A homophobe is someone who hates homosexuals. Perhaps, since “phobia” means
fear, it is not really the correct terminology; but I didn’t make it up, so “homophobia” it is. Homophobes are those crazy people who picket the funerals of soldiers, claim that all lesbians are going to hell, that God hates gays (as if God hates anyone!), and the like. For some reason, when they look at gays and lesbians, they do not see people. They do not see beloved sons and daughters of God, sons and daughters of humans, or Star Wars fans, or people who like cats. All they see is an orientation and they judge based solely on that orientation.
A homomaniac is someone who is obsessed with homosexuals. As a “mania” is an excessive and unreasonable enthusiasm, I think the word is particularly fitting. (I found out I didn’t coin it. Alas. My genius is cliché. Oh, well.) A homomaniac looks at a homosexual and sees a homosexual. This is why they pump their children up with hormonal suppressants and claim they wanted it since they were three. This is why, when anyone ventures the opinion that homosexual acts are wrong, the maniacs immediately retort that you are a homophobe. They cannot see the difference between a person and an orientation, homosexuals and homosexuality, and so they think that if you don’t accept the act you cannot possibly accept the person. Like the homophobes, they reduce gays and lesbians to their orientation.
I feel very sorry for gays and lesbians, who are often caught between these two equally degrading groups. I would like to offer them a way out: The Catholic Church.
I have gotten a great many disbelieving stares and emphatic “What?!?”s at this statement. I can only quote this article when I am presented with objections.
“It is often assumed that because Latin American countries are Catholic, “machistic,”and frequently ruled by military dictatorship that they are also very repressive of homosexuals. While there is disapproval in Latin American countries of homosexual activities, a live-and-let-live attitude is nevertheless wide spread. Catholicism, despite its longstanding strictures against homosexuality, for complex social and political reasons, does not automatically translate its moral norms into repression of homosexuals. On the whole, there is greater tolerance of homosexuals in the Catholic countries of Latin America than in the Protestant countries of the English-speaking world.” (p. 322)
Now, Whitman and Zent do not know much about the Catholic Church if they think it is merely social and political reasons that stay the hand of the Church and prevent violence. But they have stumbled upon a truth: that the Church does not condemn homosexuals. In her everlasting advice of “love the sin, hate the sinner,” she merely condemns homosexual acts. While the Westboro Baptist Church has their website GodHatesFags, the Catholic Church invites you to be Courageous!
In a society who has fallen right into Screwtape’s trap, the Catholic Church alone is the one who has avoided all extremisms except extreme devotion to God. While the Westboro Baptist Church criticizes Catholics for not despising homosexuals and condemning only their actions, the LGTB society bashes her for not approving of homosexual acts. The Catholic Church is median, even and especially in the subject of homosexuality. The Catholic Church is neither lax nor strict; she is the perfect parent, loving and yet not afraid to discipline her children for their sake. Gays and lesbians, tired of being defined by and reduced to what they feel, are slowly finding refuge in her loving and understanding arms. If you know someone who is experiencing same sex attraction, or are experiencing it yourself, I invite you to visit http://www.couragerc.org/. Don’t buy into the skewed extremist agendas of the homophobes and the homomaniacs. Homosexuals are people like everyone else, with feelings and faults.
In a society who has fallen right into Screwtape’s trap, the Catholic Church alone is the one who has avoided all extremisms except extreme devotion to God. While the Westboro Baptist Church criticizes Catholics for not despising homosexuals and condemning only their actions, the LGTB society bashes her for not approving of homosexual acts. The Catholic Church is median, even and especially in the subject of homosexuality. The Catholic Church is neither lax nor strict; she is the perfect parent, loving and yet not afraid to discipline her children for their sake. Gays and lesbians, tired of being defined by and reduced to what they feel, are slowly finding refuge in her loving and understanding arms. If you know someone who is experiencing same sex attraction, or are experiencing it yourself, I invite you to visit http://www.couragerc.org/. Don’t buy into the skewed extremist agendas of the homophobes and the homomaniacs. Homosexuals are people like everyone else, with feelings and faults.
