Are all Homosexual acts as immoral

[Exalt]

Exalt, do you think we should have debates over mulitiplication tables? What if it becomes popular belief that 6*8 = 50 or that 2 isn’t really a number? And in science, should we debate what the best speed is for an object to reach terminal velocity or what we’d like the composition of a water molecule to be?

First of all, it does no good these days to just say “hey kids, memorize this information.” It’s generally accepted that they won’t learn. You have to *show *why a given scientific or mathematic fact is true. It’s true that at the high school level, there is little in the way of debate or discussion about science and math. However, you’re missing the point.

No, of course not. Each discipline has its own methods for determining truth. For example, logic determines truth in mathematics and the scientific method determines scientific truth.

Just a small correction, I think. Logic and the scientific method *illustrate *or *support *hypotheses, rather than “determine” them. (i.e., one does not create the fact that 2+2=4 by doing the math. One simply discovers that reality.

Within Catholic theology the combination of Oral and Written Revelation and the Magisterium determine truth - not public opinion or debate.

You forgot to mention what *kind *of truth they illustrate. (That is, to use an analogy - logic is to mathematical truth as the magisterium is to what-kind-of-truth?)

And, I might point out, that* faith* is paramount in Catholicism. That is, the belief in things in spite of sufficient evidence. It is quite different from academic studies, which is all about evidence
(be it logical, scientific, etc)

Discussion is needed and so is honest and difficult questioning, but it shouldn’t be a debate where both sides have equal standing as if this were a political issue. The discussion and questioning should all be directed toward better understanding the truth of Catholic doctrine concerning human sexuality.

Isn’t homosexuality becoming a political issue, however? Isn’t it not just a question of sin - which lies firmly in the land of faith and therefore outside of rational discussion (you’ll notice I never get into discussions about homosexuality as “sin”) - it’s a question of ethics too. Why else would politicians be trying to pass things like the defense of marriage act? Why else would this be such a divisive issue?

 

[Exalt]

Both partners involved. (Would be the “victims” in a homosexual relationship.)

Let’s assume that there are two women who are free from disease, who have happy lives and happy families, who happen to be in a homosexual relationship.

What’s the extraordinary harm in that?

 

[brianwalden]

Let’s assume that there are two women who are free from disease, who have happy lives and happy families, who happen to be in a homosexual relationship.

What’s the extraordinary harm in that?

The same thing that’s extraordinarily harmful if an unmarried woman and man, or a man/woman and himself/herself, or some combination of three people, or a married couple using contraception who are free from disease, who have happy lives and happy families are in a sexual relationship.

Exalt, you’ve already said you won’t get into discussions concerning sin. That’s like asking what’s wrong binge drinking if you won’t acknowledge or discuss drunkenness.

 

[Bennie_P]

Let’s assume that there are two women who are free from disease, who have happy lives and happy families, who happen to be in a homosexual relationship.

What’s the extraordinary harm in that?

Assuming it is good.

 

[Exalt]

The same thing that’s extraordinarily harmful if an unmarried woman and man, or a man/woman and himself/herself, or some combination of three people, or a married couple using contraception who are free from disease, who have happy lives and happy families are in a sexual relationship.

Exalt, you’ve already said you won’t get into discussions concerning sin. That’s like asking what’s wrong binge drinking if you won’t acknowledge or discuss drunkenness.

My response was to someone who said that homosexuals are “victims.” There is nothing about sin in that.

I don’t discuss “sin” as such because it is basically outside the realm of rational thought. It’s basis is on faith: faith in a God that sends people to heaven or hell and the things that people do that send them there. I have no concern with answering those types of questions. They are believed without rational evidence, and rational evidence therefore cannot refute them. Discussion on homosexuality as sin is something you folks can do amongst yourselves. I have no concern with it.

However, that doesn’t mean that things you *call *sin are outside the discussion. Namely, the idea that homosexuality does indeed produce “victims” is not a question strictly of sin. Generally, victims are the recipients of harm. I don’t think the example that I gave involves any extraordinary harm.

