Consupiscense, Same sex Attraction, Aquinas

  • Thread starter Thread starter CopticChristian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CopticChristian

Guest
Homosexuals discuss concupiscence and ask the following questions.
How is it possible for a same-sex attracted person’s attraction to someone of the same sex who is not their spouse represent an objective disorder whereas an opposite-sex attracted person’s attraction to someone of the opposite sex who is not their spouse is not objectively disordered?
Click to expand...
When opposite-sex attracted people are attracted to each other and court each other, this is generally smiled upon and encouraged, notwithstanding the fact that both people in such a dating relationship are obviously not each others’ spouses.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, two same-sex attracted people on a date are indulging a desire that is objectively disordered. So where does the difference lie regarding the nature of the desire involved?
Click to expand...
In what way is same-sex attraction invariably oriented toward something evil, whereas opposite-sex attraction is not?
Click to expand...
My answer is that every thought is oriented towards an act. I think of murder. Murder completed is a sin. I am a man. I think of desire of a man and completion of that act in sodomy. Sodomy is inherently evil.

How do others approach this?
 
The basic reason that it is disordered is because they cannot reproduce.
 
coachkfan1 said:
The basic reason that it is disordered is because they cannot reproduce.
Click to expand...
Coach,

I agree. A Homosexual in a sodomite relationship, suggesting that Christianity accepts a sodomite relationship argues this…
I remain unconvinced that biological utility represents a theological or moral mandate. Or, to put it another way, that physical unity (in the sense of genitals matching up for procreation) in the sexual act has a greater moral value than something more intangible like emotional unity. The criticism that homosexual sex is not “open to life” suggests that procreation is the moral standard, though it appears to define “life” in purely material/biological terms and rejects as of less value such things as intimacy and self-giving. Heterosexual rape appears, then, to have more moral value than consensual homosexual sex.
Click to expand...
It seems that the Biblical and ecclesiastical strictures against homosexuality are predominantly cultural. To the extent that they have moral value, it is in a recognition of a central point: homosexuality as we recognize it was completely unknown to the ancient Israelites and to Paul–i.e., it was a behavior associated with “pagans”, idol worship, or slavery. A case can be made (a convincing case, one could argue), for the re-interpretation of the strictures against homosexuality as warnings against idolatry (idolizing pleasure or sex) or physical/emotional slavery in a sexual context. The ideal with which we’re presented, then, is one of mutuality and commitment which is open to grace (life).
Click to expand...
This person claims to be doing the will of God and under the grace of God. What do you say to that?
 
A husband and wife have to meet somehow. Physical attraction is one path among many for this purpose.

It is a straw man argument to say that physically attraction must only occur in marriage. Christianity teaches no such thing.
 
LOL, here we go again… same people starting anti-gay threads… I think we have some people on here that are obsessed with gays… they may say negative things about them, but, them seem to know an aweful lot about the subject… weird, since they say they are not gay ???
 
This is what I would say to this argument:
I remain unconvinced that biological utility represents a theological or moral mandate. Or, to put it another way, that physical unity (in the sense of genitals matching up for procreation) in the sexual act has a greater moral value than something more intangible like emotional unity. The criticism that homosexual sex is not “open to life” suggests that procreation is the moral standard, though it appears to define “life” in purely material/biological terms and rejects as of less value such things as intimacy and self-giving. Heterosexual rape appears, then, to have more moral value than consensual homosexual sex.
Click to expand...
Mutual self-giving and being open to life both must be present for the sexual act to be licit. Which one has greater moral value is irrelevant… what does it matter if a cup has a one inch hole or a two inch hole at the bottom? At the end of the day it’s still not going to hold water…
It seems that the Biblical and ecclesiastical strictures against homosexuality are predominantly cultural. To the extent that they have moral value, it is in a recognition of a central point: homosexuality as we recognize it was completely unknown to the ancient Israelites and to Paul–i.e., it was a behavior associated with “pagans”, idol worship, or slavery. A case can be made (a convincing case, one could argue), for the re-interpretation of the strictures against homosexuality as warnings against idolatry (idolizing pleasure or sex) or physical/emotional slavery in a sexual context. The ideal with which we’re presented, then, is one of mutuality and commitment which is open to grace (life).
Click to expand...
If you subscribe to the protestant belief of “Sola Scriptura” then I agree that this agrument might hold weight. The reality is, however, that we do not have the final authority to interpret scriptures. That authority has been reserved for the Catholic Church by God, Himself. While we may certainly read scriptures for our own understanding, the final interpretation is always left to the authority of the Catholic Church. On the subject of homosexual acts, the Church states that such activities are always disordered and this is an infallible teaching as per the ordinary magisterium.

