L
larkin31
Guest
Why would that matter?
- Status
L
Leela
Guest
Many people are not attracted to people of the opposite sex. They can’t get what they need from a member of the opposite sex. That is the whole point. Isn’t it?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Leela
Many people are not attracted to people of the opposite sex.
Why not? What drives them away from the opposite sex to their own sex? Surely you have an idea.
Many people are not attracted to people of the opposite sex.
Why not? What drives them away from the opposite sex to their own sex? Surely you have an idea.
L
larkin31
Guest
Gays are, and have always been, a part of the fabric of humanity. Even heteros have varying degrees of attraction to each other, and some persons have no sexual attraction or activity to and with anyone else. ALL of these are consistent with human nature.
This is common knowledge.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
larkin
*Why would that matter? *
Just curious. Apparently the bisexual sees no substantive difference in the sex. But the homosexual apparently does. Why isn’t the homosexual attracted to women if he can get substantially the same sex from a woman that he can get from a man?
*Why would that matter? *
Just curious. Apparently the bisexual sees no substantive difference in the sex. But the homosexual apparently does. Why isn’t the homosexual attracted to women if he can get substantially the same sex from a woman that he can get from a man?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
larkin
Gays are, and have always been, a part of the fabric of humanity. Even heteros have varying degrees of attraction to each other, and some persons have no sexual attraction or activity to and with anyone else. ALL of these are consistent with human nature.
To say there have always been homosexuals proves nothing. There have also always been pedophiles. Is being a pedophile also consistent with human nature?
Gays are, and have always been, a part of the fabric of humanity. Even heteros have varying degrees of attraction to each other, and some persons have no sexual attraction or activity to and with anyone else. ALL of these are consistent with human nature.
To say there have always been homosexuals proves nothing. There have also always been pedophiles. Is being a pedophile also consistent with human nature?
L
larkin31
Guest
I don’t know.
Why would I prefer a woman over self-pleasure? I dunno. I just do. Others prefer masturbation over the flesh and presence of others. Some people have no sexual desires at all.
Human sexuality is, apparently, a very complicated and varied thing.Why does any of this matter in this discussion?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
larkin
*Why would I prefer a woman over self-pleasure? I dunno. I just do. *
Not much of an answer!
*Why would I prefer a woman over self-pleasure? I dunno. I just do. *
Not much of an answer!
M
MichaelR
Guest
Well…it is an answer actually.
Can you explain what it is about the opposite sex that pleasures you, and why your own gender does not pleasure you? Of course you can’t, it’s not tangible because it’s emotions and sensation. So a homosexual can’t say why it is they are attracted to their own gender and not the opposite. It just is.
It’s like trying to explain to someone what chocolate tastes like…you can try, but they’re not going to know unless they eat it and experience it. Or more aptly…it would be like me trying to explain to someone who thinks chocolate is delicious why I find it a horrible taste…you can’t explain it, it’s a sensation and can only be understood through experiencing it.
Can you explain what it is about the opposite sex that pleasures you, and why your own gender does not pleasure you? Of course you can’t, it’s not tangible because it’s emotions and sensation. So a homosexual can’t say why it is they are attracted to their own gender and not the opposite. It just is.
It’s like trying to explain to someone what chocolate tastes like…you can try, but they’re not going to know unless they eat it and experience it. Or more aptly…it would be like me trying to explain to someone who thinks chocolate is delicious why I find it a horrible taste…you can’t explain it, it’s a sensation and can only be understood through experiencing it.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Michael
*It’s like trying to explain to someone what chocolate tastes like…you can try, but they’re not going to know unless they eat it and experience it. *
I think you are dead wrong there. A man choosing a man for sex is not at all like choosing chocolate ice cream over vanilla.
You would never want to marry an ice cream cone, would you?
Now can we find a better metaphor … please?!
*It’s like trying to explain to someone what chocolate tastes like…you can try, but they’re not going to know unless they eat it and experience it. *
I think you are dead wrong there. A man choosing a man for sex is not at all like choosing chocolate ice cream over vanilla.
You would never want to marry an ice cream cone, would you?
Now can we find a better metaphor … please?!
T
tonyrey
Guest
In answer to the original question I propose that certain types of homosexual activity can be proved wrong from natural law if we interpret natural law as the obligation not to cause unnecessary harm to oneself or others. If in individual cases there is evidence that such activity causes or is likely to cause physical or psychological illness then it is undoubtedly wrong.
The effects of homosexual or heterosexual activity on society also have to be taken into account. It is wrong to give children the impression that everyone has the right to choose to indulge in any sexual activity regardless of its consequences.
