Homophobia

Brilliant! :-D

End Homophobophobia! Stop the Hate!

Fantastic.

Remember, to love someone means to approve of their actions (sarcasm)

They are trying to silence us with intimidation. Homophobe is a word they created. A phobia is an unreasonable fear of something. Those who follow church teaching, which is the fullness of truth, can not be unreasonable about our stance against people living in blatant opposition to God's word.

I usually counter with the charge of homosexism. And all those gay victimology debating points are highly debatable, IMHO.

great post!

Yes!!

Good reasoning. Now I can use that for why I don't like Jews or blacks!

How about using it as an excuse for being an antagonistic punk?

Exactly Jason... Shows that you obviously don't understand Jeff's point. That's exactly his point! Their arguments for the acceptance of homosexuality could be used to justify just about anything even racism...

Do you people deny a genetic link to homosexuality? I can't imagine that your Church does.

No, Sku, I understood Jeff's point and that it is ridiculous. Athiests can use this same logic to deny the existence of God. You use against homosexuality, btw I am one. But I don't go around calling people 'homophobes' who don't understand homosexuality or agree with it. And whats the point both sides has their proof, whether it is in Faith or science.

Tim,

I guess I qualify as part of "you people," so I'll respond briefly.

There is no credible scientific evidence supporting the existence of a "gay gene" or some other genetic cause of same-sex attraction (SSA). The studies by Hamer and Levay over a decade ago have been discredited (and not replicated), and Levay himself has backed away from the claim that his flawed study proves SSA to be genetically determined. We're talking about a myth, albeit a shrewd one, as homosexual activists have used the "I was born that way" line--or better yet "God made me that way"--to garner sympathy for their lifestyle.

The fact of the matter is that most "gay" and "lesbian" spokesmen don't buy into this genetic argument at all. They are "constructionists," meaning that sexual categories such as male and female and "gay" and "straight" are merely social constructs that people create and invest with their own meaning and value.

Just one such example of what's going on here: Gay-rights advocate Ellen Broido in her article entitled "Constructing Identity: The Nature and Meaning of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Development" says that even though "the social constructionist perspective seems to be the dominant viewpoint of those working within the humanities and social sciences," when it comes time for political strategy, constructionist activists "have found ways to use essentialist perspectives [i.e. "born that way"] as effective tools to acquire equal rights.

I liked Jeff's post, because it's a light-hearted critique of the chronic misuse of the word "homophobia" to label and tune out those who find homosexuality a moral and psycho-sexual disorder rather than a healthy, morally acceptable lifestyle. I've used the term "homophobia" myself (and have been harshly criticized for doing so) because there is a crucial distinction to be made between opposing the lifestyle and affirming the person who is trapped in it. If the line is crossed, then whatever term we might use to describe such transgressions ("homophobic," "intolerant," etc.) are justified. But only then.

The Church doesn't try to sort out the complex causes of homosexuality. That really is more the domain of science, but such research should be honest and not agenda-driven. The Church does urge pastoral ministry that is 100% truth and 100% charity. If we fail on truth and tolerate sin and harmful behavior, we become enablers; if we fail on charity, our words become harsh and hollow.

Jeffy,

Christians get into trouble for their anti-gay beliefs because they are the result of selective editing for their supposed perfect holy book. Humans and even most Christians have arrived at a superior morality and realize that God was wrong to call for the stoning of children, of women who werent virgins before their birth, of people of different religions, converts to different religions, people who work on Sunday, make fun of god, and the numerous other craziness their god calls for.

Yet Christians repeatedly refuse to apply the same standards to other kookiness of the bible like god's call to murder gays.

I enjoyed the entire post, but that third paragraph is brilliant.

UAB,

Who is advocating the murder of gays? Did anyone here say that?

stone...women who werent virgins before their birth?

Does that mean anything? Is it supposed to? Ah, this "god" is Bob Dylan? "Everybody must get stoned"? I think somebody might be stoned around here.

I think UAB needs to read up on how Catholicism works. Mostly about how it's not fundamentalism.

Just a hunch.

