Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[HauntedJame]

HauntedJame

As for America or any other country suddenly starting to exterminate homosexuals is hilarious.

I don’t think the artsy-fartsy people in Berlin thought it was hilarious in the 1930s when the Gestapo rounded them up.

And comparing it to incest and rape, something that clearly physically and mentally damages people, is just silly.

Says you.

*Homosexuality is something you are, and when you have sex with another one of the same sex, it is because both want it. No one ends up in hospital after making love (unless they are very kinky). So really, your whole argument is nothing but…well…a yawn of standard things thrown out because of fear. Or maybe suppressed homosexuality? *

And what’s wrong with suppressed homosexuality? There you go making judgments against the very people you think are wrongly judging you. Seems to be a one-way street for gays. They get to judge, but they don’t get to be judged?

Well, times have changed and guess what…if the gestapo did that, the US would send a platoon of soldiers in. Because…well…times have changed!

And yes, I do say that, so wipe that smirk off your face. Because it is nothing like rape and to think that another human being would compare homosexuality to an act of rape disgusts me.

And I am not judging anymore than anyone else does. I am not perfect. But you seem to have a lot of bitterness in your which made me wonder

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

Progress toward greater freedom and justice is sometimes painful. God put that tree with fruit right in Eve’s (and Adam’s) face, after all. They couldn’t and didn’t say, “I’d rather not see that.” Adult life IS having to live freely in a world that can be ugly and sinful and dangerous and sexual, and then we must learn to love it and care for it and embrace it anyway. It IS what the garden of Eden story is all about.

I think you have misread the story. The story was not written that we might embrace ugliness and sin. It was written to show the consequence of disobedience to God’s law. God told Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, to go forth and multiply.

 

[HauntedJame]

God told Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, to go forth and multiply.

Just as well, I wouldn’t look good pregnant.

Besides, that Adam and Steve line is so dated now anyway.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

HauntedJame
*
And I am not judging anymore than anyone else does. I am not perfect. But you seem to have a lot of bitterness in your which made me wonder.*

If I am bitter (and I seriously doubt that my bitterness is greater than yours), it is for the reason that homosexuality in-your-face along with many other symptoms suggests that Western Civilization is moving toward a very dark place, in which I think without Christ at its center neither you nor I are going to be very safe.

When and if Christianity fails, as it did in Germany and Russia in the 1930s, neither homosexuals nor Christians will be able to hide when the pagans come home to roost.

 

[larkin31]

larkin

Progress toward greater freedom and justice is sometimes painful. God put that tree with fruit right in Eve’s (and Adam’s) face, after all. They couldn’t and didn’t say, “I’d rather not see that.” Adult life IS having to live freely in a world that can be ugly and sinful and dangerous and sexual, and then we must learn to love it and care for it and embrace it anyway. It IS what the garden of Eden story is all about.

I think you have misread the story. The story was not written that we might embrace ugliness and sin. It was written to show the consequence of disobedience to God’s law. God told Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, to go forth and multiply.

I have not misread the story. The story ALSO shows the consequences of disobediance (that is the easy part). If that is ALL you get from it, then you are engaging (if I may offer a criticism in reply to yours) in a narrow reading.

I said that we had to embrace the world, sinful as it is, it is all we have. I did not mean how you are summarizing me (no surprise).

And Adam and Eve did not marry before they “multiplied.” She was the first “helpmeet.”

 

[colmcille1]

You have no argument, so you appeal to dogmatism. Sorry, i don’t have to buy that. I think social sciences and psychology are better for understanding human sexuality than the tomes of celibate theologians from the middle ages.

Yes, the RCC teaching is beautiful, unless you are gay or single or poor. Then it gives you a simple answer, be celibate or go to hell. Universal, insensitive rules nswers for everybody, and religiously imposed guilt awaiting those who cannot comply. And this is what Jesus Christ’s good news amounts to? Debunked medieval philosophy.

You don’t have to BUY anything! And it it ceases to be mere(is this word okay by your book?)
dogmatism when it becomes, in its truest flowering, the beautiful expression of the aforementioned countless numbers of Catholics around this world. Let me tell you, sir, the last thing on any true Catholic’s mind is" the tomes of celibate theologians".

You have a despaingly bleak view of history if you dismiss the Church as ignoring the “gay, single or poor”! What have you read? A more learned man than I would not, I dare say, even dignify your post with a reply! But I am a passionate believer and guilt is NOT something that is imposed by anyone anywhere. I have discussed this ad nauseum with lapsed Catholics, agnostics, atheists, and every shade between and I can say honestly that it is THEIR failing, not the Church, that locks them into their mindset.

You, sir, have either read nothing of Christ’s teachings or are being deliberately provocative.
Either way, you ultimately are at a loss but the great and patient world of Christ waits for every man.

I remain your seeking friend,
Colmcille1.

 

[HauntedJame]

HauntedJame
*
And I am not judging anymore than anyone else does. I am not perfect. But you seem to have a lot of bitterness in your which made me wonder.*

If I am bitter (and I seriously doubt that my bitterness is greater than yours), it is for the reason that homosexuality in-your-face along with many other symptoms suggests that Western Civilization is moving toward a very dark place, in which I think without Christ at its center neither you nor I are going to be very safe.