Jesus did not approve of our sin.
He did not condemn us.
"This is why they pump their children up with hormonal suppressants and claim they wanted it since they were three."
ReplyDeleteYou are a liar. Shame on you for bearing false witness.
The way you phrased that intentionally made it sound as if the child's desire was false, forced on her by the parents administering hormonal suppressants. If you read the article, that is simply not true. Yes, the child in question is receiving hormonal suppressants. At age 11. After the child repeatedly begged the parents to let her be the girl she knew she was. This is not a case of psycho parents forcing a child to become something to satisfy their own desires, as your deceitful statement so clearly implied - this was a case of parents being resistant, but eventually recognizing that NOT being treated as a girl was making their child miserable.
If you would actually like to learn about this particular case before spouting off about it in ignorance, I suggest finding a much less biased article. This one, for starters: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043345/The-California-boy-11-undergoing-hormone-blocking-treatment.html or http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/27/health/transgender-kids/index.html - that second one, by the way, points out that this was not a decision made lightly. The child was seen by therapists and psychiatrists before any decision was made, and the hormones are being administered according to the directions of medical professionals.
And even if all of this wasn't true? It's one family. The reason it's such big news is because it's rare - there are not many transgender children at all, far fewer who are receiving any sort of hormonal treatment. So why on earth would you represent this in your blog as if this was a commonplace, everyday thing for people to do?
It's morally and intellectually dishonest. You owe Tammy and her family, and your readers, an apology.
I was brought up for 18 years in the Roman Catholic Church.
ReplyDeleteYou are committing the Golden Mean fallacy in your proposition. It is not the case that because the Catholic Church does not condemn homosexuals but condemns same sex love that they are somehow more right than both sides. You also misconstrue "homomaniacs" in the same fashion. When we criticise organizations that hold such a position, we, ourselves, are viewing homosexuals as people. We view them as people who love and cherish their partners. By accepting this aspect of them we treat them as worthy people, rather than as people with aberrant behaviour.
The Catholic Church, and most religions, have failed to show the harm same sex attractions and relationships and sex promotes in a fashion that is UNIQUE to them. Their objection is purely faith-based. Now, if this were merely the case, we would leave it as a problem internal to the church for them to sort out among themselves. However, the church and some of her adherents have made it a point of order to make these positions political by opposing same sex civil marriage. They are trying to influence, based on their religious positions, something outside their own hierarchy and authority.
As such, I condemn both sects like Westboro, as well as the RCC. While Westboro is undoubtedly more abhorrent, the RCC is not innocent in the harm it causes gay people.
I would like to thank you both for taking the time to comment. Time seems to be one of the things most lacking today. I would also like to thank you for doing so politely. Charity is rarest only next to being being un-rushed. I will respond to your comments and your points, after giving each due consideration.
ReplyDeleteDear Mary:
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking the time to read and comment. I could not read the first article you linked because the feed seems to have been updated. However, I did read the second. Here are the conclusions I have come to:
1) Playing with dolls does not make a boy, a girl. I personally know many young boys who play with Barbies or dress up with their sisters and cousins. One child wanted his nails painted every time he saw Mommy painting hers. Toddlers want what they see because it is sparkly, because it is entertaining, or because someone else is doing it. Three year olds do not differentiate between girl activities and boy activities; they just play. They are not gender aware. They cannot look at themselves and, of their own accord, come to the conclusion that (1) they have a certain body part and (2) that means X is expected of them. Three year olds cannot actually want to be a certain gender, because they simply cannot grasp on their own the implications of being said gender. That the thought simply occurred to this toddler, “I want to play with dolls, so I must be a girl!” is impossible. So, no, I was not misrepresenting anything. A toddler cannot want that himself. Which means his tendencies and claim were either misinterpreted by his parents, or they pressured him into the conclusion—intentionally or no—by telling him that he cannot play with dolls unless he is a girl.
