A silly simple question on sexual orientation (re gay marriage)

[larkin31]

I suppose you’re talking about smoking in moderation, or drinking in moderation, or some such thing? If so, then I would say that these are not forms of self-harm. They may kill brain cells, or damage lungs somewhat, but this is not harm – no more than playing football and sometimes getting hurt is self-harm!

Those things that are truly self-harming are those things that affect our happiness and well-being. For example, anorexia or pornography addiction or self-mutilation – these are all ways that we can truly harm our psyches, and make it difficult for ourselves to experience happiness and health.

Well, yeah. You just ramped it up to the extremes. In the same way that I consider non-vaginal sex and masturbation (both balanced and healthy in their influenced on one’s life) as perfectly harmless and thus “good” activities if they bring pleasure and happiness to the individual and no harm to anyone else.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Well, yeah. You just ramped it up to the extremes. In the same way that I consider non-vaginal sex and masturbation (both balanced and healthy in their influenced on one’s life) as perfectly harmless and thus “good” activities if they bring pleasure and happiness to the individual and no harm to anyone else.

Is the pursuit of pleasure good, in and of itself? I do not ask if pleasure itself is good, for I know very well that pleasure is good. But is the pursuit of pleasure good?

As for happiness, I cannot speak for non-vaginal sex, but I am quite can certainly say that my educated opinion on masturbation is that it does not tend to make a person happy. It is certainly pleasurable, but pleasure is not happiness.

 

[larkin31]

Is the pursuit of pleasure good, in and of itself? I do not ask if pleasure itself is good, for I know very well that pleasure is good. But is the pursuit of pleasure good?

It is neither good nor evil in itself.

As for happiness, I cannot speak for non-vaginal sex, but I am quite can certainly say that my educated opinion on masturbation is that it does not tend to make a person happy. It is certainly pleasurable, but pleasure is not happiness.

“Happiness” is not the criteria we are looking for anyway, is it? We don’t legislate morality according to happiness, do we?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It is neither good nor evil in itself.

I think this may be the right answer. However, I suspect that pursuing legitimate pleasure, for the sake of the pleasure itself, will make one prone to pursue illegitimate pleasure (pleasure at the expense of others, lying to avoid pain, etc).

Thus, pursuing any pleasure, for the sake of pleasure, would be wrong, not in itself, but for its effects.

I’m not spouting dogmas here, but I’m trying to figure out what’s true. Your ideas?

“Happiness” is not the criteria we are looking for anyway, is it? We don’t legislate morality according to happiness, do we?

I think we do. At least, Catholics do. Catholic moral teaching is predicated on the thesis that humankind has a single purpose, which is to enjoy God – that is, to be happy. If we live according to our nature, we will achieve that purpose. Even on earth, behaviors in accord with our nature tend to make us happy.

If morality isn’t about happiness, broadly construed, then why on earth would anyone be moral? Even Kant said that we had to assume heaven and hell, to make morality motivating.

 

[larkin31]

I think this may be the right answer. However, I suspect that pursuing legitimate pleasure, for the sake of the pleasure itself, will make one prone to pursue illegitimate pleasure (pleasure at the expense of others, lying to avoid pain, etc).

Thus, pursuing any pleasure, for the sake of pleasure, would be wrong, not in itself, but for its effects.

This is too fearful, too restricted by fear of liberty. That something may lead to other behavior that is sinful is no argument against the act itself which is amoral. To fear pleasure, IMO, is to be cursed. I consider that position extremely unfortunate.

I think we do. At least, Catholics do. Catholic moral teaching is predicated on the thesis that humankind has a single purpose, which is to enjoy God – that is, to be happy. If we live according to our nature, we will achieve that purpose. Even on earth, behaviors in accord with our nature tend to make us happy.

If this were more evidently true, it might be more persuasive.

If morality isn’t about happiness, broadly construed, then why on earth would anyone be moral? Even Kant said that we had to assume heaven and hell, to make morality motivating.

Happiness is entirely relevant, by any means. And Kant was wrong on that.

 

[cecilia97]

I think this may be the right answer. However, I suspect that pursuing legitimate pleasure, for the sake of the pleasure itself, will make one prone to pursue illegitimate pleasure (pleasure at the expense of others, lying to avoid pain, etc).

Thus, pursuing any pleasure, for the sake of pleasure, would be wrong, not in itself, but for its effects.

I’m not spouting dogmas here, but I’m trying to figure out what’s true. Your ideas?

I think we do. At least, Catholics do. Catholic moral teaching is predicated on the thesis that humankind has a single purpose, which is to enjoy God – that is, to be happy. If we live according to our nature, we will achieve that purpose. Even on earth, behaviors in accord with our nature tend to make us happy.

