Just another fool searching for wisdom. Sedes Sapientiae, ora pro me. Veritas liberabit vos.
WikiPedia says: "The term heteronormativity describes the marginalization of non heterosexuals and variations from a heterosexual orientation, or the assumption that heterosexuality can be the only normal sexual orientation."I take it you are homosexual then?With all due respect, though Church Teaching may seem to frown on homosexuality, it nevertheless acknowledges such people as having human dignity.
Ok, that was harsh.But what would you like the Church to do?To proclaim homosexuality a good thing?I feel for your kind, yet it cannot be expressed but a disordered thing.
I take it you are homosexual then?No.I believe it to be an essential fact about reality that "heterosexuality can be the only normal sexual orientation." Homosexual acts, being essentially disordered, are incapable of being considered "normal" in any truly meaningful sense of the term.I don't really have a problem with "the marginalization of non heterosexuals and variations from a heterosexual orientation" either, though I would clarify that I find the term "homosexual" to be unhelpful in describing people who suffer from same sex attraction disorder, since one should not lose sight of the dignity of the human person by conflating them with their immoral actions or disordered desires.In other words, though "heteronormative" is used as a word of reprobation, I think it is a term of approbation, and one that properly describes the nature of reality. I am not using it to say, "this is (sadly) how people think," but to say, "this is (rightly) how reality is ordered."
Ok, that was harsh.I didn't think so. I've certainly written much harsher salvos, ones I would not apologize for.But what would you like the Church to do?Exactly what She is doing.I don't write on this much, since all the arguments against the Church's position are essentially the same and it is not worth my time to continually refute poorly argued articles written by others, but my other writings on it are under the label The Unnatural Vice. My position should be pretty clear from those.
Apologies, I mistook your post to be some sort of statement being made to justify homosexuality (as well as their inherent acts) as with the feminists who are doing same as regards the ordaining of female priests.
It's alright. I was just surprised, since it never occurred to me that the aphorism might be misunderstood. Though, upon thinking about it again, I can see how such a misunderstanding is possible.
I've realized that I should probably explain what I mean when I say that I don't have a problem with "the marginalization of non heterosexuals and variations from a heterosexual orientation," lest someone accuse me of hatred and an anti-Christian position.Insofar as a person practices sodomy and related acts, openly makes known his practice of sodomy and related acts, and openly promotes sodomy and related acts, I believe that such open and public acts should allow an employer to refuse to hire him, a landlord to refuse to rent to him &c. I do not believe that this would be in any way unjust. Such open and public acts paint the business that employs him or the property that rents to him as in some way supportive of such acts. This is, at the very least, a cause of moral scandal.Justice is rendering to others what they are due. Thus, if we say that a landlord cannot justly refuse to rent to such a person or that am employer cannot justly refuse to hire such a person, we must be saying that refusing to do so violates some duty of the landlord or employer. In other words, the landlord or employer has a duty to rent to or hire such a person. But to do such would cause moral scandal. Thus the idea that the landlord or employer has such a duty is absurd, for it is absurd to posit a duty to do evil or promote falsehood.Since there can be no duty to hire or rent to one who openly practices and promotes sodomy, it cannot be unjust to refuse to rent to or hire a person because they openly practice and promote sodomy. Moreover, any law that refuses to allow a landlord or employer to take such moral character into account when renting or hiring is unjust and should thus be repealed.I should note that I am here speaking of actions and not desires. Desires, no matter how disordered, are a matter of internal struggle. A person has no duty to reveal, admit to and discuss such moral struggles to anyone except themselves, God, and their confessor or spiritual director. It might be a good idea to discuss them with others who can provide support for triumphing in the struggle, but that is a matter of prudence that will depend on an individual’s circumstances, temperament &c. Actions, however, insofar as they are public, are matters that do concern landlords and employers for the reasons previously discussed.
Be they private or public, such acts are just as hideous and sinful.
Be they private or public, such acts are just as hideous and sinful.Well of course. But insofar as they are neither done, nor trumpeted, nor agitated for in public, how can one know of them? A man can only take into account what he knows.I think it entirely imprudent to allow the government, a landlord, an employer or anyone else complete and unlimited access to one's private residence. It is far too open to abuse with far too little legitimate use. Moreover, it uncharitably and unjustly considers everyone a criminal or deviant until they prove otherwise.
Post a Comment