It’s just like in the field of law. We may certainly read law books to help us understand a ruling in a court case but, at the end of the day, it’s the judge that has the authority to make the final call. On issues of interpreting scripture, it’s the Catholic Church that gets to make the final call, end of story.
 
CopticChristian said:
Homosexuals discuss concupiscence and ask the following questions.

My answer is that every thought is oriented towards an act. I think of murder. Murder completed is a sin. I am a man. I think of desire of a man and completion of that act in sodomy. Sodomy is inherently evil.

How do others approach this?
Click to expand...
Haven’t we discussed this before? The short answer is that same sex attraction is disordered because God made us male and female, he did not create us male and male or female and female. Men and women were created with attraction for each other so they would increase multiply.

As to your second question. Attraction of either spouce to someone not their spouce is a result of concupiscence. It is a natural disorder which we have to struggle against by avoiding all those people and things which might be an occasion of sin.

I haven’t studied Thomas on these issues but am certain he would agree.
Also, see the catechism.

I don’t know why you seem so interested in these questions I hope you aren’t involved in something that is not good for you. 👍
 
Throughout the animal kingdom, sex has only one purpose: to make babies. This is what makes homosexual sex disordered. Since it cannot ever produce a baby, it is out of the proper order of things.

Only human beings have been given the grace of having sex be an expression of love, a thing that unifies two people and makes them one. But this can’t be separated from its biological purpose. God gave us both, together. (Two people can only become one flesh, in the scientific sense, by combining each parent’s DNA to create a new human.)

To have sex for one reason but not the other is to reject this gift of God. That is why contraception is immoral.

Homosexuals are only able to strive for the unity - never for babies. That is sad - but there’s no way around it. It’s wrong.

I’ve written words in black print on a -]page/-] screen. They cannot possibly express the compassion I feel for those who can’t dream about marriage. It is heartbreaking.

We all have our crosses to carry - and that is a very heavy one.

But there is Courage.
 
This is the quote, my comments about it are in BOLD

I remain unconvinced that biological utility represents a theological or moral mandate. Well its not everything but it does make a big differenceOr, to put it another way, that physical unity (in the sense of genitals matching up for procreation) in the sexual act has a greater moral value than something more intangible like emotional unity.It makes a big difference. For a couple of reasons. For one, emotional unity doesn;t necesarily involve one person. Generation does. Emotional unity isn’t necessarily forever. Sexual love is about forever and reproductive acts are. Emotional unity should represent reality. How many times is one partner only in it for the physical while the other is in it for the relationship overall. With sex open to life, the emotional unity comes at the same time there is a commited relationship (not necessarily but the act’s own nature lends itself to this). Besides, sex doesn’t always involve emotional unity. Especially among men…so sex between 2 men is likely just about pleasure The criticism that homosexual sex is not “open to life” suggests that procreation is the moral standardWell procreation is the reason for the existence of sexuality. I’m pretty sure if huamns didn’t procreate there would be no sex., though it appears to define “life” in purely material/biologicalLife- human beings-the result of sexual intercourse…not a bad definition of life for me terms and rejects as of less value such things as intimacy and self-giving.Why is sex self giving? What about touching each other’s genitals gives of self? ** Heterosexual rape appears, then, to have more moral value than consensual homosexual sexIn terms of it being natural but this is logically flawed because physically nature is not the only requirement for a moral act. Rape is a sin against charity and justice. A severe one. Therefore, it offends more against other virtues**.

