Confusion About Homosexuality

[sev]

Hello everyone. I tried to find a place where I could jus (a) vent it and (b) get some answers. I have some questions regarding the Catholic Church and homosexuality.

Personally, I have no problem with it. But I know for a fact that other people do. So I wonder - why do people consider being gay wrong? Mulling this over, the only logical explanation really is that it is spirtually wrong - right? I mean, as far as I know there aren’t really any other rebuttles. (Please tell me if there are!)

Well, I get the picture that being gay or lesbian or whatnot is considered ‘wrong’ in modern society because it clashes with the beliefs of God and religious values. People are standing up for their religious beliefs…ands thats cool and all.

But when people say ‘Freedom of Religion’, I presume that includes Freedom from Religion. Many people would object to Shia law because they find that it is brutal, unfair, and it too conflicts with what they, if not personally, believe in.

So, if the only argument is religious values, the same rights that give people the freedom to object to Shia law, not own slaves and operate this very website are the very same rights that let people not force religious values on other people. Otherwise why would we have problems of ethic clensing? Allowing people not to worship whatever they choose also allows people the freedom from religious values. Otherwise we’d be a bit of a theocracy, wouldn’t we?

I’m just asking. I might be wrong. I’ll probably be banned. But give it a good thought. If we are free to not allow anybody to tell us what our values should be, why should governments and mobs be allowed to tell people what their values should be?

Give it a Thought,
Sev

 

[Veritas41]

It’s not just a “religious” issue. Just look at human anatomy–male bodies are not created to complement male bodies. Male and female are complementary. There have been numerous psychological studies showing that homosexual relationships are inherently unstable, and studies showing the homosexual lifestyle is very unhealthy. You don’t have to be a Christian or religious to realize that homosexuality is not normal and is not healthy.

 

[sev]

We have also proven that 7.62mm bullets to not interact well with the human body, and yet we still manage to produce millions of those per year? Cigarrettes don’t work that well with the respiratory system, yet who’s making billions of the health problem?

If people want to take a health risk, such as smoking, drug abuse, alcoholism or carrying a loaded firearm, we have plenty of ways for that to happen. If we stopped people from having sex to prevent HIV, or outlawed cigarretes to prevent cancer, it would be different. But why have people focused on such a minute health issue when 10,000 people die per year in America from guns alone?

 

[LilyM]

sev:

We have also proven that 7.62mm bullets to not interact well with the human body, and yet we still manage to produce millions of those per year? Cigarrettes don’t work that well with the respiratory system, yet who’s making billions of the health problem?

If people want to take a health risk, such as smoking, drug abuse, alcoholism or carrying a loaded firearm, we have plenty of ways for that to happen. If we stopped people from having sex to prevent HIV, or outlawed cigarretes to prevent cancer, it would be different. But why have people focused on such a minute health issue when 10,000 people die per year in America from guns alone?

The difference being that guns are used for many things apart from murder (sport, hunting, etc). Cigarettes of course are much iffier - personally I would prefer to see them banned, but then I’m a non-smoker. But think of all the money that has been paid out in legal settlements and court costs by the tobacco companies - it’s got to be hurting them at least somewhat.

 

[m134e5]

sev:

why have people focused on such a minute health issue when 10,000 people die per year in America from guns alone?

It is not a minute issue for the health of souls. Just because we may think there are bigger problems out there doesn’t mean that we should let everything else go.

 

[gilliam]

Sev,

The Church teaches what She has taught for 2,000 years and what the Jewish tradition taught before Christ came, and what is inherent in Natural Law (that is to say the law God has placed inside each human being, Catholic or not… many call it a conscious): that the sexual act is reserved to married people for the sake of raising a family. The sexual act, therefore, is a sacred act given by God to mankind so the the human race will continue. Acts of adultery, fornication, bestiality, pornography, masturbation and homosexual sexual behavior all deviate from the purpose of sexuality as designed by God.

The Church’s teaching on homosexuality can be found in the Catholic Catechism, here. Also note that the Church teaches:

Homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”… Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”. They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity. The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered” and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.

Ref: vatican.va/roman_curia/c…-unions_en.html

 

[Tietjen]

sev:

Hello everyone. I tried to find a place where I could jus (a) vent it and (b) get some answers. I have some questions regarding the Catholic Church and homosexuality.

Personally, I have no problem with it. But I know for a fact that other people do. So I wonder - why do people consider being gay wrong? Mulling this over, the only logical explanation really is that it is spirtually wrong - right? I mean, as far as I know there aren’t really any other rebuttles. (Please tell me if there are!)