2) Yes, Tommy is eleven now. Eleven is still not an adult. Simply because a child has been asking for something for a very long time does not mean that he is any more mature about the request or that one should give it to him. If your child had an affinity for eating flies at age three and then insisted she wanted to be a lizard, would you let her tattoo herself green at age eleven? If your son liked to play with soldiers would you let him join the Army at age eleven? I’m sorry, but eleven is not an adult. They cannot be expected to make adult decisions.
3) The hormonal suppressants are an adult decision. Even your CNN article admitted that they are not recommended for those under the age of thirteen. “Medical practitioners have to be careful with children with gender identity issues,” said Dr. Kenneth Zucker, head of the Gender Identity Service in the Child, Youth, and Family Program and professor at the University of Toronto. “Giving children hormone blockers to kids before the age of 13 is too early,” he said. An eleven year old cannot be trusted to have the maturity to weigh future consequences against their immediate desire. Since only 12% of kids with gender identity disorder retain their desire to be the opposite gender, there is a good chance that Tommy may want to drop the medication in the future—but by then there could be irreparable damage to his body.
Under point one, and on the flip side, a homophobic parent could just as easily have misinterpreted their child’s desire or pressured them into it. For example: a couple deathly afraid that their child is going to be transgender or homosexual could very easily create a big deal out of playing with dolls. I can see how this would make the child feel uncomfortable with his playing. And since he cannot very well be expected to rid himself of the desire to play, he will grasp the only option his parents have given him: be another gender. To him, it just means he can play. Later, though, the habit could cause issues. Homophobic parents, however, would not administer hormonal suppressants to their eleven year old and possibly render him sterile or give him cancer. No matter his choice in the future, cancer is now a very real possibility for Tommy, and I do fault the parents for allowing that.
Mary (continued):
ReplyDeleteAs for the frequency: no, it is not common. It is fairly new in the United States, in fact. However, “no statistics exist on the number of children taking such medical treatments.” It is more than just Tommy; how many, we cannot be sure. Yet it is the mentality underlying the act that I was getting at, and judging by the favorable opinions Tommy’s medication has garnered, I would say that mentality is commonplace and hence relevant to my post.
I have no problem with apologizing where apology is due. However, I do not post things lightly to the internet and I do not feel that I have been “deceitful” or that I have wronged Tommy and his parents.
Dear denus:
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for taking the time to read and comment! It is not the “Golden Mean Fallacy.” Though I said the Church is median and has not fallen to extremism, a very clear point is that homophobia and homomania—in being extreme—have become the same thing. It isn’t a line with one on the left end and the other on the right. Rather, it is a circle; each, in running away from the other, has again joined the other. So the Church is not only in the middle, but is also on the other side; it is the only one that is different.
From my personal experience, homomaniacs are incapable of differentiating between a person and an action. Too many times have they equated denying an action with denying a person. When the Church (or a Catholic homosexual, even) suggests not acting on a homosexual impulse, they cry, “You’re telling homosexuals to repress themselves! You hate gays!” This is not true, any more than the assertion that the Church hates liars, or those who are disobedient to their parents, or those who receive Communion in mortal sin, or any of the other people to whom she says, “You can’t do whatever you want.” If action equals person, and we cannot deny the action without denying the person, then—according to homomaniac logic—I am a liar even if I haven’t lied, and I should lie because to speak the truth would be to deny my urge to lie and, therefore, myself. It is absurd.
“They are trying to influence, based on their religious positions, something outside their own hierarchy and authority.”
