rationalskepticism.org

Kazaman wrote: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?

I'm not sure how you can claim the Catechism "validates homophobic behavior", since it very clearly states that unjust discrimination is sinful. People who disown their children or use verbal abuse are just as contrary to the Catechism as the people they would abuse, and are they quite disgusting. I don't know what you're trying to prove by listing these doleful statistics. I agree that bullying and hatred have horrible results. But bullying and hatred are not the inevitable results of Christian moral teaching, although it is plainly true that vile people ignorantly attempt to use it as a justification. Correlation does not imply causation.

Kazaman wrote: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.

I never said that sexual orientation can be changed. As much as I would like changing it to be possible, science seems to show that it's fairly fixed, and surprisingly enough I don't like to argue with science. So I shall concede your point, albeit without the inflammatory language. But the immutability of homosexuality does not necessarily result in Catholic doctrine causing horrible spiritual discrimination against homosexuals, for sex is but one of many possible areas in which a person can transgress the moral law. Every individual's soul is different, and I am sure that many a given heterosexual suffers far more temptation than many a given homosexual. Even if we confine ourselves to the area of sex, homosexuals are by no means under a unique condemnation. For example, a man deserted by his validly-married wife has zero legitimate outlet for his erotic desires, and is obliged to remain in agonizing celibacy if he wishes to stay in the Church's good graces.

Kazaman wrote: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.

I entirely agree that is it uncharitable and improper to deflect blame from the criminal to the victim in any crime, even if the victim acted stupidly. But there is a vast difference between causing harassment, molestation, and assault on the one hand, and expressing civil disapproval on the other. I roundly condemn the first set, regardless of whom they are perpetrated against. But no one has the right to have society agree with him. I have many times been told that I should be ashamed of myself for my antiquated and bigoted virtues, and while I obviously disagree with such accusations, I don't charge my accusers with unreasonable cruelty.