Hello Sev and welcome to the forms. The reason why homosexuality (the act as opposed to the person(s) committing the act) is not accepted in the Catholic Church is that it goes against what God intended. Catholics, who believe in God and His laws, are opposed to ALL things which He has declared sinful (homosexuality included).

sev:

Well, I get the picture that being gay or lesbian or whatnot is considered ‘wrong’ in modern society because it clashes with the beliefs of God and religious values. People are standing up for their religious beliefs…ands thats cool and all.

In “modern society,” homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted. Imagine what it was like for a person who practiced homosexuality say 100 years ago. The evidence is pretty clear. There were no “PRIDE Parades,” no “coming out parties,” and for the most part no discussion as to whether or not it was acceptable; it simply wasn’t. If society’s view on this subject does not change, I foresee a time in the near future where homosexuality will be as much “the norm” as heterosexuality.

sev:

But when people say ‘Freedom of Religion’, I presume that includes Freedom from Religion. Many people would object to Shia law because they find that it is brutal, unfair, and it too conflicts with what they, if not personally, believe in.

I disagree with you here. “Freedom of Religion” does not mean “Freedom from Religion.” To prove my point, try going through a day consistently replacing the word “of” with the word “from” and see if those you are speaking with understand what it is you’re attempting to convey.

sev:

So, if the only argument is religious values, the same rights that give people the freedom to object to Shia law, not own slaves and operate this very website are the very same rights that let people not force religious values on other people. Otherwise why would we have problems of ethic clensing? Allowing people not to worship whatever they choose also allows people the freedom from religious values. Otherwise we’d be a bit of a theocracy, wouldn’t we?

I apologize, I don’t think I understand what it is you are attempting to convey here. Are you speaking of civil law (society) or God’s law (morality)? Civil law protects the Shia as well as the homosexual (in the United States). No one is “forcing” the homosexual to change. Of course, we as Catholics would like the person to come to that conclusion and change on his/her own; however, we don’t practice “ethic (or ethnic) cleansing” if they choose not to. I, as a Catholic, would not support a theocracy here on earth because God gave each human being “free choice.” I believe the United States and many other countries throughout the world recognize and respect this. Because our country is based on a Judeo-Christian belief system, we in the U.S. are free to make choices in our lives, just as God intended.

sev:

I’m just asking. I might be wrong. I’ll probably be banned. But give it a good thought.

You won’t be banned Sev. This forum exists for just this purpose. We are NOT a theocracy here any more than the United States is a theocracy in the world.

{{{ CONTINUED BELOW }}}

 

[Tietjen]

{{{ CONTINUED FROM ABOVE }}}

sev:

If we are free to not allow anybody to tell us what our values should be, why should governments and mobs be allowed to tell people what their values should be?

Here is one area where I think you and I aren’t understanding one another. Who says that you are free never to hear an opposing point of view? How would that even be a possibility if you’re a part of society? It’s NOT a right never to hear something that goes against your core beliefs. If that were the case, Catholics too would be claiming victimization on a daily basis. The U.S. government isn’t trying to instill “values” on its society; at least not in the sense that you are implying. It does not say, “You will be arrested for believing homosexuality is okay.” In fact, it’s just the opposite. More and more the U.S. Government is protecting the rights of practicing homosexuals. Private corporations are constantly moving toward equal benefits for homosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals who marry. Society, by enlarge, is accepting homosexuality and calling it “normal.” Now, is your argument that because the Catholic Church won’t move in this direction, you feel homosexuals are being wronged? What then of the Catholic Church’s right not to accept homosexuality? Should the Church be persecuted because it chooses not to accept homosexuality? Just as you may not wish to see societies and governments trample the “rights” of practicing homosexuals to believe as they do, I believe that societies and governments should not try to dictate to the Church how It should believe. Therefore, a compromise must be reached. If a practicing homosexual wishes to become part of the Church, he/she needs to abstain from the practice of homosexuality. If he/she chooses not to, then he/she is FREE to abstain from being Catholic. Neither the Church, society, nor the government will ever force him/her.

Now let me say one more thing that is somewhat outside the realm of “rights” and “freedoms.” If you, as a member of society, living in a community (neighborhood) were to see that, the house across the street is on fire and no rescuers were present. Would you, knowing that a family lives in that house and may still be inside, ignore the fact that they may die if you fail to act? How much more important is it to the Catholic who sees another human being caught up in a sin that he/she recognizes as being “soul threatening” (as opposed to “life threatening”). Just as in the case of a fire, it is the moral thing to attempt to help those individuals; it is likewise the moral thing to do in the case of the homosexual. If the help is rejected, then I suppose it is a sad loss, but the Church and Her people are still obligated to try. God bless.

