Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[djeter]

Hi D/J

You said that you had sinned and not asked forgiveness. I never said God would “place you in hell” I said that your actions and beliefs have placed you in hell. You’ve done it all on your one-sies You made the choice. So naturally you are morally culpable, why wouldn’t you be?

I have done wrong, like everybody, and am sorry for it. As I do not believe there is a God I cannot say sorry to him, Because of this, you say I have chosen Hell. How so? I have not made such a choice!
But my sins condemn me, Not so, I have repented.
I have not done so formally to God. Does not matter God sees my heart and knows my sorrow.
I do not think there is a God. **But why is an honest error morally culpable? **

So, I repeat, I do not think I have chosen or merit eternal pain,

We make choices all the time; not doing anything can be a choice. I gave you a link on Avery Cardinal Dulles summary of Church teachings on Hell. Rather a mixed bag, don’t you think? You have no notion of sin, and relegate it to a “religious concept;” now you claim to repent your sins? How? Are you sorry for committing homosexual acts? I doubt it.

You’re all over the board here; there is no consistency to your views except that they are just your opinions on God or whatever. You serve no one except yourself, Laurie – the very picture of sinful pride. Yet these are “honest errors?” Really now? Your sorrow is who you are, a man separated from God from whom you demand “scientific proof” of his existence.

dj

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

How? Are you sorry for committing homosexual acts? I doubt it.
But I am not gay myself!

You’re all over the board here; there is no consistency to your views except that they are just your opinions on God or whatever.
Of course they are my opinions- free will, means only you can decide what to beleive,

You serve no one except yourself, Laurie – the very picture of sinful pride.
This is another of your ‘insults’ asserted without evidence

Yet these are “honest errors?” Really now?
Now you say I am dishonest!

Your sorrow is who you are, a man separated from God from whom you demand “scientific proof” of his existence.
I carefully explained that I was not asking for this necessarily, I also explained and gave reasons- but you ignore them and repeat a silly accusation.

Sorry I thought you had become well mannered. Sorry, your snide unhristian comments and inability to deal with the points made mean that both of us are wasting our time.Goodbye,

 

[djeter]

How? Are you sorry for committing homosexual acts? I doubt it.
But I am not gay myself!​

My apology, I thought you had referred to a partner before.​

You’re all over the board here; there is no consistency to your views except that they are just your opinions on God or whatever.
Of course they are my opinions- free will, means only you can decide what to beleive,​

“All over the board” referred to your view of sin as a “religious” concept while in the next post claiming you have “repented” your sins. How can you repent something you don’t even acknowledge? You are inconsistent.​

You serve no one except yourself, Laurie – the very picture of sinful pride.
This is another of your ‘insults’ asserted without evidence​

How many times have you made statements about God that claim his “goodness”
or loving nature exempts your lack of belief or will excuse it? The Christian faith teaches that our senses cannot touch God. Neither sight nor sound, scent nor taste, nor touch, either. Our imagination cannot encompass Him, nor even bring Him into focus. Our minds can form no adequate conception of Him; anything the mind imagines is easily ridiculed. The God who made us and out of His infinite love redeemed us and called us to His bosom is divine, not human. As such, He cannot be found using human perceptual equipment.

Yet you demand “proof.” For someone who claiims 50 years of thinking on the nature of God and sees the “proof” as “flimsy,” can’t you see the joke is on you? Evidence? Your words convict you. Insult? Of all the sins, isn’t pride the easiest to acknowledge?​

Yet these are “honest errors?” Really now?
Now you say I am dishonest!​

Where did I say you were dishonest? I laughed at your notion of blaming God for not acknowledging you as an “honest error.”​

Your sorrow is who you are, a man separated from God from whom you demand “scientific proof” of his existence.
I carefully explained that I was not asking for this necessarily, I also explained and gave reasons- but you ignore them and repeat a silly accusation.​

I missed your “careful explanation” Give me the message # and I’ll be happy to review it again. You keep repeating the lack of proof or flimsy evidence line which is the common complaint of the scientism mind set. Contemporary, post-enlightenment Western civilization with its skepticism, limiting knowledge and truth to what can be empirically demonstrated…(Is this not you? Everything you write says this.)​

Sorry I thought you had become well mannered. Sorry, your snide unhristian comments and inability to deal with the points made mean that both of us are wasting our time.Goodbye,

---

Well mannered = agreeing with you?

