A gay family member

[Mirdath]

No one has ever claimed that people who experience same sex attraction - or those who are prone to alcoholic addiction, or depression, or whatever other disorder are incapable of love or being loved.

Actually I’ve seen it, but thanks for clarifying your position

That drive will not and cannot lead to the good of the human person on a human and spiritual plane, just as alcoholic addiction, depression, etc. if given in to won’t lead to human flourishing and spiritual life.

Human flourishing and spiritual life as held by Catholics. Not everybody is Catholic, and what’s more there are plenty of people who don’t particularly care what the Church says is and isn’t moral and flourish and have fulfilling spiritual lives anyway.

But being equal doesn’t mean they (or we) have the right to invent goodness by willing it so or invent reality by sheer force of will such that intrinsic unhygenic acts will magically be clean and harmless.

Yet you invent good by inventing evil, ‘willing’ homosexuality to be wrong. Like I said, religious prohibition. The ‘unhygienic’ bit is cute, too – you know, your keyboard’s probably dirtier? And anal sex is not the sum and total of homosexuality, it’s only one of many possible sex acts, plus it’s also performed by heterosexuals. Also, you’re forgetting lesbians.

Not everything that someone subjectively thinks will make them happy REALLY WILL MAKE THEM HAPPY! Not everything that FEELS good IS GOOD. And those of us who wish others NOT hurt themselves (with the best of intentions and “sincerity”) are not the ones who ‘hate’ them; in reality it’s those who give in to their every whim that leads to an early death that are not showing true love.

One might say the same thing about any religion. I appreciate the sentiment at work, but people aren’t always right, and I think those who try to sway homosexuals from sexual activity out of legitimate concern for their spiritual wellbeing are misguided.

If friends don’t let friends drive drunk, why in the world would friends allow other friends to be “gay” as in sexually active outside of Christian marriage as though their ‘feeling good’ is more important than BEING GOOD???

Not everybody is Christian.

 

[Joe_Stong]

Well, first of all this is a Catholic site so my arguments presume a common ground there.

But even if you’re not Catholic, I can still prove (not to your liking probably, but prove nevertheless) that homosexual “gay” behavior is NOT hygenic and not conducive to human and spiritual flourishing and it’s not my opinion or assertion based on faith either.

Point one: it’s a minority - now they claim genetic controlling factors here, but obviously from a strictly evolutionary sense genes flourish when they are able to replicate themselves across generations. Homosexual lifestyle forced activity - if it were wholly genetic would wipe itself out in a couple generations.

Obviously that hasn’t happened so more is at work than genes.

Point two: this minority’s “lifestyle” isn’t all walks on the beach, holding hands and staring up at the night sky. If it doesn’t involve sex it’s not what we’re talking about. The former is “friendship” which everyone agrees is good and healthy. The latter - the sexual activity of members of the same sex is where the wheels fall off.

It’s not as hygenic for men to sodomize each other annally as it is (all else being equal) for a man to have intercourse with his wife (both being virgins at marriage). Nor is it as hygenic for Lesbians to exchange bodily fluids as again it is for husband and wife.

Point three: actual experience shows a higher incidence of suicidal ideations CONTINUES to be evidenced in today’s Gen X gay community even though “society” as a whole is far more ‘accepting to them’ than ever before. Eventually you have to stop blaming “social opposition” for internal emotional and interpersonal relationship problems. Now if the lifestyle itself was healthy and spiritually wonderful, these issues would simply not manifest themselves.

Point four: it’s not sane (i.e. healthy) for otherwise intelligent, accomplished and wealthy people to intentionally expose themselves to high-risk behavior for no particular reason other than the passing whim of pleasure. The fact continues to be the case - as in all CDC records - that this subculture continues to engage in extremely risky patterns of behavior involving drugs as well as promiscuous sex. Now just because they feel great about it doesn’t make it healthy.

Point five: Otherwise emotionally healthy and spiritually mature people do not spontanously combust when others beg to differ with their “lifestyle choices” or decisions to become emotionally absorbed in risky behaviors. Christians - to take a Western example - don’t spontanously combust with howls of rage when put down by the pop-culture for being rubes for being virgins. Yet self-identified gays do have a marked tendency to explode with fury when people merely beg to differ with their moral decisions. That’s not the sign of a healthy person.