German bishops do not vote in Australia. Polish Cardinals do not vote in Canada. The Pope does not vote in America. In fact, if you live in any sort of democracy or republic, the only people who are going to be influencing its politics are those from your country. Americans vote in America. Australians vote in Australia. Canadians vote in Canada. Might they be Catholic Americans, or Catholic Australians, or Catholic Canadians? Surely. But then they are Americans voting on their convictions (which happen to be Catholic) and Australians voting on their convictions and Canadians voting on their convictions. Telling them to leave their convictions out of the voting booth and off the polls—no matter how they came by those convictions—is absurd. The whole point of voting is to vote on your convictions. If you couldn’t do that, there would be no point in voting. If you couldn’t vote based on whatever convictions you have for whatever reason you want, it wouldn’t be a free country. Assuming you like a free country, you shouldn’t be telling people with certain convictions not to vote the way they want to. Feel free to try to convert them to your convictions, but don’t tell them they can’t vote on theirs. That’s not the way it works.
“the RCC is not innocent in the harm it causes gay people”
The greatest harm done to gay people (or anyone), is when their personhood is equated with their actions.
Sincerely,
~Tally Marx
Ultimately, your opinion derives from your belief that same sex actions are wrong. To me, they are not. Your reasoning is the same as saying "we don't hate engineers, we hate engineering". Your false equivocation between homophobes and so-called "homomaniacs" is invalid. By absolutely bringing attention to an innocuous action, your beliefs are not fundamentally different from homophobic ones.
ReplyDeleteI have never seen advocates for same sex marriage state that you MUST act on your desires, merely that there's nothing wrong with it. As such, you misconstrue our position that actions define persons. If a person with same sex attractions wishes to remain chaste, that is his decision and we support it. If a person with same sex attractions wishes to enter a marriage, however, that is also their decision and we support that as well. However, your position denies that option. Therefore, in matter of fact, your attempt to paint same sex marriage advocates as being incapable looking past actions and the RCC as doing so is not merely wrong, it is backwards.
"Telling them to leave their convictions out of the voting booth and off the polls—no matter how they came by those convictions—is absurd. The whole point of voting is to vote on your convictions. If you couldn’t do that, there would be no point in voting. If you couldn’t vote based on whatever convictions you have for whatever reason you want, it wouldn’t be a free country. Assuming you like a free country, you shouldn’t be telling people with certain convictions not to vote the way they want to. Feel free to try to convert them to your convictions, but don’t tell them they can’t vote on theirs. That’s not the way it works."
I really don't feel like rehashing this again. People should not vote on rights. If it somehow became popular opinion to not recognise marriage between Catholics, I would be stating the same thing. The Church has absolutely no say in how Baptists, Muslims, Buddhists and Pagans conduct marriage. It has no say in whether people from different ethnicities or countries may get marriage. Why should it suddenly strive to forbid SECULAR, CIVIL marriages between two men or two women?
I cannot prevent people from voting with their convictions, that much is true. I can, however, criticise such action as being wrongheaded and interfering. I can condemn them for being harmful. Need I remind you that it was very much "religious conviction" that sustained miscegenation. Note that I am not blaming the Church for this, as such opinions were sustained mostly in Protestant sects, and did not necessarily arise from them. But it illustrates why such convictions are not sufficient reason to accept attempts to push laws that deny rights to same sex couples.
"The greatest harm done to gay people (or anyone), is when their personhood is equated with their actions."
I have already illustrated why this notion is absurd: we, in fact, define gay people by their own attractions and who they themselves say they are attracted to. We think that acting on such attractions is a natural outlet, and that not acting on them is also a viable choice.
However, the Church itself does, in fact, see homosexuality as "objectively disordered" and that "it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil".
Ultimately, unless it is shown that homosexual acts are in actuality evil, the Church is, in fact, attacking homosexuals when it involves itself in politics to deny them marriage, just as we would be attacking the Church if we had attempted to outlaw, say, the act of Communion.