Snide = maliciously derogatory. Sure you haven’t gone South here?

Unchristian = really? How do you, the atheist, become the interpreter of what is Christian or not?

inability to deal with the points made = you’ve made points? really? That the evidence for god is flimsy? Was I supposed to be taking notes there? I AM sorry.

---

Goodbye? Can’t deal with the truth? OK. Thanks for your patience. I can see you don’t enjoy the give and take.

dj

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

If somebody says that they believe in X and commends the belief to you, a natural response is to ask them why they think their belief is true. This question is even more apposite if you knew that a large number of people commended A, B and C instead.

 

[larkin31]

…Yet you demand “proof.” For someone who claiims 50 years of thinking on the nature of God and sees the “proof” as “flimsy,” can’t you see the joke is on you? Evidence? Your words convict you. Insult? Of all the sins, isn’t pride the easiest to acknowledge? …

Nearly every poster here suffers from pride. I sure do. And you do too. It is strongly evident in this post. I would be chary of accusing others of this simply for having come to this forum and defended their beliefs in statements of opinion. It is the nature of discourse here.

Pride is, indeed, easy to acknowledge.

Next…?

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

The statistics show that a real world disorder is evident in homosexual relations, so it is not just some idle theological or philosophical argument that is being made.
The statistics show that some bad things are more prevalent in the gay community but that does not mean that this is because their actions are wrong. After all I suspect the proportion of climbers who die young is higher than in the rest of the population. But that is not an argument showing climbing is wrong. It is an argument for urging climbers to take precautions. Similarly your ‘statistics’ are arguments for urging gay people to behave in moral ways within their relationships.

Why are the statistics higher among gays? Depends I suppose on the particular one under discussion. And I am sure there is multiple causation here too. Two factors you might consider. Gay relationships do not usually involve children. I suspect a comparison between childless couples and gay couples might show closer figures. Also I think there is a ‘might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb’ factor here. If you or I were tempted to be unfaithful, the fact that marriage is a respectable institution backed up by social pressures etc would help to keep us in line. A gay person does not [though things are improving] have that back up and might think in a moment of weakness, “Well the Church has condemned me to hell anyway so a bit of unfaithfulness is neither here nor there. I am apparently a depraved person anyway!” But what do I or you know about these things? Neither of us has the qualifications to comment.

There are a variety of acts (not just homosexuality), such as adultery, fornication, masturbation, and contraception that violate the proper ends of human sexuality. Hence they are wrong, Laurie. Homosexual acts also violate the true purpose of sexuality. They are sexual acts that cannot be open to life.
According to the Church’s interpretation of Natural Law. But you must know all the objections to it.

1. It seems to overplay the physical [reproduction] as against the social. [expressing love]
2. It is unclear why this consideration should ‘trump’ all others. For example a woman, for whom more children would be a financial disaster, has to choose. Contraception – against Natural Law [negative factor] & happy marriage [positive factor] OR no contraception [positive factor] & marriage difficulties [negative factor]. It is not at all obvious why in this case and all others that could be described the Natural Law side always ‘trumps’ the other.
3. Natural Law sometimes entails the correctness of actions which most people would regard as wrong. Not lying to the Nazis, not using contraception under any circumstances, not allowing two gay people who are in love from expressing their love physically… A view of ethics which implies these things must be defective.
4. You worship a God who is supposed to be all Love. Two possibilities – (1) Despite being all love he rejects the love of gay people if expressed physically or (2) [As many non-Catholics think] you have misinterpreted the Bible and have erroneous beliefs about the sort of morality which God commands. (1) seems most unlikely – try (2)?
5. Sex in the safe period and sex when the woman is passed the menopause is not ‘open to reproduction’ yet is allowed. We now have some sleight of hand so show that these things are OK after all. Let’s have something similar for gays. Why not?