So yeah, I don’t see how my comment that I don’t discuss “sin” has any bearing on this particular comment of mine.

 

[catharina]

Let’s assume that there are two women who are free from disease, who have happy lives and happy families, who happen to be in a homosexual relationship.

What’s the extraordinary harm in that?

Good example.

I see the likelihood of extraordinary harm to the children who are living in a setting that supports a relationship that deviates from those found in natural law. Man/woman, union, legal contract with blessings (we hope) - then procreativity actions that bring children. Adoptive families, single parent families exist as exception to that rule, the natural law that brings together a man and a woman to raise children.

Does that make me narrow-minded? I think not. Despite the spread of the homosexual agenda in the West, SOCIETY sees one way as natural, others as substitues for the natural and usual, and the other as quite unnatural - because it is.

 

[brianwalden]

My response was to someone who said that homosexuals are “victims.” There is nothing about sin in that.

I don’t discuss “sin” as such because it is basically outside the realm of rational thought. It’s basis is on faith: faith in a God that sends people to heaven or hell and the things that people do that send them there. I have no concern with answering those types of questions. They are believed without rational evidence, and rational evidence therefore cannot refute them. Discussion on homosexuality as sin is something you folks can do amongst yourselves. I have no concern with it.

However, that doesn’t mean that things you *call *sin are outside the discussion. Namely, the idea that homosexuality does indeed produce “victims” is not a question strictly of sin. Generally, victims are the recipients of harm. I don’t think the example that I gave involves any extraordinary harm.

So yeah, I don’t see how my comment that I don’t discuss “sin” has any bearing on this particular comment of mine.

They are victims because the sin harms their souls. I know you think this is irrational so I’ll spare you a long-winded explanation.

 

[Exalt]

They are victims because the sin harms their souls. I know you think this is irrational so I’ll spare you a long-winded explanation.

So that’s it? It’s just harmful because it’s sinful and nothing else?

 

[catharina]

So that’s it? It’s just harmful because it’s sinful and nothing else?

Being harmful because of its sinfulness is as harmful as anything gets.

 

[estesbob]

So that’s it? It’s just harmful because it’s sinful and nothing else?

I would thing impereling your immortal soul would be very harmful.

 

[Exalt]

I would thing impereling your immortal soul would be very harmful.

Hmm… So something can be not-harmful in any tangible way and still destroy your soul?

 

[estesbob]

Hmm… So something can be not-harmful in any tangible way and still destroy your soul?

Depends on your definition of tangible. I think immoral behavior is very harmful and has a negative effect on everyone exposed to it. But then if ones makes up their own definiotn of morality anything goes-in this world at keast.

 

[CatholicMC]

yes. All of them.

 

[guanophore]

That kind of thinking is not going to work with youth today. In nearly every other academic field, they are constantly being told to challenge, scutinize, and find evidence for the things they are taught in school. It’s not enough to just write an essay anymore - you have to back it up with credible sources and hard research. It’s not enough to just give kids mathematical and scientific forumulas, you have to show and provide (in some cases, massive amounts of) evidence for that given theorm. Even in literature cases, ideas are fleshed out, constantly debated and discussed. And that frequently includes a large degree of disagreement among the students. And that disagreement and debate is constantly encouraged.

So you’re going to try and lead these teens to Church teaching by conveying to them them: “What is there to debate about homosexuality? By debating one gives legitimacy to a totally illegitimate position.” It flies in the face of everything they are doing in other fields of study and academic thought. If you said something like that at your local youth group, you’d probably get muffled laughter, rolled eyes - and thier attention would be suddenly turned off. Why?

I am not saying that this kind of debate is not growthful, or should not take place. I am saying that the Pastor has a specific role, and that is to accurately reflect what the Church teaches. He is not at liberty to represent any other opinion or position.

 For this particular issue, there are probably a good number of teens who are aware that this isn't exactly a cut and dry issue.

This is the rub, right here. It IS cut and dried for the Church.

