Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[GaryTaylor]

I was sarcastic. It’s probably not good etiquette to join a discussion and then start psycho-analyzing posters from a few posts.

Wait a minute, nobody had an issue here remember? Yet it wasn’t a few minutes and the red flags went up. Listen, I’m just talking believe me this isn’t work. I just honestly haven’t seen that person man or female whom really, really is born into same sexuality. I believe it exists I’ve heard it exists. I just haven’t seen it. But I also haven’t specifically worked with just sex issues. I’ve simply came across a few.

Second its hard to talk on line because there no personal trust or relationship really? So its just talk.

 

[larkin31]

You are missing the point entirely. The gay agenda tries to manipulate the susceptible minds of children.
The point about the unnatural sex act is that it adds to the normalization process. It poisons the fabric of human relations. It is not a question of whether certain women(how can you definitively say “many women”?) enjoy this practise. We are thinking, feeling beings, not pieces of meat to be arbitrarily given over to another’s whims.

non-procreative erotic pleasure does not “poison” anything any more than a husband continually impregnating his wife “poisons” her “relations” toward him.

Why does non-procreative eroticism turn you into a “piece of meat”? Sex is a wonderful, beautiful act, even more so with love involved. Erotic pleasure is bonding, not distancing.

 

[GaryTaylor]

non-procreative erotic pleasure does not “poison” anything any more than a husband continually impregnating his wife “poisons” her “relations” toward him.

Why does non-procreative eroticism turn you into a “piece of meat”? Sex is a wonderful, beautiful act, even more so with love involved. Erotic pleasure is bonding, not distancing.

I would be a fool to argue this point. Yet I have to tell you, you have to be carefull with this farther on down the road.

I mean, if its not love right, whats it gonna do to you self esteem? In plain english, how could you be a cum recepticle and feel good about yourself? And I’m not saying you, I"m just asking? Follow me?

 

[colmcille1]

non-procreative erotic pleasure does not “poison” anything any more than a husband continually impregnating his wife “poisons” her “relations” toward him.

Why does non-procreative eroticism turn you into a “piece of meat”? Sex is a wonderful, beautiful act, even more so with love involved. Erotic pleasure is bonding, not distancing.

I was referring to the earlier post in which one partner is deeply uncomfortable with the other’s pressuring of sexual demands. This partner may have been poisoned due to exposure to pornograhy and enters a dangerous and dehumanising arena.
Also, on an earlier post, you stated that your or my tastes should not imform law and morality.
It is not a question of “tastes”.
The deeply mysterious God-given gift of human sexuality informs many laws and all of Catholic morality where germane.
Sexual union without love is NOTHING.

 

[larkin31]

…Sexual union without love is NOTHING.

It can be procreative!

And it can be healing and a way of developing as an adult. To say it is “NOTHING” is an extremist answer that does not take into account much of how many of us actually learn and grow as humans.

Not much sex is entirely without a form of love or affection or intimacy. But the Catholic church goes way beyond this in its restrictions, anyway. Right?

 

[colmcille1]

It can be procreative!

And it can be healing and a way of developing as an adult. To say it is “NOTHING” is an extremist answer that does not take into account much of how many of us actually learn and grow as humans.

Not much sex is entirely without a form of love or affection or intimacy. But the Catholic church goes way beyond this in its restrictions, anyway. Right?

So, you now have the authority to label me an “extremist” and then go on to casually say (I’d love to see your figures for this!) that “not much sex is entirely without a form of love or affection or intimacy”.
So you name-call AND you have a universal knowledge! A lethal combination, sir, if I may say!
Rape can be procreative.Do you consider that to be okay by your definition?
I know exactly what my Church teaches in the area of sexual morality.You, sir, only(judging by your posts), know only your version of those teachings.
A vast difference.
Sexual union without love is NOTHING.

 

[larkin31]

So, you now have the authority to label me an “extremist”

sigh…NO. I wrote that “to say” what you said was extremist, not YOU.

and then go on to casually say (I’d love to see your figures for this!) that “not much sex is entirely without a form of love or affection or intimacy”.

You need numbers for this? Why don’t you simply disagree and claim that you think that a LOT of sex is ENTIRELY DEVOID of love. All I did was hedge in a bit from an extreme position, and you question it? This is the second “extreme” position you have taken. Be careful about fitting the glove to precisely.

So you name-call

No

AND you have a universal knowledge!

Hardly.

Rape can be procreative.Do you consider that to be okay by your definition?

I was not calling anything “okay” becasue it was procreative. I was simply and easily demonstrating that your absolutist (extreme) claim was false (that sex without love is “NOTHING”)

I know exactly what my Church teaches in the area of sexual morality.You, sir, only(judging by your posts), know only your version of those teachings.
A vast difference.

So? Probably true. What teaching are you espousing here? Are you quoting something?

Sexual union without love is NOTHING.

It is something, and sometimes it is very good. But as I guess, most sex actually does have SOME love and affection and intimacy in it. Even the non-vaginal kind that has no procreative intent or openness. I know that this is not church teaching. I am giving MY opinion.