If morality isn’t about happiness, broadly construed, then why on earth would anyone be moral? Even Kant said that we had to assume heaven and hell, to make morality motivating.

Hrrrmmmm…I don’t know if I can agree. Surely the Passion went against Christ’s human nature, so much that He sweat blood from the anxiety He experienced beforehand. Yet He embraced the Cross and we are called to emulate Him.

I’ve always understood our purpose as:

To know God, to love God, and to serve God, and to worship Him forever in heaven.

…certainly, there can be great suffering in serving God; look at the thousands of martyrs.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Hrrrmmmm…I don’t know if I can agree. Surely the Passion went against Christ’s human nature, so much that He sweat blood from the anxiety He experienced beforehand. Yet He embraced the Cross and we are called to emulate Him.

I’ve always understood our purpose as:

To know God, to love God, and to serve God, and to worship Him forever in heaven.

…certainly, there can be great suffering in serving God; look at the thousands of martyrs.

I agree that great suffering is necessary, but WHAT is it necessary for? It’s not just necessary so that God may be glorified, because a God who makes people suffer without reward shouldn’t be glorified. Suffering is necessary to happiness, and Christ’s suffering won us great joy and happiness. If the Passion isn’t followed by the Resurrection, then it is worthless; it is a mockery of justice.

I think embracing the cross is precisely renouncing the pursuit of our own pleasure. It is not something native to our nature; you’re right about that. But that is because our ideas about what will make us happy do not line up with reality. (Consider Eve in the garden). When our minds are transformed, in following Christ, we realize that the “old man” and his ideas are utterly vain and profitless.

I’m glad you brought this up, though, because it makes me realize something: in our fallen human nature, we consider just about anything associated with pleasure to be good. The apple tastes good; eat it. Some sexual act feels good; do it.

You can’t explain to someone why that philosophy is wrong, unless they first look at Christ and acknowledge him. All you can do is talk sociology and morality till you’re blue in the face.

Blessings,
Prodigal

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This is too fearful, too restricted by fear of liberty. That something may lead to other behavior that is sinful is no argument against the act itself which is amoral. To fear pleasure, IMO, is to be cursed. I consider that position extremely unfortunate.

I don’t fear pleasure. I love pleasure. But I do fear pursuing pleasure, because all of the worst moments of my life have come from someone pursuing pleasure. It may be that the problem is with doing so immoderately. I suspect you’re right, if that’s what you’re saying.

But then I think of examples:

When I eat candy, I am not merely seeking pleasure, but nourishing my body.
When I read a book, I am not merely seeking pleasure, but relaxing and reflecting.

Can you give me an example where seeking pleasure merely for its own sake is good?

If this were more evidently true, it might be more persuasive.

That’s true of everything.

 

[edwest2]

To paraphrase Pope John Paul II: “To be more like Christ is to be more authentically human.”

Jesus was not just the sacrifice for us and our sins. His life is our model. How many times are we told in the Bible that what we reap to the flesh we reap to corruption? How many times are the Israelites called on their adultery and whoredoms and playing the harlot?

Marriage is described as a gift by Jesus. A sacrament. When human sexuality is thrown into the ‘opinion soup’ on the internet, it usually comes out really distorted. Our true human nature was given to us by God. But due to Original Sin, there is a conflict between the spirit and the flesh. Look at the saints who mastered their fleshly lusts.

One of the biggest falsehoods being sold today is this: You Cannot Control Your Own Sexuality. This makes some people into slaves, regardless of temporary pleasure.

God bless,
Ed

 

[cecilia97]

One of the biggest falsehoods being sold today is this: You Cannot Control Your Own Sexuality. This makes some people into slaves, regardless of temporary pleasure.

God bless,
Ed

:sad_yes: Sad, but true, especially when this idea is sold to kids. Adults teach them to have no confidence in the strength of their own characters.

 

[AntiTheist]

Isn’t the above paragraph changing the game? We were talking about whether homosexual acts are wrong, and you are now talking about whether one such act should be illegal.

When I wrote that post, I had in mind the legalization of gay marriage. If you’re fine with gay marriage being legal – as I think a number of people on this thread are – then we can drop that point.

Let’s return to whether it’s wrong. Now I think we can agree that some forms of self-harm – alcoholism, overeating, anorexia – are wrong.

No, we can’t. I don’t see overeating, for example, as a moral wrong. I think it’s dumb, but it has zero moral significance. [For the sake of simplicity, I’ll define “moral” as “something that my values strongly oppose”; in this context, I consider a lot of instances of murder, lying, cheating, stealing, etc. “moral wrongs.”]