Nor do they reflect the complementarity of man and woman that is an integral part of God’s design for human sexuality.
Possibly for straights but obviously God must have had a different idea when he made gays?

In the book of Genesis we learn that God created humanity as male and female and that according to God’s plan a man and a woman come together and “the two of them become one body.”
Everybody? Obviously not because it is OK to be celibate for the minority who prefer this. So why not gays ditto?

Whenever homosexual acts are mentioned in the Old Testament, it is clear that they are disapproved of, as contrary to the will of God.
Not very often actually and,in one case, in the same chapter as disapproval of planting different crops in the same field. Why should we heed a Semitic people’s 3,000 year old holiness code?

In the New Testament, St. Paul teaches that homosexual acts are not in keeping with our being created in God’s image and so degrade and undermine our authentic dignity as human beings.
He also approves on slavery, thinks women are inferior to men and that marriage is a lesser choice than celibacy. We have moved on from these culturally conditioned views of his – let’s do the same re gays.

Laurie

**This really is my final post I shall not be visiting anymore. If anyone wants to contact me directly my e-mail is
Gibson.laurie@btinternet.com

Thanks to all who have talked with me.**

 

[djeter]

Nearly every poster here suffers from pride. I sure do. And you do too. It is strongly evident in this post. I would be chary of accusing others of this simply for having come to this forum and defended their beliefs in statements of opinion. It is the nature of discourse here.

Pride is, indeed, easy to acknowledge.

Next…?

I didn’t deny I was prideful but was pointing out to someone who took offense at being called such that it was hardly anything to get offended about (as Laurie had) if one were to consider how common the sin is.

The “nature of discourse” is not to defend the indefensible – abortion, homosexuality, etc. etc. Nice of you to share your thoughts on being chary but I shall decline, all the same.

Do you wink at all the sins of our society? Sorry to have offended your sensibilities but some of us Christians are committed to truth telling.

god bless

dj

 

[djeter]

The statistics show that a real world disorder is evident in homosexual relations, so it is not just some idle theological or philosophical argument that is being made.
The statistics show that some bad things are more prevalent in the gay community but that does not mean that this is because their actions are wrong. After all I suspect the proportion of climbers who die young is higher than in the rest of the population. But that is not an argument showing climbing is wrong. It is an argument for urging climbers to take precautions. Similarly your ‘statistics’ are arguments for urging gay people to behave in moral ways within their relationships.

Why are the statistics higher among gays? Depends I suppose on the particular one under discussion. And I am sure there is multiple causation here too. Two factors you might consider. Gay relationships do not usually involve children. I suspect a comparison between childless couples and gay couples might show closer figures. Also I think there is a ‘might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb’ factor here. If you or I were tempted to be unfaithful, the fact that marriage is a respectable institution backed up by social pressures etc would help to keep us in line. A gay person does not [though things are improving] have that back up and might think in a moment of weakness, “Well the Church has condemned me to hell anyway so a bit of unfaithfulness is neither here nor there. I am apparently a depraved person anyway!” But what do I or you know about these things? Neither of us has the qualifications to comment.

There are a variety of acts (not just homosexuality), such as adultery, fornication, masturbation, and contraception that violate the proper ends of human sexuality. Hence they are wrong, Laurie. Homosexual acts also violate the true purpose of sexuality. They are sexual acts that cannot be open to life.
According to the Church’s interpretation of Natural Law. But you must know all the objections to it.