Jason,

Your statements illustrate my point exactly. The fact that you think it's equivalent to atheists arguments against Chrisitianity shows that you obviously didn't get it. The arguments used by gay right activists are silly and not based on sound rational arguments. Arguments for or against God aren't even in the same category of arguments altogether and I don't see what bringing them into the debate does.

If you have a good argument that demonstrate that Christians are wrong to object to homosexual relations then go ahead and make your point. If not then don't waste your and our time.

Jason you need to read your bible. God calls for killing gays, people who work on Sundays and a whole slew of other people.

Joan, my handle is truth in advertising. Any way, Saint Augustine thought it okay to beat heretics with rods and Aquinas viewed the use of violence against people who convert from Catholicism.

You see opposed to those ideas. Which leads me to ask, why should I trust your interpretation of scripture over these giants of Christian thought?

Sky, homosexuals have a perfectly good arguments in favor of their rights: They are consenting adults engaged in a behavior that harms no else and thus should be left alone.

Is any kind of hatred something that Jesus would advocate? I always thought our God was a God of Love? Depends on who you ask, I guess.

Sky,

You said: "The arguments used by gay right activists are silly and not based on sound rational arguments." What makes you think that your argument is any better? I believe this and a few other things becuase this book said so...

You offer no proof, fact, evidence that homosexuality isn't genetics. Go and quote the Bible all you want it will still make you a hypocrite. Yes I said hypocrite because unless you follow ALL the Commandments, 613 off them, then bugger off

Jester, your take on this nonsensical kerfluffle is quite good. It's much more intellectual than I could ever be.

This is the way I see the issue. Homophobia, my eye! They're merely trying to silence me. I don't believe I have a phobia about a homo. At least I don't think I have a phobia. I could be wrong - second time in my life. I'm not a head shrinker, either. I view sodomy with the same disgust as when I contemplate eating a s#!t sandwich. I also must be afflicted with fecesphobia. I need help! I have two mental illnesses. Can I qualify for benefits under the "Americans with Disabilities Act"?

To above commenters that are either homos or homophiles: I don't care what you say. Opinions are like rectums, everyone has one. I do not accept your perverse, sterile acts as anything other than disordered. If that makes me a bad person, so be it. You know how I feel.

I have an honest question and I am looking for an honest and sincere answer... so please no angry responses. In fact you don't even need to respond.

Suppose scientists did find a 'gay gene' or a mutated gene that makes someone homosexual from birth. OK, then people would have to concede that people can be born homosexual.

But say then scientists find a way to fix this (prohibiting the gene from being dominant or whatever)... what would you do?

I am not a scientist nor do I think any of this will be answered in my lifetime but it's something to think about.

P.S. I really liked the blog post. It's an interesting way of looking at the arguments.

Just four comments:

(1) I saw a reference to "giants of Christian thought" and an attempt to pit Augustine (5th century) and Thomas Aquinas (13th century) against the Bible and/or contemporary Christian leaders. That's an interesting approach. But without getting into the diverse times and cultures and the contexts of the controversial views that the commenter assigns to these "giants," we can say that the Church and all the great "giants of Christian thought" for two millennia are agreed that homosexual behavior is sinful. If one doesn't accept Christ (see pt. 3), then this point is irrelevant. But for those who do accept Christ, this point should be underscored.

(2) One commenter complained about there being "no evidence" to prove same-sex attractions aren't genetic. In my previous comment, I cited one gay rights advocated who admitted that the "born that way" myth is not accepted by the gay rights intelligentsia, but rather is a political tool to be used as needed. I could cite many other sources along those lines if you question that quote.

(3) For those who defend homosexual activity, my five-fold question is (a) Do you believe in God? (b)Do you believe in an objective moral law (sometimes called the natural law, which also presupposes a supreme being)? (c) Stated more bluntly, do you believe in objective truth? (d) Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God? (e) Do you believe that Christ entrusted His authority on earth to His Church?

If you answer "yes" to any or all of these, then there is some "common ground" for us to discuss homosexuality from a theological and/or philosophical perspective. The more "yeses," the more common ground.