Incidentally, I came across this today: http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/21037-gay-adoption-ruling-upsets-colombias-catholic-church.html
ReplyDelete"Your reasoning is the same as saying "we don't hate engineers, we hate engineering"." -Denis, December 13, 6:08 AM
ReplyDeleteAre you objecting to this reasoning, and what for? Do you think it makes no sense, or is contradictory?
It makes no sense. Imagine if there was a concerted movement to prevent any recognition of engineering. Imagine that members of the Church praised government-enforced laws against public displays of practising engineering.
ReplyDeleteWhether they genuinely "hate" them or not, their actions and words are indistinguishable from those actually backed by malice.
Denus:
ReplyDeleteTo be quite honest, I think our discussion was effectively ended here:
“People should not vote on rights.”- Denus, Dec. 13, 6:08AM
I was always under the impression that the very point of voting is to vote on rights when a question of rights arises. Of course, I was under the impression we were discussing a democratic or republican government.
“Why should it suddenly strive to forbid SECULAR, CIVIL marriages between two men or two women?” –Denus, Dec. 13, 6:08AM
I will point out here, that I never mentioned same sex marriage in my post. I never mentioned marriage. I mentioned acts, and mentality; it was a theological point, not a political one. As to the above question… It’s a matter of what marriage fundamentally is and has always been understood to be. The Church has never supported secular civil marriages—or religious ones—between unions which do not conform to what marriage, by definition, is… including Muslim and Mormon harems.
“If a person with same sex attractions wishes to remain chaste, that is his decision and we support it.” –Denus, Dec. 13, 6:03AM
Here, we will simply have to agree to disagree. I have seen too many chaste, gay Catholics called stupid and brainwashed and accused of hating themselves for agreeing with the Church. I would say that your “engineering/engineer” example itself betrays the mentality I described as homomaniacal, since an engineer who does not engineer is not, by definition, an engineer, and to hate or deny the one is to inherently hate or deny the other.
“It makes no sense. Whether they genuinely "hate" them or not, their actions and words are indistinguishable from those actually backed by malice.” –Denus, Jan. 5, 12:11PM
To argue that is to argue that outlawing anything is an act of hatred. To outlaw drugs is to despise drug addicts (or at least act as though you do) and to outlaw running naked through the public square is equivalent to malicious behavior toward all naked people and the human body.
"I was always under the impression that the very point of voting is to vote on rights when a question of rights arises. Of course, I was under the impression we were discussing a democratic or republican government."
ReplyDelete"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
Perhaps we can have a discussion on where, ultimately, rights are derived from. However, the common view in American law is that they are inalienable, and not "given" but recognized by the government.
The result of voting on rights is majority oppression of minorities. This is what resulted in asinine situations like anti-miscegenation laws. This is why Loving vs. Virginia is necessary.
"I will point out here, that I never mentioned same sex marriage in my post. I never mentioned marriage. I mentioned acts, and mentality; it was a theological point, not a political one. As to the above question… It’s a matter of what marriage fundamentally is and has always been understood to be. The Church has never supported secular civil marriages—or religious ones—between unions which do not conform to what marriage, by definition, is… including Muslim and Mormon harems."
My reason for bringing it up was that the Church and her adherents HAVE meddled, directly and indirectly, into attempts to enact marriage equality. It stopped being a theological point and started being a political when Church officials started arguing against secular marriage. It became EGREGIOUSLY political one when you have an entire diocese (as in the Nigeria one above there) praising laws outlawing public displays of affection between same sex couples.
"Here, we will simply have to agree to disagree. I have seen too many chaste, gay Catholics called stupid and brainwashed and accused of hating themselves for agreeing with the Church. I would say that your “engineering/engineer” example itself betrays the mentality I described as homomaniacal, since an engineer who does not engineer is not, by definition, an engineer, and to hate or deny the one is to inherently hate or deny the other."
I have seen criticisms of programs like "Courage" which assume that homosexuality is, by default, intrinsically disordered. The criticisms I have seen levelled are against the motivation behind chastity, not the chastity itself. Such criticism is not unwarranted.
