This isn't tolerance, this is liberalism.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
pope made homophobic slur
- Thread starter Eddi
- Start date
Secret Chief
Vetted Member
I know that, but because of the comments made I referred specifically to Bishops. I'm personally opposed to the whole idea of an unelected chamber.
McBell
Unbound
So pretty much the whole western hemisphere is American?
Secret Chief
Vetted Member
Traditionalists don't use liberal terms such as "Canadian." Similarly, although I was born in England and live in England traditionalists refer to me as Scottish.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
You realise that "traditional views" can be homophobic, right?
What you are calling his error was his choice of words. I don't think that most of the blowback in this thread is about that. Personally, I had no problem with the actual word he chose. It was the sentiment to which I object however worded.
That wasn't written to me, but I agree. Every time we see this institutionalized homophobia it should be denounced.
Then don't be. If you care about not offending others unintentionally, when you do, learn how and make a change.
I'm saying that homophobia is not a legitimate position. Being a religious belief doesn't legitimize it. Being an ancient, entrenched, or traditional belief doesn't legitimize it.
The right to express their condemnation of homosexuality. Legally, they have that right. Morally, they should be loving and tolerant. Those that won't be should be made uncomfortable if they express their bigotry.
How is that not the content of their character? They seem playful and fun-loving to me.
And much of the world is about sexuality - fashion, makeup, entertainment, beaches, and clubbing. Heterosexuality has long been used in advertising. Sex sells. Maybe you object to that as well. Maybe you also consider that a character issue. I'm just not that interested in what law-abiding people do. But bigotry is a character issue for me.
Really? This thread is about institutionalized homophobia. It's baked into the Catholic church as much as it is in the protestants. Rival is pleading for more tolerance and acceptance of the Pope's message. Your posting reflects your aversion to homosexuality. You've already made a reference to the character of people in gay pride parades. Your next comment reflects that intolerance as well.
Maybe you should listen to them instead of criticizing them. People don't do that for no reason. I don't do it. I don't complain of persecution. Why? Because I'm not persecuted. Begin persecuting me, and I might start complaining.
That's not the plan. It will take decades of effort, and even then, it won't be eliminated, just marginalized.
I disagree. Black people that have discovered how to succeed in Western society are generally not vengeful.
Look at your words. You've gone right for the character issue again, but this time with people of color rather than gays. Your disdain and disapproval are palpable. I don't know why you're that way. I don't know why I'm not.
But my passion for these issues hasn't waned any in almost seventy years now, and I expect to engage in discussions like this one with you and the one with Rival several more times before I'm gone. Will that make a difference? I don't know, but I think so. You both seem like people that mean well and are capable of self-reflection.
Racists ARE the source of racism. They create more racists.
They aren't mutually exclusive.
Edit: and denying same-sex couples the right to marry is most definitely intolerant.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, that is a feeling as far as I can tell. But then I feel that you are evil, therefore you are evil.
It is intolerant to you based on how you feel. Learn how the world works.
... but not so inane for you not to engage with them, apparently.
I certainly acknowledge that this is the case, but the Catholic Church's interference in the lives of non-Catholics entitles non-Catholics to a say in the Church's teachings and affairs.
I demand a say in my public healthcare system, my public education system, and how my tax dollars are spent. I certainly look forward to the day when the Catholic Church has no involvement with any of these things, but that day hasn't arrived yet.
For the specific issues you were speaking about, a better term might be "British" (or "Traditionalist").
All of the issues I mentioned are holdovers from when Canada was a British colony.
If you live in the Americas you are American.
Just like I am European.
Is this really a controversy now?
McBell
Unbound
My apologies.
I did not know I should have had a trigger warning on a simple question.
Most people I know when they use the word America mean the USA.
Some mean the North American continent.
This is the first time I have ever heard the whole western hemisphere referred to as simply America.
So I was merely looking for confirmation if that is what you actually meant or if I missed something.