As for the original questions: SSA is disordered because it inclines to act. Every desire inclines to act, that is what desires are. Now all desires that lead one to act immorally are bad desires (not necessarily sinful unless consented to or made worse). These are all parts of being humans with original sin. These desires however can be further classified in a number of different ways. When looking at sexual desires, look at normal attraction and SSA. In an attraction to one of hte opposite sex, this desire inclines one to engage in actions necessary for procreation. This is natural and good. Now, because of original sin, individuals may not be able to regulate this desire completely and it exists where it should not, in other words, sexual attraction exists between the unmarried. This is natural but the desire itself still must be regulated by reason. On the other hand, SSA inclines only to immoral acts because all homosexual activity is wrong. SSA as opposed to OSA never inclines to good. Even if OSA inclines to evil it is on account that is not regulated by reason (WAIT TILL MARRIAGE) but not because it objectively is contrary to nature
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Haven’t we discussed this before? The short answer is that same sex attraction is disordered because God made us male and female, he did not create us male and male or female and female. Men and women were created with attraction for each other so they would increase multiply.

As to your second question. Attraction of either spouce to someone not their spouce is a result of concupiscence. It is a natural disorder which we have to struggle against by avoiding all those people and things which might be an occasion of sin.

I haven’t studied Thomas on these issues but am certain he would agree.
Also, see the catechism.
**
I don’t know why you seem so interested in these questions I hope you aren’t involved in something that is not good for you**. 👍
Click to expand...
Linus,

Does being involved in discussions that homosexuals bring up count as not being good for me?
 
Coptic I can’t help but feel you, and others who say some of these things look down upon homosexuals and those with SSA as sinners while you ceremoniously excuse your own fallen nature.

Here’s my beef. Are homosexual acts a sin: Yes!

Is a homosexual orientation or same-sex attraction a sin: No!

Does being gay or homosexual automatically mean one is living in sin or having sex: No! I’m a prime example of that, I’m celibate.

Do homosexual acts being a sin give someone the right to judge without acknowledging their own sins, accounting for repentance for those sins, and acknowledging your fallen nature: No!

Folks my message here: Love, and take the planks out of your eye first before hyper focusing on homosexuals.
 
mitex said:
Coptic I can’t help but feel you, and others who say some of these things look down upon homosexuals and those with SSA as sinners while you ceremoniously excuse your own fallen nature.

Here’s my beef. Are homosexual acts a sin: Yes!

Is a homosexual orientation or same-sex attraction a sin: No!

Does being gay or homosexual automatically mean one is living in sin or having sex: No! I’m a prime example of that, I’m celibate.

Do homosexual acts being a sin give someone the right to judge without acknowledging their own sins, accounting for repentance for those sins, and acknowledging your fallen nature: No!

Folks my message here: Love, and take the planks out of your eye first before hyper focusing on homosexuals.
Click to expand...
Mitex,

Our disagreement is the notion of being “Gay” is other than acting out the same sex attraction.

You, Dakota, Seeker, do not purport that homosexuality is not sin. This is not the case for many that come to this forum justifying and explaining their actions and not sin. These engagements are an attempt to justify the behavior. If they were the likes of you and did not suggest that what they do is not justifiable then these dialogues would go away.

It is like the often seen…

Is it Ok to masturbate so I don’t go blind, because my Prostate needs health, because my therapist said I should, etc…
 
Coptic did you not see my post on homosexual acts being a sin? I acknowledged homosexual acts were a sin.

SSA is not a sin, and your own Church acknowledges that.

I’ll take that as a yes as an answer to my question.

:rolleyes:
 
mitex said:
Coptic did you not see my post on homosexual acts being a sin? I acknowledged homosexual acts were a sin.

SSA is not a sin, and your own Church acknowledges that.

I’ll take that as a yes as an answer to my question.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Mitex,

I agree SSA is not sin.

I agree that homosexual acts are sin.

stop rolling your eyes and join RCIA and let me know when you finish, Ok…🙂
 
CopticChristian said:
Homosexuals discuss concupiscence and ask the following questions.

My answer is that every thought is oriented towards an act. I think of murder. Murder completed is a sin. I am a man. I think of desire of a man and completion of that act in sodomy. Sodomy is inherently evil.