Engineering is the practice of an engineer. An engineer is someone with the knowledge of engineering who has passed an accreditation exam. Someone who practices engineering must be an engineer, but an engineer does not necessarily require practising engineering.
The parallels to homosexuality aren't exact, but I doesn't matter much because the point of my comparison was that the Church supports discrimination against innocuous actions which arise from the circumstances of a person's background.
"To argue that is to argue that outlawing anything is an act of hatred. To outlaw drugs is to despise drug addicts (or at least act as though you do) and to outlaw running naked through the public square is equivalent to malicious behavior toward all naked people and the human body."
False equivocation. Again, why I went with the engineering example. If I were to advocate that outlawing of Eucharist, it would be rightly perceived as hateful towards Catholics. Even if genuinely believed, for some reason, the Eucharist was harmful and I was trying to protect people, it wouldn't really matter.
It is not hateful to outlaw murder because murder harms others.
It IS hateful to outlaw mixed marriages because it does not harm others.
(Incidentally, I believe outlawing and jailing drug addicts IS, in fact, hateful. It does tremendous harm to them when what they need is help and rehabilitation, but that's not a subject I want to go into here.)
"Perhaps we can have a discussion on where, ultimately, rights are derived from." -Denus, Jan. 13
ReplyDeleteRights are inherent, I believe. And I wish it were as black and white as that, but it isn't. Oftentimes, which right supersedes which and for whom causes confusion and concern (as in abortion). Sometimes, it is not clear what is a right in the first place. This is why people vote on rights. The issue with SSM not being a right is that, by definition, it is not marriage. Marriage has always been understood as a union between a man and a woman, not just in the States but in countries throughout the world and throughout history (even Greece, which is saying something). Homosexuals cannot get married without changing what marriage fundamentally is and has always been. And if you change marriage, then they won't have marriage, anyway, just an equivalent. You would call it discrimination (“the Church supports discrimination against innocuous actions which arise from the circumstances of a person's background”), but the fact is, that is simply *marriage*. Marriage *is* discriminating. It discriminates against homosexuals by definition, as it does those who would wish to practice bestiality. In the States, it discriminates against cousins and siblings and parents/children, against young people, against married men and married women, and against the man who wants to marry a reluctant woman or vice versa. SSM isn't marriage, and even if it could be the argument that everyone deserves it equally would--at the very least--be inconsistent in light of current regulations. Also, marriage and the family is a social structure. We don’t know if SSM will have negative *or* positive consequences, and it would be folly to institute a social experiment without knowledge of whether or not it will harm society. I will not debate the topic here, as SMM was not what my post is about, but please don’t pretend that the Catholic Church arbitrarily discriminates against homosexuals and is hateful toward them. There is a reason it says what it says, and hate is not it.
"It stopped being a theological point and started being a political when Church officials started arguing against secular marriage. It became EGREGIOUSLY political one when you have an entire diocese (as in the Nigeria one above there) praising laws outlawing public displays of affection between same sex couples." -Denus, Jan 13
ReplyDeleteAnd if it is political...so what? The Church as an organization cares about its members, and the members are affected by and care about their society. It still comes down to individual people, who have opinions, which will affect their lives, and which they have every right to speak. There is nothing egregious about having an opinion, no matter what it is based on, and nothing egregious about speaking it. Unless you want to argue that the freedom of speech is, in fact, not an inherent right.
"If I were to advocate that outlawing of Eucharist, it would be rightly perceived as hateful towards Catholics." -Denus, Jan 13
That would be your opinion, and I wouldn't call you hateful for thinking that the Eucharist was harmful (incidentally, according to law in some states, under the species of blood it is considered harmful, and certain people aren’t allowed to receive it). Misinformed, but not hateful. I *would* insist that if you change a well- and long- established law you have an *extremely* good reason for doing it.