I feel the same about cigarette smoking, drinking, eating lots of candy, watching a lot of TV, and virtually any other self-harmful behavior you can conceive. None of them are moral wrongs.

Are all forms of self-harm wrong?

No.

Are certain homosexual acts forms of self-harm?

We’re not talking about a homosexual act. We’re talking about a sex act engaged in by homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.

I submit that there is no moral signicance whatsoever to the way that people choose to have sex, as long as they are both consenting and understand the risks and consequences that they may or may not be taking. I know that you feel differently because you are a Catholic, but I’m telling you how it really is.

I jumped into this thread because someone said that homosexuality was “harmful,” comparing it to drug abuse. I correctly pointed out that it’s not. At the very best, someone might claim that one kind of sex act – practiced by heterosexuals as well – could prove to be harmful to the body in the long run. You cannot demonstrate that homosexuality is harmful, and you are comparing apples and oranges.

 

[AntiTheist]

It destroys the lives of the persons who engage in homosexual acts, because the acts (whether they cause physical harm or not) are objectively morally disordered and place the two freely consenting individuals into a perilous position with respect to their eternal salvation.

Uh huh. The poster I was replying to had made the comparison between homosexuality and drug abuse. It’s a false comparison: drug abuse is considered harmful not because people think it’s going to have some metaphysical consequences on a person’s soul – it’s considered harmful because it completely and totally destroys people’s bodies, minds, and abilities to participate in society.

It is an utterly false and disingenuous comparison to suggest that homosexuality is “harmful” in the way that drug abuse is harmful.

Are you saying that if a person’s morality is shaped by a certain set of beliefs (christian, muslim, hindu) they should be completely removed from the legislative process?

No. I’m saying that laws cannot be based on dogma and bald assertions made by religions. A law against certain kinds of drugs might make sense. A law against homosexuality or against homosexual marriage – simply because some people accept the bald assertion that it’s “wrong” or “disordered” – is not consitutional because it enshrines a religious belief.

I’m not saying that you have to believe that homosexuality is super-duper. Believe whatever you want about it – I could care less what you believe. But what I’m saying is that you can’t use a bald religious assertion as the basis of a law.

And couldn’t the same argument (atheism should be removed from politics) be turned upon you in a less accepting and tolerant society?

No. Atheism is the lack of a belief, the absence of the belief in gods, nothing more. You can’t base laws on atheism because there’s nothing there upon which you can base laws upon. See, atheism isn’t a religion – religions have tenets, dogma, and beliefs that need to be accepted (like, for example, “homosexuality is a disordered act and an abomination in the eyes of the lord, etc., etc.”).

 

[Being_Brave]

This is the story of twin boys who were raised as brother and sister due to a botched circumcision. The one raised as a girl was attracted to girls, played like a boy, and eventually came out to his parents as “gay”…until he was told the truth and was able to marry a woman, just as God had intended. His life ended while he was still very young due partially to the trauma caused by his confused sexuality.

I bring it up to suggest that, while social factors are absolutely a part of how we learn what is sexually apropriate, God puts it in us to be who he needs us to be; even if it’s gay, bisexual, etc. I don’t know why, maybe to serve as examples for others to learn from? I’ve learned a great deal about how to love someone when you don’t love their sin.

My sister’s best friend is gay, and I’ve talked to him about it A LOT. He tells me that if he could choose to be attracted to women, he would. He explains to me time after time that he is just as disgusted sexually by women as I am. I love this kid like a brother, but I don’t accept that his homosexuality was the gift of diversity. Because of my understanding of where Christ stands on it, I have to think that it’s more of a test. I don’t think that homosexuals need to force themselves into an un-natural marriage, but I do think that the expectation is abstinence.

No matter how much I love my sister’s friend, his acting on homosexuality is a perversion, as is acting out on beastiality and pedaphelia. If my sister’s friend wants to get legally married, that’s fine with me. Let them pay taxes together and live together and love and be happy. I’d love for him to find love…but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be a sin. It’s easy for me, a straight woman, to say that, but I believe it so strongly that, given all the facts, even if I were born gay I’d still think it.

 

[larkin31]

I don’t fear pleasure. I love pleasure. But I do fear pursuing pleasure, because all of the worst moments of my life have come from someone pursuing pleasure. It may be that the problem is with doing so immoderately. I suspect you’re right, if that’s what you’re saying.

It is what I am saying. Besides, even greed is a form of excess pursuit of pleasure. Even worship of God is a form of pursuit of pleasure. It is all we know. We all seek it. And sometimes we screw it up.