 Odds are, a few probably have at least a one openly gay friend. They probably at least know that homosexuality is something that some friends (and family) think is just fine. So for you to say that this issue is "closed to debate" is going to strike them as (at the very least) suspicious and (at the very worst) a silly attempt at shielding them from non-traditional ideas. And like I said, they'll understand that this isn't nearly as cut and dry an issue as it used to be.

Debate can, and does, go on, and accepting sin in the same way. But the Church has the responsibility to teach what has been handed down by Divine Revelation through the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

So all it takes for you to believe something is that it’s in the catechism or in the bible?

Unfortunately it has not been that simple for me. I had years of debate, confusion, searching, praying and searching for God in my heart in order to get to this point.

 

[guanophore]

First of all, it does no good these days to just say “hey kids, memorize this information.” It’s generally accepted that they won’t learn.

I disagree with this. Certain information must be memorized. This is the best method prior to the development of formal operations. This is how children learn their colors and numbers, the alphabet, how to spell, and later, multiplication tables. I don’t think it is always effective, but it is a starting point.

For example, I challenge you to ask 3 people to recite the 10 commandments. To make it even more challenging, choose people who think they comply with them!

You have to *show *why a given scientific or mathematic fact is true. It’s true that at the high school level, there is little in the way of debate or discussion about science and math. However, you’re missing the point.

Yes, but most kids in high school have reached formal operations and can process information differently. Unfortunately, they still do not have the basic building blocks that make up their faith, such as the numbers and letters. Furthermore, the faith is not sourced in scientific or mathematical facts, but in Divine Revelation. Therefore, the method of apprehending it’s principles is different.

Just a small correction, I think. Logic and the scientific method *illustrate *or *support *hypotheses, rather than “determine” them. (i.e., one does not create the fact that 2+2=4 by doing the math. One simply discovers that reality.

Yes, similarly to the “discovery” of spiritual realties that have been entrusted to the Church.

You forgot to mention what *kind *of truth they illustrate. (That is, to use an analogy - logic is to mathematical truth as the magisterium is to what-kind-of-truth?)

Divine Revelation

And, I might point out, that* faith* is paramount in Catholicism. That is, the belief in things in spite of sufficient evidence. It is quite different from academic studies, which is all about evidence (be it logical, scientific, etc)

This is an interesting statement, that probably needs another thread.

Isn’t homosexuality becoming a political issue, however? Isn’t it not just a question of sin - which lies firmly in the land of faith and therefore outside of rational discussion (you’ll notice I never get into discussions about homosexuality as “sin”) - it’s a question of ethics too. Why else would politicians be trying to pass things like the defense of marriage act? Why else would this be such a divisive issue?

Absolutely it has become a political issue. The realm of homosexual lifestyle in science and politics is much easier to debate. I am just saying that it is the first duty of the ordained minister (and also the laity, I think) to accurately represent the teachings of the Church, present in Divine Revelation.

 

[Bennie_P]

Just a small correction, I think. Logic and the scientific method *illustrate *or *support *hypotheses, rather than “determine” them. (i.e., one does not create the fact that 2+2=4 by doing the math. One simply discovers that reality.

You forgot to mention what *kind *of truth they illustrate. (That is, to use an analogy - logic is to mathematical truth as the magisterium is to what-kind-of-truth?)

And, I might point out, that* faith* is paramount in Catholicism. That is, the belief in things in spite of sufficient evidence. It is quite different from academic studies, which is all about evidence
(be it logical, scientific, etc)

You debate claiming you believe in science, yet reject the basic bilological truth concerning the purpose of sex. How is this logical?

 

[TMC]

Absolutely it has become a political issue. The realm of homosexual lifestyle in science and politics is much easier to debate. I am just saying that it is the first duty of the ordained minister (and also the laity, I think) to accurately represent the teachings of the Church, present in Divine Revelation.

You debate claiming you believe in science, yet reject the basic bilological truth concerning the purpose of sex. How is this logical?