When and if Christianity fails, as it did in Germany and Russia in the 1930s, neither homosexuals nor Christians will be able to hide when the pagans come home to roost.

As long as you keep Christ in your heart, you are safe…regardless of what is around you. However, homosexuality in-your-face is something that is needed. We’re not sick, we’re not insane and we won’t be treated like we are diseased. It is about time. If you don’t like what we do, don’t watch.

And did you just compare pagans to Nazis? Because if I remember correctly, the Nazis were Christians…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin
*
What are you calling “harmful homosexual activity”? Harmful heterosexual activity is not likely to be ethical, either. *

Have you heard any Catholic say it was?

 

[larkin31]

larkin
*
What are you calling “harmful homosexual activity”? Harmful heterosexual activity is not likely to be ethical, either. *

Have you heard any Catholic say it was?

What is your point in asking me these questions, then? Skip the questions, and make a statement.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

HauntedJames
*
And did you just compare pagans to Nazis? Because if I remember correctly, the Nazis were Christians…*

What perverse history book are you reading?

Hitler sent plenty of Christians to the furnaces along with the Jews. Hitler planned the persecution and destruction of Christianity … this is a well-known fact documented by the Allies when they investigated the Nazi files after the collapse of Berlin. I fear you are getting your history from atheist websites. Right?

 

[tonyrey]

My answer on numbers is: “I don’t know.” I have never read an estimate of gay population as a percent of total population that has ranged much above or below 3-5%. And none of these estimates have ever looked back through time, that I am aware of.

If you “know” something different, lay it out here. Then we will all know something more specific. If you are simply asking me to support your speculation, then ask someone else to. I don’t engage in that.

But, if you are simply asking, "Do more unmarried persons now have sex than 50 years ago? I would say, “Yes, but I have no idea precisely how many more.”

If you want to claim that because more people have sex now, that THEREFORE there must be more homosexuals in the world," well that is false reasoning because for the same reason there would have to be MORE heterosexuals also, and we can’t really have more of both. Increased sexual activity does not produce more persons of any sexual orientation.

Orientation is not practice and are not causally related. That I am aware of.

You are overlooking the distinction I made right at the outset of this discussion between “genetic homosexuals” and those who are homosexuals by choice:

“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…”

It is obvious I do not mean the increase in homosexual orientation has increased as the result of legalisation! When men live together and indulge in homosexual activity they are justifiably described as homosexuals regardless of their true orientation.

So the quest for sexual pleasure is wrong if it is harmful…

Harmful to whom? And by “wrong,” do you mean “immoral”? I can’t tell what I am being asked here.

Committing “harm,” generally speaking, is not a behavior to be pursued. But we all know that at times we MUST commit harms in order to do what is ethical. There are no easy answers here.

When is harmful homosexual activity necessary to do what is ethical?

What?
No one said it was. I don’t even understand why you are writing this.

What are you calling “harmful homosexual activity”? Harmful heterosexual activity is not likely to be ethical, either.

Then why did you state that at times we MUST commit harms in order to do what is ethical in the context of:
“So the quest for **sexual **pleasure is wrong if it is harmful.”? You seem to be contradicting yourself…

 

[Portrait]

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.

Dear Daedelus76,

Cordial greetings.

It is incontrovertible that in the normal course of nature, heterosexual coitius, is what is natural and normal for our race to perpetuate the species. Now it follows that to depart from this norm and engage in homosexual aberrant acts is clearly against the course of nature and hence, by definition, unnatural and wrong. For how can one honestly assert that it is right to depart from this norm and indulge in homosexual conduct, which will never issue in offspring, whatever the love quality of the liason. This would surely be considered wrong and unnatural by the vast majority of impartial people unless they were desperate to uphold some particular polemical opinion at all costs.

To believe the unnaturalness of homosexual deviant acts is sufficient per se to condemn them because they manifestly are a violation of the natural order of our race, apart from any religious consideration. Moreover, as with auto-eroticism and birth-prevention, homosexual conduct is both wrong and unnatural because it involves the wasting of the procreative substance that should be directed towards the creation of a new life.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[HauntedJame]

HauntedJames
*
And did you just compare pagans to Nazis? Because if I remember correctly, the Nazis were Christians…*

What perverse history book are you reading?

Hitler sent plenty of Christians to the furnaces along with the Jews. Hitler planned the persecution and destruction of Christianity … this is a well-known fact documented by the Allies when they investigated the Nazi files after the collapse of Berlin. I fear you are getting your history from atheist websites. Right?

Actually, no. I got my history from when I was in High School, in the books. We did a project on Nazi Germany, and we also covered Christianity, or the Nazi theory of positive Christianity. Also, if I recall correctly, the books also stated that it was very easy for the Nazis to get allies in occupied Norway because it was a Christian country (and it helped with the whole aryan thing). Don’t confuse Aryan mystists with the Christians. Now, I am not saying that ALL Nazis were Christians, but the Christians that were sent to the concentration camps weren’t sent there because of their religion, but because of something else, such as homosexuality, “unpure”, political objectors ect.