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
I'm not. That would be an impossible task. I do care about offending others. However since its impossible not to offend unintentionally -after all it’s unintentional- I can only empathize with those offended. There is no change that can be made. As I've been saying...debate is offensive. It’s inevitable.
No one wants to be wrong -normally. No one finds it comfortable to be disagreed with -normally. However in a debate where the goal is to achieve true opinion and each debater approaches the subject with a proposition that their opinion is true offence is inevitable. That is a fact that must -since it can't be eliminated- be overcome if they are to come to an agreement. Sadly it often isn't.
I disagree. Homophobia is a label applied to those who've definitely taken a legitimate action. I personally think the word has been often misapplied and abused as a derogatory statement about persons who do not care to "respect" homosexual practices.
Perhaps we are suffering from a gap between what you mean by legitimize and what I think is legitimate.
Religious belief is a legitimate belief. The specifics of that belief which may or may not be in accordance with reality cannot be said to be legitimized. That I can agree with you on.
If being labeled homophobic is supposed to reflect the actions of a person then I'd say homophobia is legitimized through that action.
That's a bit different than saying someone shouldn't be legitimately homophobic but I'd have to say that homophobia in that sense can be a legitimate position. Since, as you've said, everything is homophobic that is in disagreement with homosexuals, I think it would then come down to a question of what is wrong with homophobia? There may very well be reasonable aversion to homosexuality in such people. But that is the debate isn't it?
Loving and tolerant of what? Consider...if I see homosexuality as harmful in some manner -for society, for the individual, or in some manner indicative of disease-why should I be loving and tolerant of it? I wouldn't consider a person’s cancer to be deserving of love and tolerance. Nor would I show love or tolerance for a person who deliberately and professedly enjoys the cancer that they have.
Now I realize that comparing homosexuality to cancer or disease is a very offensive thing and very debatable but my main point is...what is it that would be moral to show love and tolerance towards? If I find homosexual practices distasteful wouldn't it be immoral for me to feign love for something I cannot love? Tolerance is a different animal. If we as a civilization are to avoid spiraling into violence and chaos we should all practice tolerance -not necessarily of the practice but certainly of the person’s moral right to exist as a person - in our journey towards true opinion.
Its only bigotry to those that disagree. Is it bigotry to condemn those that practice cannibalism? How about those that take child brides?
Is it bigotry to condemn those that think they have the right to disturb the peace at will? What about those who think they have the right to abuse their spouse as head of the household? Are you bigoted against radical Islamic terrorists? How about strict literalists in Christian scripture being right?
Bigotry is typically unreasonably founded. I believe I have reasons for finding homosexuality distasteful.
One might also ask if instinct is a form of bigotry then. How do we determine what is consistently taught versus what is persistently instinctual?
How did you decide?
Made uncomfortable? Their already uncomfortable-obviously. I am uncomfortable seeing a man passionately kissing another man. So I show distaste by turning away if I am unfortunate enough to witness such things. That my friend was not learned behavior. That is my instinctual reaction. I don't hate the men. I don't know them. I react the same as if I saw someone eating slimy worms. (I can't stand the texture). I'd probably die in a survival situation if that were a requirement. It’s a process found in a theory of mind and it seems to be not learned but innately wired.
I think that those that express themselves in a way that you disagree with makes you uncomfortable. I think you don't like to be uncomfortable -who can blame you- so you condemn their actions. Yet you've ONLY considered your comfort, not theirs, because you've declared they have no rights to be comfortable in the situation. Again, that is the debate isn't it
I'm sure some pedophiles or serial rapists can put on a playful and fun-loving show as well. Straight people too.
I think you missed the point. Their playful and fun-loving actions specifically express and emphasize their sexuality not their humanity.
If those two abominations I mentioned above put on a parade explicitly emphasizing their desires but did it in a "playful and fun-loving" way would that change anything? No, its still a parade expressing pedophilic and rapist desires.
