Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[Leela]

Hi all,

Can someone point me toward documentation on the Catholic official position regarding oral and anal sex? My understanding is that as long as the male ejaculates in the woman’s vagina, anything goes including anal and oral penetration.

Best,
Leela

 

[larkin31]

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.

Tomatoes have been totally messed with by humans. You don’t eat a “natural” that has not had human interference with its development over decades.

“Use them in accord with their nature” is a vague, virtually meaningless statement.

 

[larkin31]

There have been various interpretations of what natural law is. The classical one refers to the use of reason to analyse human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behaviour. How do you define it?

I say that it is only a concept, and it does not exist in nature or in humanity. You have to establish that there is even such a thing (objectively) to get anywhere with me.

BTW You failed to explain why you stated 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?”

I DID reply: harsh but just punishments. But this is hardly relevant to the discussion.

 

[Abu]

Leela
Can someone point me toward documentation on the Catholic official position regarding oral and anal sex? My understanding is that as long as the male ejaculates in the woman’s vagina, anything goes including anal and oral penetration.

The acknowledgment of the natural moral law and of the ends of the marital act preclude anal sex, apart from the question of diseases.

You may find this answer helpful.
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on April-04-2007 (EWTN):
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=497763&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=oral+sex&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=22&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

 

[Abu]

larkin31
Tomatoes have been totally messed with by humans. You don’t eat a “natural” that has not had human interference with its development over decades. “Use them in accord with their nature” is a vague, virtually meaningless statement.

This well illustrates the abysmal state to which so-called “thinking” has descended in those who promote disorders as natural, or good, for the posted facts clearly explained, with the normal in mind, that 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.

There never has been any sensible argument against the natural moral law – merely obfuscation. It’s very interesting that the Roman philosopher Cicero (died 43 B.C.) wrote in De Republica, 3.22:
“True law is right reason in agreement with nature. It is of universal application, unchanging, everlasting. We cannot be freed from it by Senate or people. This law is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens, but is eternal and immutable, valid for all nations and for all times. God is the Author of it, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient to it is abandoning his true self and denying his own nature.”

Any wrong action is against the natural moral law: stealing is; framing someone is; oppressing people is. The institution of property has the law of nature as its corollary — a law of morality which forbids stealing. The general principle being that good is to be pursued and evil avoided. Our consciences reflect the natural law.

Psychologist Dr Maria Valdes describes homosexuality as “arrested psychosexual development” and that when someone with this “condition attains heterosexuality, homosexuality has not been reversed; rather, the psychosexual development has been completed.” The problem is often due to severely disordered family relationships, and the person remaining at the arrested stage is accepted by those of the same gender, but is not yet interested in the opposite gender. [Appendix to Fr Harvey’s 1996 book *The Truth About Homosexuality].

Two extensive studies appearing in the Oct 1999 issue of the American Medical Association’s Archives of General Psychiatry confirmed a strong link between homosexual sex and suicide as well as a relationship between homosexuality and abnormal mental problems. [EWTN News Brief NEW YORK, Oct 19].

 

[colmcille1]

Abu,
Your posts on this thread are excellent. Like you, I felt compelled to draw attention to the sorry state of “debate” proffered by the “DUNNOS” (my term for the non-believers here).
If and when the debate can return to a decent standard, I look forward to your excellent posts.
I remain your seeking friend,
Colmcille1.

 

[larkin31]

This well illustrates the abysmal state to which so-called “thinking” has descended in those who promote disorders as natural, or good, for the posted facts clearly explained, with the normal in mind, that 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.

Soil is unnecessary.

There never has been any sensible argument against the natural moral law – merely obfuscation.

“Natural moral law”? There is no such thing. All you keep doing is naming it (assuming it). That is no argument FOR its existence.

I know that Catholic teaching asserts its existence. But this is all predicated on the existence of God. ANd that assertion is a statement of faith, not reason. And without reason, I (and others) are not likely to grant the existence of a universal and everlasting natural moral law.

The link between homosexuality and suicide is well known. I am a teacher, and we teachers struggle to work with depressed and despairing teens, some of whom are gay and feel excoriated and condemned by society, told they are “disordered” and “unnatural” and “deviant.” Even some world-wide religious organizations tell them this, and they see it on the news and hear it at schools. For some, it is tough to keep pushing forward against the cultural stream that smears them with toxic mud.