If you answer "no" to all of these, then there is no authority you recognize outside yourself (except of course that which is imposed by civil law), and you believe you may create your own reality and your own truth. If that's really the case, then I don't see how appealing to traditional Judeo-Christian morality, the Bible, etc. will get us anywhere . . .

So, I guess the primary question for you--and for all of us--is "Who do you say that Jesus is?" (Mt.16:15).

(4) Even for those of you who are atheistic in terms of theology and relativistic in terms of philosophy, the statement that a homosexual lifestyle hurts no one (the participants, family members, including children adopted into such relationships, and society as a whole) is a naive, uninformed assertion. Those who engage in this lifestyle have a much lower life expectancy and are at a much greater risk for a host of physical and psychological disorders. Sadly, many are in denial about all this because they want to continue as they are.

I assure you that what I've said is motivated by a sincere concern for those with same-sex attractions, whom I consider to be my brothers and sisters--or as Christ would say, my "friends" (Jn. 15:12-15)--called to the fullness of life and joy with God.

Rose, that's a good, honest question.

First, though, I think we should avoid talking about a "gay gene" or even a genetic cause of homosexuality. "Same-sex attractions" (SSA) is the more precise, inclusive term. Words like "gay" and "lesbian" tend to be used by those who have embraced the homosexual lifestyle and the "gay agenda" as it's commonly understood. "Same-sex attractions," on the other hand, would include not only "gay and lesbian" folks, but also those who never act upon such inclinations and who don't buy into the "gay agenda."

Meanwhile, "homosexual" is a little more vague than SSA, plus (like "gay" and "lesbian"), when used as a noun, it's defining a person based on his or her sexual inclinations. Rather, God made us male and female, and some males and some females experience SSA. That's how objective scientists approach it.

The hunt for a "gay gene," for reasons too complex to get into here, will never succeed. There are simply too many other complex, non-hereditary factors at work in homosexuality for it to be a pre-determined reality. I suppose it theoretically could be, but that would run counter to the body of knowledge we've acquired so far.

What we can say is that all of us experience a certain brokenness, a tendency toward sin, called "concupiscence" as a result of original sin. Concupiscence itself isn't a sin, but it's the tendency toward sin. It's theoretically possible that there could be genetic factors at work that would make one more susceptible to SSA when coupled with other environmental factors, but even that, to date, hasn't been established.

The fact remains that many reputable scientists have found homosexuality to be a preventable as well as treatable disorder. If we were to posit that in some cases it was genetic and not thus not preventable, it would still be treatable, and I've personally met people who have definitively left behind the homosexual lifestyle with the help of such professional counselors.

The key of course is how it is approached by health care professionals, many of whom sadly have been swayed by various political and religious biases and agendas rather than science. Obviously if it's not seen as a disorder but as an alternative lifestyle, those who do want to treat those with SSA are persecuted by the politically correct professional community, such as the APA.

And of course people with SSA do not choose their childhood and the combination of factors that led to their condition. Not an insignificant number were abused as minors. It's a struggle for them, especially when they understand the truth about their condition and want to live chastely. They deserve the help not only of professional counselors but all the People of God.

People who claimed that homosexuals can be "cured" are engaged in puesdo science. How can I tell?

One of the tell tale hints that a person is engaged in psuedo science is claims that one is being persecuted for their beliefs. Particularly when the person making those claims is part of the dominant group and the persecution they claim to suffer is at the hands of a generally powerless minority group.

I mean the gay agenda can not get laws passed for their own equal rights, but Leon here thinks they're able to supress science, something that has defeated Christianity's best efforts to destroy it?

Yeah right

Thank you Leon for your well thought out and articulate response.

science, something that has defeated Christianity's best efforts to destroy it?

Can you give examples of this?(Avoid Heliocentrism. The Church wasn't given good scientic evidence for that at the time)

If not, you're are just an angry (Anti-Christian) fella blowing smoke.

Jason, UAB,

You just keep proving Jeff's point: Homosexual activists will not allow any disagreement.

A question: wouldn't the acceptance that homosexuality has a genetic origin automatically categorize it as a biological malfunction, like for example some syndromes causing retardation.