1. It seems to overplay the physical [reproduction] as against the social. [expressing love]
2. It is unclear why this consideration should ‘trump’ all others. For example a woman, for whom more children would be a financial disaster, has to choose. Contraception – against Natural Law [negative factor] & happy marriage [positive factor] OR no contraception [positive factor] & marriage difficulties [negative factor]. It is not at all obvious why in this case and all others that could be described the Natural Law side always ‘trumps’ the other.
3. Natural Law sometimes entails the correctness of actions which most people would regard as wrong. Not lying to the Nazis, not using contraception under any circumstances, not allowing two gay people who are in love from expressing their love physically… A view of ethics which implies these things must be defective.
4. You worship a God who is supposed to be all Love. Two possibilities – (1) Despite being all love he rejects the love of gay people if expressed physically or (2) [As many non-Catholics think] you have misinterpreted the Bible and have erroneous beliefs about the sort of morality which God commands. (1) seems most unlikely – try (2)?
5. Sex in the safe period and sex when the woman is passed the menopause is not ‘open to reproduction’ yet is allowed. We now have some sleight of hand so show that these things are OK after all. Let’s have something similar for gays. Why not?

Nor do they reflect the complementarity of man and woman that is an integral part of God’s design for human sexuality.
Possibly for straights but obviously God must have had a different idea when he made gays?

In the book of Genesis we learn that God created humanity as male and female and that according to God’s plan a man and a woman come together and “the two of them become one body.”
Everybody? Obviously not because it is OK to be celibate for the minority who prefer this. So why not gays ditto?

Whenever homosexual acts are mentioned in the Old Testament, it is clear that they are disapproved of, as contrary to the will of God.
Not very often actually and,in one case, in the same chapter as disapproval of planting different crops in the same field. Why should we heed a Semitic people’s 3,000 year old holiness code?

In the New Testament, St. Paul teaches that homosexual acts are not in keeping with our being created in God’s image and so degrade and undermine our authentic dignity as human beings.
He also approves on slavery, thinks women are inferior to men and that marriage is a lesser choice than celibacy. We have moved on from these culturally conditioned views of his – let’s do the same re gays.

Laurie

**This really is my final post I shall not be visiting anymore. If anyone wants to contact me directly my e-mail is
Gibson.laurie@btinternet.com

Thanks to all who have talked with me.**

Didn’t the parthians perfect this strategy? Say goodbye and attack as you leave…

“God must have had a different idea when he made gays.” For someone who doesn’t believe in God, you have an amazingly elastic ability to include him in your arguments when you think it appears justified…

Another ad hominem attack on poor St. Paul…yawn.

dj

 

[larkin31]

I didn’t deny I was prideful but was pointing out to someone who took offense at being called such that it was hardly anything to get offended about (as Laurie had) if one were to consider how common the sin is.

The “nature of discourse” is not to defend the indefensible – abortion, homosexuality, etc. etc. Nice of you to share your thoughts on being chary but I shall decline, all the same.

Do you wink at all the sins of our society? Sorry to have offended your sensibilities but some of us Christians are committed to truth telling.

god bless

dj

Homosexuality is entirely defensible. The only argument against it is that certain believers claim that a supernatural being has inspired writings against it. And this argument, outside the circle of believers, is a very weak one.

infertility is a weak and irrational argument against it

health is a weak and irrational argument against it

“Natural Law” is a weak and irrational argument against it

 

[larkin31]

The statistics show that a real world disorder is evident in homosexual relations, so it is not just some idle theological or philosophical argument that is being made.
The statistics show that some bad things are more prevalent in the gay community but that does not mean that this is because their actions are wrong. After all I suspect the proportion of climbers who die young is higher than in the rest of the population. But that is not an argument showing climbing is wrong. It is an argument for urging climbers to take precautions. Similarly your ‘statistics’ are arguments for urging gay people to behave in moral ways within their relationships.

Why are the statistics higher among gays? Depends I suppose on the particular one under discussion. And I am sure there is multiple causation here too. Two factors you might consider. Gay relationships do not usually involve children. I suspect a comparison between childless couples and gay couples might show closer figures. Also I think there is a ‘might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb’ factor here. If you or I were tempted to be unfaithful, the fact that marriage is a respectable institution backed up by social pressures etc would help to keep us in line. A gay person does not [though things are improving] have that back up and might think in a moment of weakness, “Well the Church has condemned me to hell anyway so a bit of unfaithfulness is neither here nor there. I am apparently a depraved person anyway!” But what do I or you know about these things? Neither of us has the qualifications to comment.