 

[colmcille1]

The acknowledgment of the natural moral law and of the ends of the marital act preclude anal sex, apart from the question of disease

Abu,
Have you noticed how the DUNNOS still refuse to accept that ALL true Catholics live by the essential truth of ‘Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin’?
This teaching of a loving Christ is either ignored by them on the basis that it either doesen’t fit in with their subjective experiences or it is beyond their rational grasp.
Either way, it does not deflect me, or indeed any true thinking Catholic, from loving ALL of humanity but hating and fighting against sin.

 

[larkin31]

Abu,
Have you noticed how the DUNNOS still refuse to accept that ALL true Catholics live by the essential truth of ‘Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin’?
This teaching of a loving Christ is either ignored by them on the basis that it either doesen’t fit in with their subjective experiences or it is beyond their rational grasp.
Either way, it does not deflect me, or indeed any true thinking Catholic, from loving ALL of humanity but hating and fighting against sin.

Are you claiming that gay people misread the Catholic claim that homosexuality is a “grave disorder”? That it is a “sin against God”? Are you claiming that when gays feel that religious and moral culture condemns their orientation (their strongest forms of romantic attraction and physical interest) that they are wrong? That they are misreading the overwhelming signals of moral and religious history? That when their parents and friends alienate them they just can’t see the “love”?

 

[Leela]

You may find this answer helpful.
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on April-04-2007 (EWTN):
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=497763&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=oral+sex&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=22&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

The acknowledgment of the natural moral law and of the ends of the marital act preclude anal sex, apart from the question of diseases.

The answer you linked me to discusses oral sex specifically as “a legitimate part of the love-making.” Anal sex is not specifically addressed, but contrary to your assertion that it is forbidden, the cited article says “There are no hard and fast rules for avoiding the immoderate pursuit of sexual pleasure.”

 

[HauntedJame]

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”…

Believers don’t have a time-honored wisdom. Wisdom is the sum of people’s experiences and knowledge, and you can’t get it all through faith. If you could, what point would people have in developing?

And calling Non-believers “dunnos” is just silly, because they have a good grasp of common sense and many are well read. Others aren’t, but no one is person. But from my experience non-believers see things more objectively. It is the whole “and no harm be done” idea, and there is no reason why logic can’t be applied to it all [homosexuality]. I understand that it is a sin for you guys, but the way I see it God can’t have created something to then condemn it. And before everyone goes “it is the same as pedos”, it isn’t. True homosexuality establishes itself earlier on, is clearly something that comes from birth and never goes away. It is part of an identity and as long as it is between consenting adults, there is nothing legally or morally wrong with it. Neither is it unnatural, because some animals have homosexual behaviour and what is more uncorrupted and natural than animals?

 

[colmcille1]

Believers don’t have a time-honored wisdom. Wisdom is the sum of people’s experiences and knowledge, and you can’t get it all through faith. If you could, what point would people have in developing?

And calling Non-believers “dunnos” is just silly, because they have a good grasp of common sense and many are well read. Others aren’t, but no one is person. But from my experience non-believers see things more objectively. It is the whole “and no harm be done” idea, and there is no reason why logic can’t be applied to it all [homosexuality]. I understand that it is a sin for you guys, but the way I see it God can’t have created something to then condemn it. And before everyone goes “it is the same as pedos”, it isn’t. True homosexuality establishes itself earlier on, is clearly something that comes from birth and never goes away. It is part of an identity and as long as it is between consenting adults, there is nothing legally or morally wrong with it. Neither is it unnatural, because some animals have homosexual behaviour and what is more uncorrupted and natural than animals?

Faith is replete with wisdom. Can I ask you please to research the beginnings of Christianity. The books, both general and specific, are too numerous to mention one or two in particular.
I call non-believers “DUNNOS” because, as I do not indulge in petty name-calling(as others on this site do), I decided that “DUNNO” was the kindest epithet. (BTW, the name comes from a member on this thread who is particularly fond of using that word…and of lashing out far more severe names).
There is NO objectivity from the dunno camp.
It is a sin for everyone involved in the sin. The dunnos simply refuse to acknowledge that they subscribe to this sin.
God did not create homosexuality.
What in the name of goodness do you mean by “true homosexuality”? Are you actually trying to say there is a chart somewhere and you pick your spot as it approximates to you…or to how you feel that morning…or what type of shoes you’re wearing???
The animal kingdom argument was blown out of the water on this thread ages ago!
Do you read them fully?