Have you ever been to a "straight" parade in which you equate the parade with the message of who a straight person cares to have sex with?
Can you imagine? Let’s have a parade where everyone in it emphasizes celebrating sex with members of the opposite gender. But let’s do it playfully and in a fun-loving way. That's a parade everyone should let their kids attend.
What these types of parades do is send a message (learning) that sex in whatever form you wish it to take is okay, normal, and should be promoted. Wanna have sex in public...okie dokie. Wanna have sex with whatever inanimate object you desire...go for it, that's normal. Want to have sex with same gender, someone else's wife or husband, an invalid, your high school friends, 3, 4 , 100 or more at a time, a donkey (just don't get caught, its illegal) well then have at it. Everything's good if it feels good for all participants. Where's the line and who draws it? You? Me? Them?
Want to have our kids have a twisted sense of sexualization in popular culture then complain about it when statutory rapists, pedophiles, and perverted teachers come buzzing around to take advantage like flies on ****. Not a problem. Just have a parade, advertise, and celebrate the different means of having sex while at the same time mythologizing sexualization to the point where a kid can go to school in a nearly see through tank top and short shorts and then sue the school for sending her home to change because of the boys normal adolescent reactions to sexual stimuli becomes a distraction from learning. I mean after all its unrealistic to imagine that a females body can be a source of sexual excitement to males and made more so depending on how one presents that body.
Heck let’s just have a fun and playful parade celebrating all these forms of hedonism and see where that gets us. Oh wait...we're nearly to that point already but I sure don't see society getting any better.
Yes I object to that. Sex does sell. And it sells very well for a reason. It's a manipulation of a natural instinct for one’s own gain.
I'm not against advertisement. One needs to advertise their products to sell to the largest audience in order to pay oneself and those they hire while having enough assets left over to further produce more product.
I'm am against advertisement that isn't forthright and that takes advantage of psychological quarks of human behavior in order to sell unneeded, useless, sometimes dangerous junk that more often than not ends up filling homes, then garages, then storage units, then the natural world while depleting resources, hard earned funds, and mental health. All for the mad pursuit of wealth while touted as being in the name of progress. Manipulation of instinct is a primary ingredient of that type of advertisement and it’s shameful.
We've painted ourselves into a corner -not knowing what to believe anymore - primarily because of these types of immoral and parasitic practices.
That's your prerogative. We all pick our battles. Some unwisely in my opinion. Consider though that history has shown that law-abiding people can be bigoted in the extreme. So, in that sense maybe you should be more concerned with those law abiding citizens that are bigoted.
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
Yes really. For reasons I've tried to explain, the term has been rendered farcical by its attempted use as a derogatory statement about those who disagree with homosexual practices. The terms substantive meaning can be applied to everyone. It may be useful as a distinguishing label for a particular person or group but its absurd use as an insult has been rendered impotent by that substantive meaning. That is dissent. It’s like the pot calling the kettle black.
I have and do. Hence my notice of the increase. Maybe they should listen to others as much as they demand to be listened to. EVERYONE has a story to tell. They have no monopoly on that. We are not justified in everything we do simply because we have a hardship story to tell.
Those others who feel persecuted or criticized shouldn't have to take a back seat just so another group can take the front and feel more comfortable.
That's fare. But consider that anyone who is disagreed with can mistake that with persecution of. Sometimes what we feel is persecution is actually us being wrong and refusing to admit that. I've had to eat crow before and I felt persecuted while doing it. Yet I got over it as I came to the realization of what I was wrong about.
Even so, you might best start by determining whose actually racist and why. Otherwise you might simply be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I take it you don't believe in the possibility of rehabilitation, one of the founding pillars of jurisprudence in the U.S.
I do believe that some people are just evil. Unable to be rehabilitated. In those people, racism is merely a symptom of a much bigger problem.
I'm not talking about those who have found success. I'm talking about those who haven't and won't.