There are a variety of acts (not just homosexuality), such as adultery, fornication, masturbation, and contraception that violate the proper ends of human sexuality. Hence they are wrong, Laurie. Homosexual acts also violate the true purpose of sexuality. They are sexual acts that cannot be open to life.
According to the Church’s interpretation of Natural Law. But you must know all the objections to it.

1. It seems to overplay the physical [reproduction] as against the social. [expressing love]
2. It is unclear why this consideration should ‘trump’ all others. For example a woman, for whom more children would be a financial disaster, has to choose. Contraception – against Natural Law [negative factor] & happy marriage [positive factor] OR no contraception [positive factor] & marriage difficulties [negative factor]. It is not at all obvious why in this case and all others that could be described the Natural Law side always ‘trumps’ the other.
3. Natural Law sometimes entails the correctness of actions which most people would regard as wrong. Not lying to the Nazis, not using contraception under any circumstances, not allowing two gay people who are in love from expressing their love physically… A view of ethics which implies these things must be defective.
4. You worship a God who is supposed to be all Love. Two possibilities – (1) Despite being all love he rejects the love of gay people if expressed physically or (2) [As many non-Catholics think] you have misinterpreted the Bible and have erroneous beliefs about the sort of morality which God commands. (1) seems most unlikely – try (2)?
5. Sex in the safe period and sex when the woman is passed the menopause is not ‘open to reproduction’ yet is allowed. We now have some sleight of hand so show that these things are OK after all. Let’s have something similar for gays. Why not?

Nor do they reflect the complementarity of man and woman that is an integral part of God’s design for human sexuality.
Possibly for straights but obviously God must have had a different idea when he made gays?

In the book of Genesis we learn that God created humanity as male and female and that according to God’s plan a man and a woman come together and “the two of them become one body.”
Everybody? Obviously not because it is OK to be celibate for the minority who prefer this. So why not gays ditto?

Whenever homosexual acts are mentioned in the Old Testament, it is clear that they are disapproved of, as contrary to the will of God.
Not very often actually and,in one case, in the same chapter as disapproval of planting different crops in the same field. Why should we heed a Semitic people’s 3,000 year old holiness code?

In the New Testament, St. Paul teaches that homosexual acts are not in keeping with our being created in God’s image and so degrade and undermine our authentic dignity as human beings.
He also approves on slavery, thinks women are inferior to men and that marriage is a lesser choice than celibacy. We have moved on from these culturally conditioned views of his – let’s do the same re gays.

Laurie

**This really is my final post I shall not be visiting anymore. If anyone wants to contact me directly my e-mail is
Gibson.laurie@btinternet.com

Thanks to all who have talked with me.**

you have made great points Laurie, whether you see my reply or not…

 

[djeter]

Laurie wrote: This really is my final post I shall not be visiting anymore.

---

PART THE FIRST

Let me beat the dead horse further. Parthian shots deserve return fire and at the risk of substantiating Larkin31’s contention that chariness is a Christian instinct that I lack, let me make a final defense against the kind of lies and half-truths that Laurie is dealing in here.

Laurie wrote (for the second or third time): “The statistics show that some bad things are more prevalent in the gay community but that does not mean that this is because their actions are wrong. After all I suspect the proportion of climbers who die young is higher than in the rest of the population. But that is not an argument showing climbing is wrong. It is an argument for urging climbers to take precautions. Similarly your ‘statistics’ are arguments for urging gay people to behave in moral ways within their relationships.”

---

Where do I begin with this nonsense? “That does not mean that this is because their actions are wrong.” So you are trying to equate the health risks of engaging in anal sex with the risks of engaging in mountain climbing?

First of all mountain climbing is not on the Church’s list of sinful activities. Killing yourself while mountain climbing is morally neutral perhaps. Killing yourself while engaging in anal sex is stupid, a moral evil, an insult to the God the creator.