In one of the history books that I still have around somewhere, Hitler even said something like (and I am paraphrasing): “for justice to God and our ourselves, we have turned to the Germans”.

So I haven’t been reading any perverse history books, merely the history books supplied to me through my education or bought out of interest…though not much of the latter.

 

[colmcille1]

Thank you for your kind words. It’s refreshing to know there are reasonable people on this forum.

No problem, sir!
I have followed umpteen arguments from the non-Catholic camp and, short of banging my head against the proverbial wall, I have tried to REASON with their opinions, feelings, prejudices and whatever you’re having yourself!
But I soldier on and I wish you the very best with your debates here!
I remain your seeking friend,
Colmcille1.

 

[MichaelR]

The problem is…just because something is unnatural, it doesn’t automatically mean it is wrong.

It is ‘unnatural’ for people to eat ready prepared meals from supermarkets or tinned food, but it doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

It is ‘unnatural’ for humans to fly in planes, but it doesn’t make it wrong.

It is ‘unnatural’ for people to be able to communicate with other people in different countries via electronic devices, but it doesn’t make it wrong.

I could go on, but it would be boring LOL The point in the same.

People all over the world, Catholic, Christian, Jewish, Agnostic, all of us, do things everyday that are ‘unnatural’, and live in a manner that is ‘unnatural’ for humans. Yet, we don’t say it is wrong.

So to assert that something is wrong just because it is ‘unnatural’ is not only hypocritical of any human being who lives in the 21st century, but is also flawed as an idea.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

HauntedJame

*Actually, no. I got my history from when I was in High School, in the books. *

Did your history book tell you of a plot by Hitler to have Pius XII kidnapped?

At the war’s end, the Allies conducted war crimes trials at Nuremberg. General Donovan later preserved confidential reports of these trials which, after his death, were donated to the Rutgers University School of Law. The reports are now available for the public to read online. The first of the published reports, a 120 page document titled “The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian Churches,” was produced by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), a forerunner of the CIA. The 1945 report includes the following remarks: “Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked to meet this situation [church influence] by complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion. The best evidence now available as to the existence of an anti-Church plan is to be found in the systematic nature of the persecution itself.”

Did your high school text reveal anything of that sort?

Did it also reveal that Hitler was an admirer of Nietzsche, the most famous atheist who ever lived?

I don’t want to derail this thread, but it’s important to answer unfounded allegations (such as the notion that the Nazis were bona fide Christians - even though at time Hitler wanted it believed for public relations reasons that he was) with the facts of history.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Michael

*It is ‘unnatural’ for people to eat ready prepared meals from supermarkets or tinned food, but it doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

It is ‘unnatural’ for humans to fly in planes, but it doesn’t make it wrong.

It is ‘unnatural’ for people to be able to communicate with other people in different countries via electronic devices, but it doesn’t make it wrong.*

God gave man brains to use. One of their uses is for discovery and invention. Men discovered fire, and that it was good … for warmth and cooking food. They also discovered that it could be used for wrongful purposes … burning another man’s home.

The same is true of our sex organs. They can be useful for a good purpose, or for a bad purpose. The good purpose is mainly to reproduce our kind, a purpose for which they were obviously designed.

The same is true of an airplane. It is a product of the human brain invented for swift travel. But it can also be used to drop nuclear weapons. For one purpose it is good and therefore natural. For another purpose it is evil and unnatural and likely to produce harmful results.

The human penis was designed for the human vagina, not the human rectum … male or female. What more is there to say?

 

[Portrait]

As long as you keep Christ in your heart, you are safe…regardless of what is around you. However, homosexuality in-your-face is something that is needed. We’re not sick, we’re not insane and we won’t be treated like we are diseased. It is about time. If you don’t like what we do, don’t watch.

And did you just compare pagans to Nazis? Because if I remember correctly, the Nazis were Christians…

My dear friend,

Cordial greetings.

Our reproductive organs are manifestly designed for certain functions and by the light of reason alone we can perceive that male and female organs are made for different purposes. Moreover, by the light of reason alone we can also determine what these purposes are. Thus when any man uses their reproductive organs for purposes other than those for which they were specifically designed then clearly those uses, or abuses, are disordered and wrong by the natural law.

The increasing prevalence and normalizing of homosexual acts of depravity, which are commplacently regarded by the avante-garde as interesting variants, is a dreadful mark of God’s wrath upon our Western civilization which delights in its post-Christian character.

The honourable nature of the married state is grounded in the fiat of God, whilst the illegitamate desire for homosexual deviancy derives its proper name from the city of Sodom, which was obliterated on account of it (see Gen. 19: 5).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[MichaelR]

I refer to my previous post…even if you believe that homosexuality is unnatural, and not everyone does, unnatural does not automatically equal wrong.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Michael

*I refer to my previous post…even if you believe that homosexuality is unnatural, and not everyone does, unnatural does not automatically equal wrong. *

Do I detect a little ambivalence here? That while an unnatural act does not automatically equate with wrong, it might equate in given instances with wrong?

How would we know the difference?