Clearly there are two issues here. The first is guanophore’s point, which I agree with. You simply can’t purport to teach the catechism and then teach something else. This is actually why I no longer teach CCD. I found that I was in an irresolvable conflict, I refuse to violate my promise to teach the catechism, and I refuse to teach things that I think are wrong. So I do neither.

As far as the logic of the Church’s stance on sexuality in general and its relevance today, I think that is an important and appropriate topic of discussion. In particular there is great debate about the “biological truth concerning the purpose of sex.”

For the last seventy-odd yeas, the Church has said that sex has a unitive purpose, in addition to the reproductive purpose. The Church maintains that the unitive purpose cannot be seperated or appropriate apart from the reproductive purpose, but does not condemn sex between married couples even when there is no chance of reproduction, e.g. after menopause, or where the man is potent but infertile. The Church condones and even supports deliberately avoiding conception by natural family planning. So the Church has certainly moved toward accepting the value of the unitive purpose apart from the reproductive purpose.

This makes sense to me. I doubt you could find any doctors, psychiatrists, or anthropologists who would agree that the only biological purpose of sex is reproduction. The unitive purpose is wired right into the way we work.

It is also consistent with the Church’s position on other “biological” issues. There is no doubt that the biological purpose of eating food is to gain nourishment. But the Church recognizes the unitive value of taking meals together - in fact its the basis of our form of worship. It also recognizes that eating for other purposes is not sinful if done in moderation. No one believes that because food is for nourishment that eating food without seeking nourishment is wrong - drinking diet coke or eating diet foods is not a sin.

Homosexuality is at the heart of all of this. If the Church moves one more step and admits what the majority of the Church Militant already believes, that the unitive value of sex validates the act seperate and apart from its reproductive value, homosexual sex becomes the same as heterosexual sex - OK in marriage but not outside marriage. Of course that is still a long way from approving homosexual unions, but it puts single gays on the same footing as single straight people, which is where I think they are already.

 

[fix]

but does not condemn sex between married couples even when there is no chance of reproduction, e.g. after menopause, or where the man is potent but infertile. The Church condones and even supports deliberately avoiding conception by natural family planning. So the Church has certainly moved toward accepting the value of the unitive purpose apart from the reproductive purpose.

How so? Does the objective procreative aspect of the act cease to exist simply when one is subjectively, and unintentionally, unable to conceive?

Homosexuality is at the heart of all of this. If the Church moves one more step and admits what the majority of the Church Militant already believes, that the unitive value of sex validates the act seperate and apart from its reproductive value, homosexual sex becomes the same as heterosexual sex - OK in marriage but not outside marriage. Of course that is still a long way from approving homosexual unions, but it puts single gays on the same footing as single straight people, which is where I think they are already.

The problem here is the Church has never claimed the unitive aspect and the procreative aspect are separated simply because one is infertile.

 

[brianwalden]

For the last seventy-odd yeas, the Church has said that sex has a unitive purpose, in addition to the reproductive purpose. The Church maintains that the unitive purpose cannot be seperated or appropriate apart from the reproductive purpose, but does not condemn sex between married couples even when there is no chance of reproduction, e.g. after menopause, or where the man is potent but infertile. The Church condones and even supports deliberately avoiding conception by natural family planning. So the Church has certainly moved toward accepting the value of the unitive purpose apart from the reproductive purpose.

You make very good arguments TMC, but you draw a false analogy between infertile marital sex and homosexual sex. God created Man and Woman to be fertile, yet in this imperfect world we do not all have the ability to be fertile. On the other hand, actions like sodomy and oral sex, whether homosexual or heterosexual, were never intended to be fertile.

The analogy you made between a married couple who choses to have sex when they know they are in an infertile time and a person who chooses to drink soda for the enjoyment of it even though it has little to no nutritional value may be an apt one. But it does not fit for sodomy and oral sex, again whether heterosexual or homosexual. I think the analogy that properly fits these acts is a person who eats rocks or metal or some material that was never intended to be eaten.