But then I think of examples:

When I eat candy, I am not merely seeking pleasure, but nourishing my body.
When I read a book, I am not merely seeking pleasure, but relaxing and reflecting.

Can you give me an example where seeking pleasure merely for its own sake is good?

Standing in front of art.
Reading a poem.
Listening to Mozart.

 

[larkin31]

One of the biggest falsehoods being sold today is this: You Cannot Control Your Own Sexuality.

I can’t think of a single source that claims that we cannot (in principle, or by definition) control our “sexuality.”

Do you mean “orientation” instead of “sexuality”?

 

[cecilia97]

I can’t think of a single source that claims that we cannot (in principle, or by definition) control our “sexuality.”

Do you mean “orientation” instead of “sexuality”?

Nope…we mean sexuality. Many things in our culture push the idea that we are sexual beings and we “have” to have sex. Kids are given condoms because kids will be kids and we don’t want them to get hurt when they inevitably sleep with someone. We talk about sexual “needs” when really we are referring to sexual “wants”. Nobody ever died from lack of sex but our society, in many subtle and overt ways, pushes just that sort of idea.

 

[larkin31]

Nope…we mean sexuality. Many things in our culture push the idea that we are sexual beings and we “have” to have sex. Kids are given condoms because kids will be kids and we don’t want them to get hurt when they inevitably sleep with someone. We talk about sexual “needs” when really we are referring to sexual “wants”. Nobody ever died from lack of sex but our society, in many subtle and overt ways, pushes just that sort of idea.

well, of course we can control our sexual activity (some better than others, of course)

that is not in debate here

 

[cecilia97]

well, of course we can control our sexual activity (some better than others, of course)

that is not in debate here

Another poster brought it up and I think it’s very relevant to the OP. Catholics understand that some people are attracted to the same sex. The Church calls this attraction disordered but does not posit whether it’s mental, emotional, physical, or a combination of those things. It’s not sinful to be attracted to the same sex, it’s sinful to act on those attractions.

This is not as prejudicial as it sounds because we also believe it’s sinful for two unmarried people of opposite sexes to physically act on an attraction.

So, the question really becomes: does society believe people can (or should even try to) control themselves. I believe our society doubts this less and less.

 

[larkin31]

Another poster brought it up and I think it’s very relevant to the OP. Catholics understand that some people are attracted to the same sex. The Church calls this attraction disordered but does not posit whether it’s mental, emotional, physical, or a combination of those things. It’s not sinful to be attracted to the same sex, it’s sinful to act on those attractions.

This is not as prejudicial as it sounds because we also believe it’s sinful for two unmarried people of opposite sexes to physically act on an attraction.

So, the question really becomes: does society believe people can (or should even try to) control themselves. I believe our society doubts this less and less.

I disagree with you. This is not the issue. Society less and less now believes that homosexuality is a moral disorder. Turns out many heteros are privately practicing some of the same forms of sex. This is not about self-control; it is about age-old mores around acceptable forms of sexual intimacy. The older codes and restrictions are breaking down because they lack a strong rational component.

 

[edwest2]

I can’t think of a single source that claims that we cannot (in principle, or by definition) control our “sexuality.”

Do you mean “orientation” instead of “sexuality”?

The constant 24/7 promotion of sexual activity, especially outside of marriage. Parents are told to get their teenage kids birth control because they can’t control themselves. The local newspaper runs a Classifieds section called “Wild Hearts” that has nothing to do with the heart. The ads are requests for sex from married men and others. That would never have been allowed in the past.

In a local newspaper, an advice columnist gets a letter from a guy trapped in a loveless, meaning sexless, marriage. What is he told? Get the sex somewhere else. That would never have been tolerated in the past.

On TV, two attractive actors playing successful professionals talk about having ‘just sex’ the night before. The man thinks it was something special, the woman dismisses the idea and affirms it was ‘just sex.’

On TV, a young doctor picks up an anonymous man at a bar for anonymous sex. She does not even want to know his name. In an age of AIDS, it was one
of the most irrational things I have seen portrayed on TV.

The current universal character for TV is the Dysfunctionals. They commit adultery, fornicate and older women leer at young men. From Cougar Town: “I want to lick the sweat off his body.”

It took 40 years to go from The Wonderful World of Disney to this.

And comedy. What comedy? Remember George Carlin and All Those Words You Can’t Say On Television? That’s right – you could not say those words. And during her comedy act, amateur Bible scholar Whoopi Golberg explained Leviticus to her audience. And those other “comedians” who can’t stop saying f*** all the time or giving graphic descriptions of sexual activity.

As Father Riccardo said on Catholic Radio, the barbarians are in the city.

God bless,
Ed