 

[Bennie_P]

Consistent, logical thinking based on universally acceptable postulates. Telling someone that they are not allowed to experience human love to the fullest because of their attractions is inconsistent with the Church’s exaltation of Love and certainly not founded on any sort of universally-held knowledge.
.

If homosexual activity was universally accepted then we would not be having this debate. It is a minority that is trying to twist the axioms of reality with thier justification of immorality.

sapientia enim huius mundi stultitia est apud Deum scriptum est enim conprehendam sapientes in astutia eorum

 

[Mirdath]

Point one: it’s a minority - now they claim genetic controlling factors here, but obviously from a strictly evolutionary sense genes flourish when they are able to replicate themselves across generations. Homosexual lifestyle forced activity - if it were wholly genetic would wipe itself out in a couple generations.

Obviously that hasn’t happened so more is at work than genes.

There are such things as recessive genes and combinatory traits. I have no particular judgment on the question of whether it is genetic or psychological.

Point two: this minority’s “lifestyle” isn’t all walks on the beach, holding hands and staring up at the night sky. If it doesn’t involve sex it’s not what we’re talking about. The former is “friendship” which everyone agrees is good and healthy. The latter - the sexual activity of members of the same sex is where the wheels fall off.

Isn’t the former part of a chaste romance as well? Isn’t sex an expression of love?

It’s not as hygenic for men to sodomize each other annally as it is (all else being equal) for a man to have intercourse with his wife (both being virgins at marriage). Nor is it as hygenic for Lesbians to exchange bodily fluids as again it is for husband and wife.

Okay. There is a higher risk of transmitting disease through anal intercourse (which, I repeat, is not a solely homosexual activity OR the only one); and yeah, poo is gross and all, but assuming both participants are clean and clean up afterwards, it just isn’t that big a health risk. I have no idea where you got the idea that two women ‘exchanging bodily fluids’ is more dangerous than a man and a woman doing it, but I’d like to see that sourced before I buy it.

Point three: actual experience shows a higher incidence of suicidal ideations CONTINUES to be evidenced in today’s Gen X gay community even though “society” as a whole is far more ‘accepting to them’ than ever before. Eventually you have to stop blaming “social opposition” for internal emotional and interpersonal relationship problems. Now if the lifestyle itself was healthy and spiritually wonderful, these issues would simply not manifest themselves.

Simply not true at all. Sure, society as a whole is far more tolerant, but considering how it was before that just isn’t saying a whole lot. There is still plenty of persecution in store for anyone who doesn’t quite conform to expected gender roles and orientations. I’ve experienced it myself. It doesn’t matter how healthy and fulfilling the ‘lifestyle’ is, if you’re persecuted and demeaned for a basic part of your identity you’re not going to be very happy.

Point four: it’s not sane (i.e. healthy) for otherwise intelligent, accomplished and wealthy people to intentionally expose themselves to high-risk behavior for no particular reason other than the passing whim of pleasure. The fact continues to be the case - as in all CDC records - that this subculture continues to engage in extremely risky patterns of behavior involving drugs as well as promiscuous sex. Now just because they feel great about it doesn’t make it healthy.

You think junkie disco drag queens going with anyone who so much as looks at them twice constitute the entirety of the world’s homosexual population? Once again, I assure you you’re completely wrong.

I agree, promiscuity (gay OR straight) and reckless drug abuse aren’t wise. But neither of those is a prerequisite for homosexuality.

Point five: Otherwise emotionally healthy and spiritually mature people do not spontanously combust when others beg to differ with their “lifestyle choices” or decisions to become emotionally absorbed in risky behaviors. Christians - to take a Western example - don’t spontanously combust with howls of rage when put down by the pop-culture for being rubes for being virgins. Yet self-identified gays do have a marked tendency to explode with fury when people merely beg to differ with their moral decisions. That’s not the sign of a healthy person.

You know, if you’d said that anywhere but here I might’ve taken your example seriously Have you seen the reactions to the mere suggestion that one contracept?

