Oh wow. Do you have any idea what you just said? That's the same twisted logic by which misogynists claim women who are the victims of sexual harassment, molestation and assault should stop "dressing slutty," "teasing and taunting" or "asking for it." Blaming the victim is not all right, it is in fact egregiously disrespectful and distasteful, and I sincerely hope you plan to issue an apology for that.

But alternatively, of course, one could do what you did and say

I can assure you, lastly, that although I have had physical sexual relations and held romantic relationships unashamedly with men, I have committed no immoral act.

You're almost right. One ought to do that, actually, and you ought to support people into becoming comfortable enough with their sexuality and gender identity to say much the same by dropping your unjustified homophobic beliefs.

Now I certainly don't recommend the second option. But it remains a possibility. And in either case, I don't think it's fair to complain about the shame you feel.

I don't think I need to deign this with a response considering that I have already responded to claims similar to this, although I will take the opportunity for the umpteenth time to prove me wrong and justify your stance that homosexuality is immoral.

Kazaman wrote:Upon further reflection, you seem to imply here that homosexuals could, if they wanted, abandon their affections and lead what I'm sure you consider to be the only respectable path of a married life as a heterosexual. The mere thought that you might believe that is outrageous and absurdly hilarious and I dearly hope that is not the case.

Well given that sexual orientation is generally not a binary cage but a sliding scale, I'm sure that there are plenty of "bisexuals" currently with same-sex partners who could conceivably find happiness with spouses of the opposite sex. But I certainly don't suggest that anyone should marry someone he's not attracted to. That would be mean.

Yes, it's certainly conceivable, but you have given no justification for your aversion to same-sex relations, so it shouldn't concern a bisexual who receives such criticism from you. As long as what you say is nothing but unsupported assertions founded upon what can as of yet only be seen as the blind acceptance of dogma, they can rest easy knowing that any criticism of their relationship is mere irrational homophobia.