 

[colmcille1]

sigh…NO. I wrote that “to say” what you said was extremist, not YOU.

You need numbers for this? Why don’t you simply disagree and claim that you think that a LOT of sex is ENTIRELY DEVOID of love. All I did was hedge in a bit from an extreme position, and you question it? This is the second “extreme” position you have taken. Be careful about fitting the glove to precisely.

No

Hardly.

I was not calling anything “okay” becasue it was procreative. I was simply and easily demonstrating that your absolutist (extreme) claim was false (that sex without love is “NOTHING”)

So? Probably true. What teaching are you espousing here? Are you quoting something?

It is something, and sometimes it is very good. But as I guess, most sex actually does have SOME love and affection and intimacy in it. Even the non-vaginal kind that has no procreative intent or openness. I know that this is not church teaching. I am giving MY opinion.

Why do say that I have extremist views? I do not have a problem with stating my hard-won beliefs. I derive great joy from my faith.
I am questioning your “opinions” in the same way I question my faith.
The former is far from conclusive.
When I state that sex without love is NOTHING, I do not consider this an extremist statement.
Many strands of thought inform this statement. My formal education, personal history, informed debate with my peers, my own research, my work.
Therefore, and may I generalise here for one moment, when Catholics hear talk of their views as “extreme”, they naturally mystified as to why something which overall brings them immense happiness could be labelled as such.

 

[edwest2]

non-procreative erotic pleasure does not “poison” anything any more than a husband continually impregnating his wife “poisons” her “relations” toward him.

Why does non-procreative eroticism turn you into a “piece of meat”? Sex is a wonderful, beautiful act, even more so with love involved. Erotic pleasure is bonding, not distancing.

“erotic pleasure” is just sex. Human dignity demands a unitive and procreative relationship in complimentary. You seem to be promoting the old, “Hey man. If it feels good, do it.” This is Catholic Answers. Just because two consenting adults can consent to do just about anything to each other does not make it right. There is such a thing as right and wrong.

God bless,
Ed

 

[colmcille1]

“erotic pleasure” is just sex. Human dignity demands a unitive and procreative relationship in complimentary. You seem to be promoting the old, “Hey man. If it feels good, do it.” This is Catholic Answers. Just because two consenting adults can consent to do just about anything to each other does not make it right. There is such a thing as right and wrong.

God bless,
Ed

Well said!
God bless you too,
I remain your seeking friend,
Colmcille1.

 

[larkin31]

“erotic pleasure” is just sex. Human dignity demands a unitive and procreative relationship in complimentary. You seem to be promoting the old, “Hey man. If it feels good, do it.”

No, I am not and have not ever said this.

This is Catholic Answers. Just because two consenting adults can consent to do just about anything to each other does not make it right. There is such a thing as right and wrong.

Of course.

 

[tonyrey]

1. The primary purpose of sex is reproduction which is motivated by the desire to be physically and psychologically united to a member of the opposite sex.
2. A (wo)manly (wo)man is hardly likely to be sexually attracted to another (wo)manly (wo)man! Both the physical and psychological traits have to be complementary for there to be genuine sexual attraction. Like magnetic poles opposites attract!
3. Both sexes have distinctive genetic traits . The majority are well-defined males and females whereas a minority are noticeably more ambiguous and obviously less likely to reproduce. So there is bound to be a natural preponderance of heterosexuals.
4. It seems likely that one of the causes of the loss of fertility and the decreasing birthrate in Western society is the increase in homosexuality as the result of legalisation and the promotion of the belief that one’s sexual orientation is a matter of choice. It is naive to believe there are the same proportion of homosexuals in our society as there were in the past now that no holds are barred…
5. I should add that we are creatures of habit so our sexual outlook and behaviour will eventually be modified according to the way we live - whatever orientation we begin with…

I can see you have had plenty to contend with (!) but when you have an opportunity I shall be grateful to know your answers to:

1. Do you think the concept of sexual liberation is a myth?
2. Would that and the decline in religious belief have had no effect on the incidence of homosexuality?
3. Do you think homosexuals are as likely to reproduce as heterosexuals?
4. Do you agree with points 1 to 3?

My aim is to establish that homosexuality is not wrong if it has a genetic cause but it is harmful if it distorts a person’s natural orientation. Whether it is culpable depends on an individual’s knowledge and beliefs - like drug addiction. The quest for pleasure is not intrinsically evil but when it damages our health and personal relations it is immoral.

 

[Daedelus76]

I have trouble understanding the traditional position against homosexuality and masturbation. If something is immoral just beacause its pleasurable and self directed, then enjoying food or drink is also bad, since those are self-directed as well and pleasurable.

On the contrary, I think people who never know pleasure, who wilfully deny it in themselves and other people, they seem to be miserable. Moralism over things like masturbation just leads to insensitive sex lives. The idea that sex should only be about penises ejaculating in vaginas also seems to fit in with that an overly biological/physicalist view of sex (typical of men). Higher mammals and our species have evolved to use sexuality in a variety of ways beyond reproduction. It has psychosocial and not just reproductive purposes. The Roman Catholic’s Magisterial position sweeps those all aside in favor of a narrow sexual ethos.