 

[Leela]

Faith is replete with wisdom. Can I ask you please to research the beginnings of Christianity. The books, both general and specific, are too numerous to mention one or two in particular.
I call non-believers “DUNNOS” because, as I do not indulge in petty name-calling(as others on this site do), I decided that “DUNNO” was the kindest epithet. (BTW, the name comes from a member on this thread who is particularly fond of using that word…and of lashing out far more severe names).

I’m glad you opted not to use the other epithets you apparently have in mind for nonbelievers, but I’d appreciate it if you would avoid name-calling all together. WWJD?

Thanks,
Leela

 

[HauntedJame]

Faith is replete with wisdom. Can I ask you please to research the beginnings of Christianity. The books, both general and specific, are too numerous to mention one or two in particular.
I call non-believers “DUNNOS” because, as I do not indulge in petty name-calling(as others on this site do), I decided that “DUNNO” was the kindest epithet. (BTW, the name comes from a member on this thread who is particularly fond of using that word…and of lashing out far more severe names).
There is NO objectivity from the dunno camp.
It is a sin for everyone involved in the sin. The dunnos simply refuse to acknowledge that they subscribe to this sin.
God did not create homosexuality.
What in the name of goodness do you mean by “true homosexuality”? Are you actually trying to say there is a chart somewhere and you pick your spot as it approximates to you…or to how you feel that morning…or what type of shoes you’re wearing???
The animal kingdom argument was blown out of the water on this thread ages ago!
Do you read them fully?

You can’t gain wisdom from books. Any book. Because wisdom is something that comes to people through experience. I never said that books, religious or not, did not have wisdom in them. But you can’t truly learn wisdom from books, it is something that you have to experience and feel, as well as understand. And I know the history of Christianity. I did go to school, you know. And college.

And are you saying that all non-believers are the same? That they should all be cast under this name you have made for them, in replacement of names that would be against regulations to post here? We do know what you mean by posting them; calling a spade by another name still makes it a spade. Or in this case…well…we can guess what you’d call someone who did not believe what you do.

I believe God created homosexuality. Why wouldn’t He? He created everything else. He created man in His own image…including the gays.

And by “true homosexuality” I mean the emotions that go with it. There’s some people who act gay but aren’t, or who experiment because it is cool but were never gay. And there are those who are born gay and…well, it lasts forever.

And the animal kingdom argument wasn’t blown out of anything. Because this thread is about the natural law, it is only natural to include the animals. And I do read the posts…half the time with a groan of pure disbelief, which I am sure you do as well when you read.

 

[tonyrey]

There have been various interpretations of what natural law is. The classical one refers to the use of reason to analyse human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behaviour. How do you define it?

Then on what do you base morality and human rights?

You failed to explain why you stated 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?”

I DID reply: harsh but just punishments.

What is the number of your post?

But this is hardly relevant to the discussion.

You agreed that harmful actions are wrong unless “we MUST commit” them in order to do what is ethical. Can you give examples of harmful homosexual actions which must be committed to be ethical?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Abu

*Two extensive studies appearing in the Oct 1999 issue of the American Medical Association’s Archives of General Psychiatry confirmed a strong link between homosexual sex and suicide as well as a relationship between homosexuality and abnormal mental problems. [EWTN News Brief NEW YORK, Oct 19]. *

Good post.

I don’t have any statistics handy for this, but I believe the percent of homosexuals who are atheists is much higher than the percent of heteros. The common sense factor here is that with no God or Christian tradition to interfere, it is much easier to persuade oneself that homosexuality is no less natural than heterosexuality.

I still can’t get a straight answer from any of posters as to why, if you can get all the sex from a woman that you can get from a man, why would a man prefer to get it from another man? It would seem that the only substantive difference sexually would be that each man could perform oral sex on the other man (same for women). Is that the critical difference, that one needs to give oral sex for the penis as well as receive it?

But I really don’t think the sexual part is the major difference. I think it is that homosexual men are afraid of women, and homosexual women are afraid of men (except in each case for those who are bi-sexual). The pathology then concerns why there is this fear (or disgust) of having sex with the opposite sex.

If there is no fear or disgust, why not be drawn to sex with the opposite sex?

Comments?

 

[Leela]

Abu

*Two extensive studies appearing in the Oct 1999 issue of the American Medical Association’s Archives of General Psychiatry confirmed a strong link between homosexual sex and suicide as well as a relationship between homosexuality and abnormal mental problems. [EWTN News Brief NEW YORK, Oct 19]. *

Good post.