The point of my statistics was to demonstrate that not only is anal sex proscribed in a moral sense but that the proscription exists because there are real world dangers extant.​

“It is an argument for urging climbers to take precautions.”​

No, it’s not. There are no precautions one can take to obviate drunk driving, other than NOT DOING IT. SHEESH. This is the moral equivalent of someone suggesting that drinking a milkshake before having a “few beers” will prevent you from getting drunk and allow you to drive. Good one, Laurie.

---

Laurie Wrote: Possibly for straights but obviously God must have had a different idea when he made gays?​

Ah, Laurie, One of the top ten myths of homosexuality. Be my guest, everyone. When Homosexualists fall into their patterns of mouthing off their agenda talking points, follow the link there, copy and paste the facts that deny their propaganda. To whit:

The research does not show that anyone is “born gay,” and suggests instead that homosexuality results from a complex mix of developmental factors.

The widespread, popular belief that science has proven a biological or genetic origin to homosexuality can be traced to the publicity which surrounded three studies published in the early 1990’s. In August of 1991, researcher Simon LeVay published a study based on post-mortem examinations of the brains of cadavers. He concluded that differences in a particular brain structure suggested “that sexual orientation has a biological substrate.” (Simon LeVay, “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men,” Science, 253: 1034 (August 1991).)

In December of 1991, researchers J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard published a study of identical and fraternal twins and adoptive brothers, and found that “the pattern of rates of homosexuality…was generally consistent with substantial genetic influence.”( J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, 48: 1089 (December 1991)) Finally, in 1993, researcher Dean Hamer claimed to have found a specific “chromosomal region” containing “a gene that contributes to homosexual orientation in males.” (Dean H. Hamer, et al., “A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation,” Science 261 (1993): 325.)

These studies suffered from serious methodological weaknesses, such as small sample sizes, non-random samples and even possible mis-classification of their subjects. Other scientists have been unable to replicate these dramatic findings. These problems led two psychiatrists to conclude,

“Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking…In fact, the current trend may be to underrate the explanatory power of extant psychosocial models.” (William Byne and Bruce Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised,” Archives of General Psychiatry, 50 (March 1993): 228, 236.)

Subsequently, more rigorous studies of identical twin pairs have essentially made it impossible to argue for the genetic determination of homosexuality. Since identical (“monozygotic,” in the scientific literature) twins have identical genes, if homosexuality were genetically fixed at birth, we should expect that whenever one twin is homosexual, the other twin would be homosexual (a “concordance rate” of 100%). Even Michael Bailey himself, co-author of the landmark 1991 twins study (which supposedly found a concordance rate of about 50%), conducted a subsequent study on a larger sample of Australian twins.

MORE TO FOLLOW

 

[djeter]

PART THE SECOND

As summarized by other researchers, “They found twenty-seven identical male twin pairs where at least one of the twin brothers was gay, but in only three of the pairs was the second twin brother gay as well” — a “concordance rate” of only eleven percent. (Stanton L. Jones and Mark A Yarhouse, Ex-gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2007), p. 124; summarizing findings of: J. Michael Bailey, Michael P. Dunne, and Nicholas G. Martin, “Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 78(3), March 2000, 524-5366)

Researchers Peter Bearman and Hannah Brückner, from Columbia and Yale respectively, studied data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, and found even lower concordance rates of only 6.7% for male and 5.3% for female identical twins. In fact, their study neatly refuted several of the biological theories for the origin of homosexuality, finding social experiences in childhood to be far more significant:

[T]he pattern of concordance (similarity across pairs) of same-sex preference for sibling pairs does not suggest genetic influence independent of social context. Our data falsify the hormone transfer hypothesis by isolating a single condition that eliminates the opposite-sex twin effect we observe — the presence of an older same-sex sibling. We also consider and reject a speculative evolutionary theory that rests on observing birth-order effects on same-sex orientation. In contrast, our results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences. Peter S. Bearman and Hannah Brückner, “Opposite-Sex Twins and Adolescent Same-Sex Attraction,” American Journal of Sociology Vol. 107, No. 5, (March 2002), 1179-1205.