 

[colmcille1]

I can see you have had plenty to contend with (!) but when you have an opportunity I shall be grateful to know your answers to:

1. Do you think the concept of sexual liberation is a myth?
2. Would that and the decline in religious belief have had no effect on the incidence of homosexuality?
3. Do you think homosexuals are as likely to reproduce as heterosexuals?
4. Do you agree with points 1 to 3?

My aim is to establish that homosexuality is not wrong if it has a genetic cause but it is harmful if it distorts a person’s natural orientation. Whether it is culpable depends on an individual’s knowledge and beliefs - like drug addiction. The quest for pleasure is not intrinsically evil but when it damages our health and personal relations it is immoral.

Hi there,
I will not intrude on the questions you posed for another fellow. It’s just a point of observation.
Recently I was told of a gay lobby group in the US that issued statements in SUPPORT of the pro-life movement. The reason? It felt that it would curry favour with that movement on the basis that a percentage of babies “due” for abortion would no doubt be gay! Here is the tangled morality of moral relativism.
Excellent post, btw.

 

[colmcille1]

I have trouble understanding the traditional position against homosexuality and masturbation. If something is immoral just beacause its pleasurable and self directed, then enjoying food or drink is also bad, since those are self-directed as well and pleasurable.

On the contrary, I think people who never know pleasure, who wilfully deny it in themselves and other people, they seem to be miserable. Moralism over things like masturbation just leads to insensitive sex lives. The idea that sex should only be about penises ejaculating in vaginas also seems to fit in with that an overly biological/physicalist view of sex (typical of men). Higher mammals and our species have evolved to use sexuality in a variety of ways beyond reproduction. It has psychosocial and not just reproductive purposes. The Roman Catholic’s Magisterial position sweeps those all aside in favor of a narrow sexual ethos.

I cannot really argue against your opinions but what I can do is to state unequivocally that the Church rightly teaches that the deep mystery of human sexuality is a God-given beautiful gift.
There is no doubt that there are bad teachers of this morality. And the consequences of this bad teaching are depressingly familiar.
However, there are countless numbers of Catholics enjoying happy and productive lives because they have built the true precepts of that gift into their everyday worlds.
May I suggest, and I mean this with all respect, that your view of the Magisterial teaching as “narrow” may only seem that way when compared to the arrogant profusion of distorted versions of human sexuality in the world today?

 

[Leela]

I recently read this commentary. Sex (the physical act) must culminate in unprotected vaginal ejaculation, and other erotic acts are allowed but must be all geared lovingly to this culmination. I don’t think that the RCC comments directly on anal sex, but I think that you get the gist of their position.

Masturbation is a disorder (RCC) and is a sin (with exculpating nods to age and stresses).

That was my understanding as well–that anal and oral sex are not prohibited by the Catholic church. Many of the arguments made in this thread opposing homosexuality–those focusing on anuses and penises–are inconsistent with Catholic teaching.

 

[davidv]

That was my understanding as well–that anal and oral sex are not prohibited by the Catholic church. Many of the arguments made in this thread opposing homosexuality–those focusing on anuses and penises–are inconsistent with Catholic teaching.

I would suggest that if you think this is Church teaching, you are choosing to be willfully ignorant of the teachings that been presented numerous time in many threads that you participated in.

 

[Leela]

Why should they be?

Why should we be concerned about the well being of conscious creatures? This is a question that neither of us really has. You are feigning disbelief in something that no one has ever given a good reason to doubt. Anyone who has sincere doubts about whether we ought to love one another (and a few of such psychopaths do exist) has problems that philosophy won’t solve.

Best,
Leela

 

[larkin31]

I can see you have had plenty to contend with (!) but when you have an opportunity I shall be grateful to know your answers to:

1. Do you think the concept of sexual liberation is a myth?

What? If you define “sexual liberation,” maybe I will know how you mean this question.

1. Would that and the decline in religious belief have had no effect on the incidence of homosexuality?

See above.

1. Do you think homosexuals are as likely to reproduce as heterosexuals?

No, they are not, statistically. But gays are not produced by gays. Heterosexuals have gay children.

1. Do you agree with points 1 to 3?

Sorry, no. But please define #1 for me.

My aim is to establish that homosexuality is not wrong if it has a genetic cause but it is harmful if it distorts a person’s natural orientation. Whether it is culpable depends on an individual’s knowledge and beliefs - like drug addiction. The quest for pleasure is not intrinsically evil but when it damages our health and personal relations it is immoral.

What does this have to do with the questions above? Of course the quest for pleasure is wrong if it is harmful in some way. That is self-evident.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

How would one know this? What are you talking about? You would decide on gossip and rumor?

Both gay and heterosexual child molesters are regularly identified by picture and address at a certain time of every week on our local television station. Not exactly gossip and rumor.

Would you want your children going into the homes of such parents to play with their children?

If you say yes, then I know you are thinking off-the-wall.