Those people help ensure the continued presence of racism through their own misplaced motivations. Many of those successful black people you speak of are starting to voice their opinions on how misplaced those motivations are towards achieving productive and successful goals for everyone.
My good sir, you initiated a discussion of racism if you’re equating that with mentioning "people of color" with your own words...
“That’s how it's proceeding with racism as well. We don't cure racists. We replace them with people that have never been made to hate in the first place. These ideas, like scientific paradigms, evolve one funeral at a time."
In that response you've connected racism with responses to homosexuality. Should I not then have connected those two with a consistent viewpoint which addresses what you said?
The character of a person is very important. Accusations of racism or bigotry should not be used as an excuse for one’s own bad behavior.
I would hope so. I've made my feelings abundantly clear.
You say that as if that is self-evidently wrong.
Disdain and disapproval are not in themselves immoral. In the same way that approval and admiration are not in themselves moral.
I cannot condemn a homosexual. Nor do I wish them any harm. I can only discuss the way I feel about homosexuality and racism and the reasoning for my approach to both.
By the way you’re the one who mentioned getting rid of racist’s one funeral at a time seemingly without an attempt at rehabilitative dialogue with them. That seems like a much more volatile and hostile approach to me. Metaphorical or not.
And I welcome such discussions. May you live long and prosper as Spock would say.
I see racists as sustaining racism not sourcing it. Address the source and you diminish the racist’s ability to sustain racism. I fully believe the way some self-perceived and objectively oppressed people help sustain their own oppression or at least impede its demise.
If racism can be taught, it can be untaught. But not by reinforcing the perverted stereotypes that sustain racist beliefs in the first place. It ends up in a destructive cycle....See son/daughter how they're behaving, I told you so. The other side....See son/daughter how they treat us. I told you so. And the cycle repeats.
Those successful blacks you talked about...they figured out how to remove themselves from the cycle and succeed.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
pope made homophobic slur
Does it make the pope a bad pope, please, right??! :
"The Bad Popes is a 1969 book by E. R. Chamberlin that documents the lives of eight of the most controversial popes (papal years in parentheses):
- Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]: 19
- Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
- Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy.
- Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy.
- Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[1]: 153
- Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[1]: 204
- Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony.[1]: 218
- Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
The Bad Popes - Wikipedia
Regards
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Given the nature of your posts, this is not a shock.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
I’m 4’9” and feel attacked. lol.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
He also said something pretty misogynistic. He said that Petty Chatter is something women do, that when men talk they say things of substance.The pope made an horrendous homophobic slur
Vatican remains silent over Pope's alleged homophonic comments
The Pope (pictured today at a World Children's Day event in Rome) has not broken his silence after reports claimed he denounced the 'air of f*****ry' in the churchwww.dailymail.co.uk
I'm not angry I'm disappointed
It sends out the wrong message, that such language is acceptable
He should have known better
Shame on him!
My guess is that he is simply getting old, and sometimes when we get old, we revert to what we knew as kids. The changes we made in our mentality over the years tend to slip away in favor of the comfort zone of our young life. The kinds of things he is saying, while utterly insulting today, were par for the course when he was young.
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
This is exactly why calling every dissenter a homophobe is just a meaningless politicized ploy when used as a derogatory term.
By the above description, every homosexual has to be a heterophobe since by definition they must not like heterosexuality since they are homosexual. If they liked heterosexuality then being homosexual wouldn't be an essential part of them. It would be a choice.
Calling people homophobes reduces the essence of a homosexuals personhood down to how they prefer to have sex. Seems like calling a person a homophobe for disagreeing with homosexuality just insults both the dissenter and the homosexual.
Its just political posturing in order to serve an agenda. That agenda is the demonization of those who disagree with the practice of homosexuality. In doing that homosexuals just diminish their own worth as a person.
It's shouldn't be shocking as she's not bigoted towards LGBT people like they're trying to smear her as in this thread. She won't be one of my best friends for years if she was!