If it was not clear in the 1990’s, it certainly is now — no one is “born gay.”

---

Laurie quoted me: “Nor do they reflect the complementarity of man and woman that is an integral part of God’s design for human sexuality.”

If you would like to read more on this. Fr Jose Noriega has written a marvelous essay addressing the topic “Can homosexual behavior and the inclination at its origin be ordered toward the good life, a life that is complete, fulfilled, and happy?” I asked Laurie to write a reply to Fr. Noriega but that didn’t happen. Noriega’s essay reflects deeply on the nature of complementarity. Every Catholic who understands and opposes the sin of homosexuality and wishes to defend the Church against charges of homophobia should read this essay.

And thanks to all the folks who have been following this thread.

dj

 

[momor]

Homosexuality is entirely defensible. The only argument against it is that certain believers claim that a supernatural being has inspired writings against it. And this argument, outside the circle of believers, is a very weak one.

infertility is a weak and irrational argument against it

health is a weak and irrational argument against it

“Natural Law” is a weak and irrational argument against it

I would venture to guess that your arguments in favor are the one’s that are truly weak. They probably boil down to - it’s OK because I say it’s OK and lot’s of other people agree with me.

 

[larkin31]

I would venture to guess that your arguments in favor are the one’s that are truly weak. They probably boil down to - it’s OK because I say it’s OK and lot’s of other people agree with me.

No. But I find it interesting that you would try to make an argument for me. But no, that is not one that I make. No one should listen to me, and certainly not to some anonymous poster (Larkin31) on a Catholic chat forum.

 

[djeter]

you have made great points Laurie, whether you see my reply or not…

Spoken like a true Homosexualist.

dj

 

[larkin31]

Spoken like a true Homosexualist.

dj

you should try discussing ideas more than simply throwing internet pejorative labels around.

 

[larkin31]

the topic is homosexuality and Natural Law

and no, homosexuality can not be “proven wrong” this way

 

[djeter]

you should try discussing ideas more than simply throwing internet pejorative labels around.

The link is an essay filled with ideas that express the paradox that lies at the heart of homosexualism.

It is not a pejorative label.

If I am not mistaken by the tenor of your posts here you believe that homosexuality is a normative behavior and feel that it (and its agenda) should be supported.

How is that pejorative? Nitwit is pejorative. I didn’t use that.

dj

 

[larkin31]

The link is an essay filled with ideas that express the paradox that lies at the heart of homosexualism.

It is not a pejorative label.

False. I read it. It is used negatively throughout.

If I am not mistaken by the tenor of your posts here you believe that homosexuality is a normative behavior

Again wrong. I have never called homosexuality “normative.” It is an empty term.

and feel that it (and its agenda) should be supported.

Some aspects of it, sure. The “movement” is not cohesive or unified, so no one supports it all, nor do I. I am sure that I do not even know half of it since I hardly read about it beyond what I am interested in.

 

[momor]

If you would like to read more on this. Fr Jose Noriega has written a marvelous essay addressing the topic “Can homosexual behavior and the inclination at its origin be ordered toward the good life, a life that is complete, fulfilled, and happy?” I asked Laurie to write a reply to Fr. Noriega but that didn’t happen. Noriega’s essay reflects deeply on the nature of complementarity. Every Catholic who understands and opposes the sin of homosexuality and wishes to defend the Church against charges of homophobia should read this essay.

And thanks to all the folks who have been following this thread.

dj

I read the article mentioned above. I have to say he is unneccesarily dense in his style of writing. But the interesting (for me) take away message i got was that many of the arguments he makes for why homosexual relations are wrong can be made for why the popular understanding of sex is wrong. Essentially that when sex is reduced to genital stimulation and satisfaction the relationship and the participants are objectified.

The fact that this is the popular understanding today of the purpose of sex makes it very easy to see why so many people fail to see anything wrong with homosexual relations and marriage.