 

[lcalise]

sev:

If we are free to not allow anybody to tell us what our values should be, why should governments and mobs be allowed to tell people what their values should be?

Are you refering to something like sodomy laws or homosexual marriage? I just don’t want to waste time responding to something like that if it’s not what you’re talking about

 

[tom.wineman]

sev:

Hello everyone. I tried to find a place where I could jus (a) vent it and (b) get some answers. I have some questions regarding the Catholic Church and homosexuality. -----------

If we are free to not allow anybody to tell us what our values should be, why should governments and mobs be allowed to tell people what their values should be?

Sev

Seems to me that many homosexual groups in this area are trying to tell folks that they can only think their way and if folks descent then they are screamed at and called bigots and many other vicious names.

---

By the way have you noticed how the homosexual threads has increased ten fold this week. What an amazing coincidence.

 

[RyanL]

Hi, sev, and WELCOME!!! Stay as long as you like - there’s no chance you’ll get banned as long as you follow the forum rules, which pretty much say “don’t be a jerk and don’t belittle our beliefs”. As long as you stick within those boundaries, you’ll post for as long as you desire.

Now, I posted the following on another thread, but I think it’s also appropriate here:

RyanL:

I think part of the problem here is that we, as a society, receive next to no training in how to properly evaluate moral decisions / acts. That seems to be the case with several posters on this thread. Therefore…

Quick lesson:

In order for an act to be “morally good”, all three of the following things must be present:

1. The act itself - this is an **objective **determination based on an “absolute” evaluation of the act as an end unto itself
2. The intent - this is a **subjective **determination of the desires of those engaging in the act
3. The circumstances - this is a **relative **determination that may vary based on time / location / society

The error of modernity is to deny that (1) is even part of the moral question, and to absolutize (2) (subjectivism) or (3) (relativism). This is a very flawed line of thinking that can be more fully explained on another thread - this quick statement, however, suffices to permit continued discourse on a common ground.

Application #1:
Since we’re talking about sex, let’s use sex as an example. It is a morally good act to have sexual relations with your spouse, objectively speaking. It propogates the species, unites the couple emotionally / spiritually, and serves an objectively good end in and of itself. However, if you have sexual relations with your spouse and your intent is wrong (i.e., spousal rape or imagining you’re having sex with someone else, etc.), the act becomes immoral. Likewise, if you have sexual relations with your wife and your intent is rightly-ordered, but you do so in the wrong circumstance (i.e., in public, when it’s medically dangerous for her, etc.) the act again becomes immoral. The act is objectively good, but can become bad through the subjective or relative elements.

Application #2:
Now, if a person is sufficiently confused, they can be “in love with” their dog. It can (and does) happen (I can find mental health journal citations, if required). Because of this, the intent element is fulfilled - it is subjectively good. This person then wants to have sex with their dog in the privacy of their own home - it is therefore good in a relative way (because of the right relative circumstances). Is this then a morally “good” act? Nope. The act itself, objectively speaking, is immoral. It is not a good in and of itself, and therefore this act can never be considered moral.

Please don’t mistake what I’m saying - I’m not saying that homosexuals have sex with dogs or anything of the sort. What I am saying is that certain acts, no matter how good the intent or how appropriate the circumstances, can never be moral.

Examples of objectively wrong acts:
-Deliberately killing innocent human persons (see: abortion)
-Sloth, Greed, Pride, Envy, Gluttony, Wrath and Lust
-Intentionally inflicting pain on innocent human persons
-Cowardice, Adultry

These acts can never be considered “morally good” (i.e., a good in and of themselves) - they can only be justified as a “lesser evil”. Don’t believe me? Try and justify it as an end in and of itself.

Would it then be “forcing our religion” on people to tell them that an act is objectively wrong, or for us to prohibit/condemn an objectively wrong act? I don’t believe so, as the right/wrong question in the present discussion isn’t a “religious” question at all - it’s a question about human nature, which is an argument that should appeal to secular humanists. Take the very anti-religious Dr. Sigmund Freud, for example:

“. . . it is a characteristic common to all the perversions that in them reproduction as an aim is put aside. This is actually the criterion by which we judge whether a sexual activity is perverse - if it departs from reproduction in its aims and pursues the attainment of gratification independently . . . Everything that . . . serves the pursuit of gratification alone is called by the unhonored title of ‘perversion’ and as such is despised.” - Sigmund Freud, A General Introduction to Psycho-Analysis, trans. By Joan Riviere (New York, NY: Liverwright, 1935), p. 277.

Dr. Freud believed this to be the case, despite not being “religious”. Why? Answer: because it’s not necessarily a religious argument, that’s why.

Just thought I’d share.

God Bless,
RyanL