I haven’t really noticed spontaneous combustion being the province of non-heterosexuals (hey, I haven’t done it so far) – it seems to me it’s more common among people who disapprove of homosexuality. Just look at all the apoplectic fits that result when gay secular marriage or civil unions make even a tiny bit of headway. Yes, we don’t appreciate being legislated against, and we don’t like being repeatedly told we’re hellbound, but as long as you don’t try to push us around we don’t bite.

Your turn. You’ve proven absolutely nothing, and I stand by my assertion that your stance is merely the result of your particular faith saying ‘eww, that’s gross’.

 

[Cari]

There’s nothing at all wrong with celibacy – but it isn’t for everyone. And some of those people for whom it isn’t are homosexual. The Church speaks of both married life and celibacy as callings, vocations to be sought out and fulfilled, then turns around and says ‘oh, if you aren’t attracted to the opposite sex you can’t follow that vocation’. It just looks a little inconsistent, you know?

The church also speaks of the Priesthood as a vocation, then “turns around” and says, “oh, if you’re not a man you can’t follow that vocation”, and “oh, if you’re not single you can’t follow that vocation”. Does this mean that you’re also in favor of a married, or female clergy? This isn’t the point of this thread, but in terms of your analogy it’s the same.

Because something is hard for us to do doesn’t make it inconsistant. From what I know (and I’m the first to admit there’s a whole WORLD that isn’t covered by that statement), the Catholic Church’s teaching on human sexuality is one of the hardest, but MOST consistant, teachings in the world.

 

[Dale_M]

t obviously from a strictly evolutionary sense genes flourish when they are able to replicate themselves across generations. Homosexual lifestyle forced activity - if it were wholly genetic would wipe itself out in a couple generations.

Recessive traits aren’t always expressed, so homosexuality could easily be passed on by heterosexual couples. And the evolutionary argument is misleading - altruism has a role which promotes a species as a whole. For example, emperor penguins which don’t mate or lose their egg will sometimes adopt orphaned chicks. For the adopting penguins there is no transmission of genes, but the species as a whole benefits. Homosexuality may well served a similar evolutionary role.

Point two: this minority’s “lifestyle” isn’t all walks on the beach, holding hands and staring up at the night sky. If it doesn’t involve sex it’s not what we’re talking about. The former is “friendship” which everyone agrees is good and healthy. The latter - the sexual activity of members of the same sex is where the wheels fall off.

So are you saying that two men can have a loving and intimate relationship with one another, but as long as they stop short of sex, they are okay?

Nor is it as hygenic for Lesbians to exchange bodily fluids as again it is for husband and wife.

Could you explain why you believe this?

Point three: actual experience shows a higher incidence of suicidal ideations CONTINUES to be evidenced in today’s Gen X gay community even though “society” as a whole is far more ‘accepting to them’ than ever before.

For all the changes of the past 35 years, there is still a stigma. “Gay” does not equal “okay” for a large part of our society (at least here in the U.S.)

Point four: The fact continues to be the case - as in all CDC records - that this subculture continues to engage in extremely risky patterns of behavior involving drugs as well as promiscuous sex.

A minority of homosexuals live the lifestyle you are condemning.

Point five: Christians - to take a Western example - don’t spontanously combust with howls of rage when put down by the pop-culture for being rubes for being virgins.

Wow, are you new to CAF?? Have you ever heard of the Catholic League? I am amazed you wrote that!

 

[Christophorus]

Pax Vobiscum,

I believe it to be a very challenging turn-of-events to discover that a close family member professes to be homosexual.

I wish that every politically-loaded topic didn’t cause individuals to draw lines on every issue. It tears the Church, the very body of Christ, in two and causes division and strife between brothers and sisters-in-Christ. The discovery of grave moral matters should be a call to greater solidarity and charity in the body of Christ. Only obstinacy in Sin should merit condemnation from the body and ultimately separation but shouldn’t such be the ‘last choice’ and not ‘the first choice’ of actions?

Pax

 

[Exalt]

Point three: actual experience shows a higher incidence of suicidal ideations CONTINUES to be evidenced in today’s Gen X gay community even though “society” as a whole is far more ‘accepting to them’ than ever before.