The effects of homosexual or heterosexual activity on society also have to be taken into account. It is wrong to give children the impression that everyone has the right to choose to indulge in any sexual activity regardless of its consequences.
C
colmcille1
Guest
An observation about the non-believers on this thread: they have no RESPONSIBILITY to any creed or church so everything they express comes from the realm of feelings, random thoughts, reactions( of an hysterical nature when confronted with anything that vaguely smacks of authority) and anything else from the moral relativism sphere.
When faced with cogent, coherent arguments, they either bloody-mindedly ignore them or, sadly, are incapable of “joining the dots”, as it were, and seeing the reasoning behind those arguments.
One poor soul on this thread does not even know that human sexuality is a God-given gift.
When you are faced with that level of ignorance of rudimentary Catholicism, how can you possibly proceed onto the more nuanced discussions?
When faced with cogent, coherent arguments, they either bloody-mindedly ignore them or, sadly, are incapable of “joining the dots”, as it were, and seeing the reasoning behind those arguments.
One poor soul on this thread does not even know that human sexuality is a God-given gift.
When you are faced with that level of ignorance of rudimentary Catholicism, how can you possibly proceed onto the more nuanced discussions?
L
larkin31
Guest
Why won’t you answer why you are even asking this question?larkin
*Why would I prefer a woman over self-pleasure? I dunno. I just do. *
Not much of an answer!
L
larkin31
Guest
How is that an apt definition of “natural law”? It is a fine ethic (behavioral goal), sure. But “natural law”? You would have to explain how that is so.
And then you would have to explain how and in what terms you mean, for certain types of sex and intimacy and love, heterosexuality and homosexuality and a-sexuality might “harm” oneself or others–in other words, you need to be clear and consistent.
It is already fairly well a given that harm to self or others is a wrong, especially intentional harm. It is an ethic, but not a “natural law.”
L
larkin31
Guest
Dunno. You keep typing, though. Such is the challenge of a thread like this where you KNOW you are going to encounter non-Catholics and others of those who disagree with you on the topic.
C
colmcille1
Guest
Indeed, and the difference between believers and non-believers is that believers use their God-given gifts of reason and spirit to then seek eternal truths about the gift of human sexuality from the great time-honoured wisdom of their faith and build those truths into their joyful lives.
Meanwhile the non-believers just keep saying “dunno”…
T
tonyrey
Guest
A
Abu
Guest
This and all similar feelings show the abysmal state to which so-called “thinking” has descended in those who promote disorders as natural, or good. Also feeling that pleasure is the purpose of all activity then excuses everything which is directed first to that as a purpose.
The malady blinds the afflicted to accepting that it is normal for mankind to think and reason from cause to effect – that we are made to use our bodies to achieve the ends for which the Creator has made us. Procreation and unity in marriage which then produces pleasure from the action used correctly by the design of the Creator.
The natural law says that if you want things to prosper, you have to use them in accord with their nature. If you want to grow good tomatoes, you have to treat tomato plants in accord with their nature. You have to give them sunshine and water and fertilizer and a good soil. It is something that man can discover by the basis of his own reason. What assists this process is used by man such as artificial fertiliser, sprays or baits against insects. Thus we assist our eyes to perform their function of seeing by eye exercises or glasses or eye operations.
It’s not rocket science but some sure seem to be still in the “playing with toys” stage.
A
Abu
Guest
“….it is like another world, where different values, politics and aspirations operate. There, ideas of normal life, with its ordinary pleasures and trials, are shunned in favour of the cult of sex. There where there is no chance of sex fulfilling is natural purpose of propagating the human race, it becomes an end in itself.” [Ben Manser, *My Life Is My Own, London Sunday Telegraph. Quoted in Harvey, op. cit., p 154]. Such evidence of homo mania is characteristic of those actively pursuing the disorder.
“There is a whole way of thinking and feeling that occurs long before the inclination to genital acts with persons of the same sex arises in the heart…the disorder itself is rooted in unhealthy emotions.” [Fr John A Harvey, *The Truth About Homosexuality, Ignatius, 1996, p 154-5. Also Elizabeth Moberly’s Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic, and Gerald van Aardweg’s Homosexuality and Hope, for an analysis of such emotions].
Homosexual activity “lacks those very elements which could make it a natural sign of the union of persons. This is why the most that can be achieved in a homosexual act is mutual masturbation.” (Michael Palachuk, Why Is Homosexual Activity Morally Wrong? Referenced in The Truth About Homosexuality, Section: The Argument from Natural Law, Fr John A Harvey, Ignatius 1996, p 133-4).
E
edwest2
Guest
Thank you for posting this. Catholics need to simply keep posting well referenced examples like this.
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
- Status