I don’t have any statistics handy for this, but I believe the percent of homosexuals who are atheists is much higher than the percent of heteros. The common sense factor here is that with no God or Christian tradition to interfere, it is much easier to persuade oneself that homosexuality is no less natural than heterosexuality.

I still can’t get a straight answer from any of posters as to why, if you can get all the sex from a woman that you can get from a man, why would a man prefer to get it from another man? It would seem that the only substantive difference sexually would be that each man could perform oral sex on the other man (same for women). Is that the critical difference, that one needs to give oral sex for the penis as well as receive it?

But I really don’t think the sexual part is the major difference. I think it is that homosexual men are afraid of women, and homosexual women are afraid of men (except in each case for those who are bi-sexual). The pathology then concerns why there is this fear (or disgust) of having sex with the opposite sex.

If there is no fear or disgust, why not be drawn to sex with the opposite sex?

Comments?

If you prefer chocolate to vanilla, do you see any way that one could will her self to prefer vanilla over chocolate?

Do you get this [confused] when someone likes a TV show that you don’t like?

 

[HauntedJame]

Abu

*Two extensive studies appearing in the Oct 1999 issue of the American Medical Association’s Archives of General Psychiatry confirmed a strong link between homosexual sex and suicide as well as a relationship between homosexuality and abnormal mental problems. [EWTN News Brief NEW YORK, Oct 19]. *

Good post.

I don’t have any statistics handy for this, but I believe the percent of homosexuals who are atheists is much higher than the percent of heteros. The common sense factor here is that with no God or Christian tradition to interfere, it is much easier to persuade oneself that homosexuality is no less natural than heterosexuality.

I still can’t get a straight answer from any of posters as to why, if you can get all the sex from a woman that you can get from a man, why would a man prefer to get it from another man? It would seem that the only substantive difference sexually would be that each man could perform oral sex on the other man (same for women). Is that the critical difference, that one needs to give oral sex for the penis as well as receive it?

But I really don’t think the sexual part is the major difference. I think it is that homosexual men are afraid of women, and homosexual women are afraid of men (except in each case for those who are bi-sexual). The pathology then concerns why there is this fear (or disgust) of having sex with the opposite sex.

If there is no fear or disgust, why not be drawn to sex with the opposite sex?

Comments?

Oh! Let’s comment!

If you can get all the sex from a woman than you can get from a man, there is only one major difference: it’s a woman! Not a man. Being homosexual basically means you can only function sexually with another man. It’s all about the bloodflow, and if you can’t become aroused you can’t perform. Women don’t arouse me. So I wouldn’t sleep with one because I wouldn’t be able to go through with it.

Now, I do not fear women, but I do not find them sexually or romantically attractive. I don’t get all hot and bothered over Jennifer Lopez or any woman, whilst someone like George Clooney can make me weak at the knees. A heterosexual man could never sleep with another man and enjoy it…same goes for homosexual men with women.

 

[colmcille1]

I’m glad you opted not to use the other epithets you apparently have in mind for nonbelievers, but I’d appreciate it if you would avoid name-calling all together. WWJD?

Thanks,
Leela

I appreciate where you are coming from just as honestly as I can dismiss your presumption that I have other names in mind. Be that as it may, I seem to have hit a nerve here. Are dunnos (oh, sorry, eh…non-believers) extra-ensitive to innocuous titles? And at the risk of sounding pedantic, would it be too much to ask that you put the same request to your fellow-dun…eh, non-believer? If you’ve been reading closely, you’ll know to whom I refer.
Thank you for your post.
Now, can we please move on??

 

[HauntedJame]

I appreciate where you are coming from just as honestly as I can dismiss your presumption that I have other names in mind. Be that as it may, I seem to have hit a nerve here. Are dunnos (oh, sorry, eh…non-believers) extra-ensitive to innocuous titles? And at the risk of sounding pedantic, would it be too much to ask that you put the same request to your fellow-dun…eh, non-believer? If you’ve been reading closely, you’ll know to whom I refer.
Thank you for your post.
Now, can we please move on??

We’ll move on in a moment, may I just take this quote from you:

“I call non-believers “DUNNOS” because, as I do not indulge in petty name-calling(as others on this site do), I decided that “DUNNO” was the kindest epithet”

By saying it was the kindest epithet, it implies that you had others, less kind ones in mind, which would lead us to believe you had other names in mind. If we misunderstood, fair enough, but that was how we read it.

And I am sure they’re not any more sensitive than you are