In that case, would it still be a sin? Is a man who does something against natural law because of a mental illness still incorring in sin? Wouldn't this be a case of invincible ignorance?

Is a man who does something against natural law because of a mental illness still incorring in sin?

If he fully consents, understands it sinfulness, and has reflected sufficiently, then yes.

Wouldn't this be a case of invincible ignorance?

No, because the Church's position against acting upon (either in thought, word, or deed) one's homosexual desires is completely clear. Her position cannot be misunderstood.

Thanks for your clarification.

Where do you get these things?? Genius!

what would happen if a newer version of the testament were uncovered that still supported jesus christs' ways, but had readdressed the homosexual issue; if there was a "second draft" of the new testament that said that jesus gave a green light to being gay, would you still be against it?

and if not, who would be able to say why that version should be considered less true than the first one?

Ian, if you found the bones of a dragon in your backyard, what would you do? :) I mean, as long as we're playing "what if" games here...

"what would happen if a newer version of the testament were uncovered that still supported jesus christs' ways, but had readdressed the homosexual issue; if there was a "second draft" of the new testament that said that jesus gave a green light to being gay, would you still be against it?"
You would know that the it was nearing either Christmas or Easter and that within a month the National Geographic program would be revealed as nonsense, although grocery shoppers would still be talking about it as "Gospel" in the aisles.

UAB chided me on the issue of curing those with same-sex attractions, saying that such treatment must be pseudoscience, especially since the gay community is the oppressed minority in all this.

Other commenters, whose remarks have been deleted, substantially confirmed my point through their visceral attack of NARTH--one of the leading voices of reparative therapy for homosexual men and women. They did not counter what I said with scientific evidence (which doesn't exist), but with a scathing attack of anyone who dares to provide treatment for homoseuxality. Such attacks are not unusual.

What's sad is what this says to the man or woman who is able to overcome same-sex attractions through such treatment, as well as others who deep down would like to follow suit.

To those who commented earlier, let's move past the name-calling and address the issues honestly.

To Ian, who's hoping that an updated version of the New Testament is discovered that supports gay rights, do you accept the New Testament that we actually have?

To Sebas, who wondered whether homosexuality would still be a sin if a genetic cause were discovered, we'd need to make a crucial distinction. The condition itself, if such were the case, while still a disorder, clearly would not involve any sin. However, acting upon such condition would still be a sin. For myself, I'm biologically programmed to commit the sins of fornication and adultery, but I'm still free not to commit those sins.

For more on this general subject, see my article "Straight Talk" posted at http://www.cufblog.org/?p=43

You may delete nature with a pitchfork, semper tamen recurrit.

if there was a "second draft" of the new testament that said that jesus gave a green light to being gay, would you still be against it?

That won't happen. Here's Why: God is the creator of the natural world, among other 'things.' Reproductive organs are not analogous to waste disposal organs. It is contrary to the nature of man. Jesus Christ, the second person of the Blessed Trinity, would NEVER condone acts which contradict and debauch God's design for man.

"A question: wouldn't the acceptance that homosexuality has a genetic origin automatically categorize it as a biological malfunction, like for example some syndromes causing retardation."

No. We are not machines; we have minds, and consciences, and free will.

"In that case, would it still be a sin? Is a man who does something against natural law because of a mental illness still incorring in sin? Wouldn't this be a case of invincible ignorance?"

No. Being genetically disposed to something (even if true in the case of homosexuality) would not make us mentally ill. Sin is a spiritual affliction. We are ALL infected - but we have a duty to God to resist such urges, and to truly repent if and when we fall from grace. We simply cannot resist temptation and wrong-doing without the grace of God. Our natural tendency is to justify our actions (see above). We can fool ourselves, we can sometimes fool other people, but we cannot fool God. Christians believe that homosexuality is a grave offence against God - not only is it an illicit practice, it is also a unnatural one.
There are many homosexuals who deny themselves and practise chastity. I honour them.

I read this to all my roommates and they laughed so hard.

Some friends of mine came up with "homophobophobia" back in 1992 or so at Yale, where believe me, there is a LOT of homophobophobia. Hard to believe that was 16 years ago!