How do others approach this?
Click to expand...
You seem to misunderstand the difference between concupiscence which when it is initially felt is involuntary whereas desire is not necessarily involuntary and in many cases is quite voluntary.
Ruthie_again said:
Throughout the animal kingdom, sex has only one purpose: to make babies. This is what makes homosexual sex disordered. Since it cannot ever produce a baby, it is out of the proper order of things.

Only human beings have been given the grace of having sex be an expression of love, a thing that unifies two people and makes them one. But this can’t be separated from its biological purpose. God gave us both, together. (Two people can only become one flesh, in the scientific sense, by combining each parent’s DNA to create a new human.)

To have sex for one reason but not the other is to reject this gift of God. That is why contraception is immoral.

Homosexuals are only able to strive for the unity - never for babies. That is sad - but there’s no way around it. It’s wrong.

I’ve written words in black print on a -]page/-] screen. They cannot possibly express the compassion I feel for those who can’t dream about marriage. It is heartbreaking.

We all have our crosses to carry - and that is a very heavy one.

But there is Courage.
Click to expand...
The animal kingdom is irrelevant to the morality of it.
CopticChristian said:
Mitex,

Our disagreement is the notion of being “Gay” is other than acting out the same sex attraction.

You, Dakota, Seeker, do not purport that homosexuality is not sin. This is not the case for many that come to this forum justifying and explaining their actions and not sin. These engagements are an attempt to justify the behavior. If they were the likes of you and did not suggest that what they do is not justifiable then these dialogues would go away.

It is like the often seen…

Is it Ok to masturbate so I don’t go blind, because my Prostate needs health, because my therapist said I should, etc…
Click to expand...
No, homosexuality is not a sin, homosexual acts are a sin.

homosexual |ˌhōməˈsek sh oōəl|
adjective
(of a person) sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex.
• involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex : homosexual desire.
noun
a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.

homosexuality is objectively disordered because it includes a (concupiscent) longing for something id est homosexual acts which is morally disordered because it is directed away from the divine order of things.

You have noticed that chaste gays can be rather insistent on distinguishing homosexuality and homosexual acts, this is because I/we/they understand that the attractions affect more than just sexuality, it has a marked effect on everyday interpersonal interactions. To believe that the attractions in itself are entirely a moral evil would be to give into the heresy of total depravity.
To visualize this think of the good a person does as a nice glass of wine, for a person with these attractions they affect why they were done on a conscious or subconscious level so think of these as a few drops, now if these attractions are a moral evil then it is effectively a poison. What you have is a glass of nice wine with a few drops of poison in it, while only the poison is poison and the nice wine is nice wine not poison the glass of wine is effectively poisoned. Yes, that would mean that even the good a homosexual person does is poisoned.

The intriguing philosophical question is since sins are a corruption of virtues is homosexuality a corruption of heterosexual is it the corruption of something else.
 
Lord Jesus… Please save us from the acts and words of your followers… just sayin… you all need hobbies…
 
CopticChristian said:
Linus,

Does being involved in discussions that homosexuals bring up count as not being good for me?
Click to expand...
You have an exceptionaly good mind. I would like to see you devote it to something other than unnatural sex. I don’t think it is good for you or anyone else either. :sad_yes:
 
fissionu235 said:
LOL, here we go again… same people starting anti-gay threads… I think we have some people on here that are obsessed with gays… they may say negative things about them, but, them seem to know an aweful lot about the subject… weird, since they say they are not gay ???
Click to expand...
Are not gays just as obsessed as obtaining equal rights or how much attention the gay movement has been amassing for the past decade or more.
A change in culture, a change in moral values, and what is considered right or wrong is nothing to be taken lightly. Try to have a larger perspective on things. People are bringing up these issues because for one, they are hot topics that have huge implications for us as a society.
 
jpink1019 said:
Are not gays just as obsessed as obtaining equal rights or how much attention the gay movement has been amassing for the past decade or more.
A change in culture, a change in moral values, and what is considered right or wrong is nothing to be taken lightly. Try to have a larger perspective on things. People are bringing up these issues because for one, they are hot topics that have huge implications for us as a society.
Click to expand...
I think his point is that Coptic continues to bring up homosexuality time and time again despite not having a horse in the race so to speak.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top