Black people are more likely to go to jail. Black people are more likely to abuse drugs. Black people are more likely to have sickle-cell anemia. Black mothers are more likely to have babies out of wedlock.

But that doesn’t prove that being black is itself sinful or disordered. It just means that the culture needs a bit of adjustment.

Similiarly, you can’t prove that homosexuality itself isn’t itself sinful or disordered by pointing to statistics (or experience) that says they are at a higher risk for suicide.

 

[Cari]

Black people are more likely to go to jail. Black people are more likely to abuse drugs. Black people are more likely to have sickle-cell anemia. Black mothers are more likely to have babies out of wedlock.

But that doesn’t prove that being black is itself sinful or disordered. It just means that the culture needs a bit of adjustment.

Similiarly, you can’t prove that homosexuality itself isn’t itself sinful or disordered by pointing to statistics (or experience) that says they are at a higher risk for suicide.

I think you just proved the point- being Black isn’t sinful. Criminal behavior, drug abuse, and premarital sex are.

Same thing with this- homosexuals aren’t sinful, homosexuality is.

 

[Dale_M]

Same thing with this- homosexuals aren’t sinful, homosexuality is.

Perhaps Exalt’s point would be better made by noting the increased incidence of high blood pressure in African-Americans, compared to Americans of European descent. The increased rate of high blood pressure has often been attributed to the differential effect of racism, and at least one study bears that out. psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/content/abstract/65/5/746

I think Exalt’s point is that higher suicide rates among homosexuals may be due to the social stigma attached to being gay, rather than from simply being homosexual. The fault lies, not with the individual, but from the social and culture pressures put on him or her.

The parents who left the Church, in the original story waaaaay back at the beginning of this thread, did the right thing in supporting their son. He probably will be less likely to commit suicide because of their love, and surely the quality of his life will be better.

(But they didn’t need to stop going to church in order to continue loving their child)

 

[Exalt]

I think you just proved the point- being Black isn’t sinful. Criminal behavior, drug abuse, and premarital sex are.

Same thing with this- homosexuals aren’t sinful, homosexuality is.

There’s nothing wrong with being black. There is something wrong with unprotected premarital sex, drug abuse, and criminal behavior.

Similiarly, there’s nothing wrong with being homosexual. There is something wrong with suicide and depression.

Now, the critical question and the point at which Joe Stong’s logic fails…

Is being black itself the cause of elevated levels of negative behavior? Is being homosexual itself the cause of elevated levels of negative behavior?

*Let me state this **very *clearly. Just because X population has elevated levels of a negative behavior does not prove anything about the morality of the said population. You must prove that it is the expression of homosexuality itself, regardless of in what context it is expressed, that is immoral.

Dale_M restated my ideas very well. I just want to add the following:

Here’s the original statement:

But even if you’re not Catholic, I can still prove (not to your liking probably, but prove nevertheless) that homosexual “gay” behavior is NOT hygenic and not conducive to human and spiritual flourishing and it’s not my opinion or assertion based on faith either.

Point three: actual experience shows a higher incidence of suicidal ideations CONTINUES to be evidenced in today’s Gen X gay community even though “society” as a whole is far more ‘accepting to them’ than ever before. Eventually you have to stop blaming “social opposition” for internal emotional and interpersonal relationship problems. Now if the lifestyle itself was healthy and spiritually wonderful, these issues would simply not manifest themselves…

1. Homosexuals are more likely to become depressed or commit suicide. Black people are more likely to abuse drugs, and go to prison.
2. Being depressed, committing suicide, abusing drugs, or going to prison at a greater rate than the rest of the population has some sort of reason at it’s source.
3. If being gay or being black “was healthy and spiritually wonderful, these issues would simply not manifest themselves.”
4. Therefore, being gay or black is not healthy or spiritually wonderful.

There’s a HUGE problem with the reasoning that *just *because X population has higher levels of some negative behavior that makes whatever distinguishes that population immoral. The racist has to prove that it’s *BEING BLACK *that *causes *those problems. You have to prove that it’s *BEING GAY *that *causes *those problems, and no other problems whatsoever.

It doesn’t matter if it’s just gay *culture. You have to prove that homosexuality activity, in of itself, by itself ***causes **elevated suicide levels to have a point.