Can someone point me to a rigorous proof as to why homosexuality is wrong?

[Holly3278]

For one thing, they go against natural moral law. For another, they are immune to the possibility of life.

 

[pathia]

So be it. It seems sensible to point out that the traditional, natural law argument against homosexual activity continues to withstand challenge. As always, all that the opposing side can offer proves insufficient to refute the fact that homosexual activity is disordered and, therefore, immoral.

Adieu.

– Mark L. Chance.

How I was born, and how the church and some of its members have treated me me as a result has taught me differently by sheer humiliation and made me feel quite unwelcome on all levels. This is the only interaction I have with the church anymore as a result.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Check out Christopher West’s Theology of the Body for Beginners. It primarily focuses on the purpose of sex in the context of marriage, but it applies to this question by extension.

Sex is designed to be a mutual giving of self between the partners. That mutual giving is the physical consummation of the vow of marriage, and its fruit is the cooperation with God in the creation of new life. It mirrors the love of the Trinity: the mutual self giving of one spouse to another generates a third person who is both a distinct person and a concrete image of their love for one another, as well as the object of their unified love.

These characteristics cannot be present in homosexual activity. It, like heterosexual fornication, is a search for that unity where none exists; it is inherently selfish, because there is no mutual giving of self. Merely thinking that a gay or non-married straight couple can give themselves completely to one another does not make it so. Instead, it involves taking, which is the antithesis of Christian love.

The homosexual union also lacks the openness to life – that is, it has an inherent complete inability to participate with God in creating life, and to physically manifest the love that ought to exist between the two.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Ender]

If the question is about practical reasons why being homosexual is bad then one can easily find statistics pointing this out, from greatly increased levels of STDs to high rates of psychological disorders including suicide, drug abuse and depression. As a practical matter the homosexual lifestyle, especially among men, is unhealthy.

If we’re looking at this as a moral question then I would have to ask what type of proof would be considered rigorous enough to resolve any moral question. “Rigorous proof” generally pertains to scientific theories which are inapplicable to moral questions.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Since your friend admits to being confused about the issue you might point out to him the physical dangers of homosexual behavior. It’s not as if AIDS (and a long list of other pathologies) no longer exists. See if you can convince him to at least avoid such activities until he resolves his confusion or it might be too late to avoid irreparable harm.

Ender

 

[goofyjim]

It is the behavior that is wrong. Just being homosexual is not wrong.

 

[Newbie2]

And that’s a very good point that homosexual activists intentionally obfiscate. When Catholics/Christians take a stand against homosexual behavior, it’s labeled as an ad hominem attack.

Granted, the Church’s position against homosexuality isn’t well articulated by some, but certainly the pro-homosexual agenda makes doing so more difficult.

For example, are all those with SSA homosexual? All homosexuals have SSA, right? How is homosexuality defined? Is someone who has homosexual erotic dreams homosexual? Is the confused teenager, perhaps with a questionable SSA homosexual?

Not to split hairs, but this is a complicated moral matter.

 

[Newbie2]

Good advice. If by what you say, you can get him to just hold off and think for a while…

I agree that showing your concern for his welfare (who wants to see a friend die from AIDS?) might be more beneficial than trying to convince him, at least for now, about the teachings of the Church.

Kudos for your efforts to save your friend! It sounds like this is the time that he really needs a friend’s help.

 

[mlchance]

Not to split hairs, but this is a complicated moral matter.

Not really. If you’re not married, don’t have sex. If you’re a man, you can marry a woman. If you’re a woman, you can marry a man. Three rather simple rules that apply to everyone equally.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[buffalo]

Defeating Gay Arguments with Simple Logic

 

[DebChris]

Not really. If you’re not married, don’t have sex. If you’re a man, you can marry a woman. If you’re a woman, you can marry a man. Three rather simple rules that apply to everyone equally.

– Mark L. Chance.

Marriage is not a prerequisite for salvation anymore than sexual activity is a need for individual survival.
There is a major difference between inclination and action. I may be tempted to act in a certain way, but that act does not make me who I am. The problem I see with the homosexual agenda is the defining of a person by his/her sexuality. There is much more to who I am as a human than the person(s) to whom I am attracted. The chastity to which God calls us is a radical counter-cultural position that states I am much more than my hormones/phermones say I am. When I sin against the flesh, I sin against who I am called to be as a child of God. I deprive myself of my full dignity as a human.

 

[pathia]

Not really. If you’re not married, don’t have sex. If you’re a man, you can marry a woman. If you’re a woman, you can marry a man. Three rather simple rules that apply to everyone equally.

– Mark L. Chance.

Not simple for me, but that is my own personal cross and conundrum

 

[Newbie2]

Not really. If you’re not married, don’t have sex. If you’re a man, you can marry a woman. If you’re a woman, you can marry a man. Three rather simple rules that apply to everyone equally.

– Mark L. Chance.

True. I maybe should have written that it’s a simple moral matter that gets complicated in it’s social discussion.

 

[goofyjim]

Repeat…repeat

Homosexual acts are wrong. Homosexuality per se is not.

 

[mlchance]

Marriage is not a prerequisite for salvation anymore than sexual activity is a need for individual survival.

Did anyone say otherwise?

Homosexual acts are wrong. Homosexuality per se is not.

If you just added that to your sig, you could perhaps talk about something else and still manage to say the same thing over and over again all at the same time.

True. I maybe should have written that it’s a simple moral matter that gets complicated in it’s social discussion.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[goofyjim]

Did anyone say otherwise?

If you just added that to your sig, you could perhaps talk about something else and still manage to say the same thing over and over again all at the same time.



– Mark L. Chance.

Do you dispute my opinion?

 

[blessedtoo]

Do you dispute my opinion?

Jim, we’re not discussing opinions.

And no one ever disagrees on the issue of the sinfulness of behavior vs. inclination.

I think Mark’s idea is brilliant. Add it to your signature and give us all a break.

 

[goofyjim]

Jim, we’re not discussing opinions.

And no one ever disagrees on the issue of the sinfulness of behavior vs. inclination.

I think Mark’s idea is brilliant. Add it to your signature and give us all a break.

On the contrary. The OP is asking for answers. I continue to give mine. If I amn not welcome as a full member in these discussions then have me booted out please.

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

I’ll be in charge of the “booting”, thank you.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary

 

[Newbie2]

On the contrary. The OP is asking for answers. I continue to give mine. If I amn not welcome as a full member in these discussions then have me booted out please.

I think what’s being asked is that you not just repeat esentially the same thing. “Message received”, that sort of thing.