Debating homosexuality

[EphelDuath]

This is the most frustrating thing to talk to people about. They’re so emotionally invested in the issue that I can’t get a word through before I’m called a bigot and the Lord is called a monster for “homophobia”.

Any tips on how to effectively argue our side?

 

[Letchitsa1]

Pray for them. If they are so emotionally invested in a sinful behavior that they self identify based on that behavior (i.e. - they are homosexuals, not people with same sex attractions) - your arguments, sadly, are more than likely going to fall on deaf ears.

Also remember that actions speak far louder than words. Even if you never speak a word about the issue - they will figure out both what you believe, and how well you live out that belief in your daily life. Live it well, and it may invite questions like, “I know your Catholic…why is the Church against homosexuals?” at which point you can answer them that the Church is not against individuals - we recognize that all humans are sinners - but we are against the sin, and quite possibly that will open up the door to explain why the Church teaches that the homosexual act is sinful - our views on the sanctity of the sexual relationship being contained in the marital relationship, of one spouse giving fully of themselves to the other, etc. Keep in mind, though, that forcing the issue never works. If they aren’t open to hearing the Truth, no amount of preaching will make them hear it.

 

[KephasAugustine]

This is the most frustrating thing to talk to people about. They’re so emotionally invested in the issue that I can’t get a word through before I’m called a bigot and the Lord is called a monster for “homophobia”.

Any tips on how to effectively argue our side?

I actually just had a conversation recently with someone who thought homosexuality was “okay.” I’ve had a lot of conversations on the topic, and it always ends the same way: backed into a corner, the one arguing against Catholic teaching will shut all conversation down with “you believe what you want, and I’ll believe what I want.” As if there’s a way we can both be right.

However, some of the more fruitful conversations on the topic have included me talking charitably from their view: “look, we’re both after the same thing here. The difference is our definition of “love.” You seem to think that “love” means letting everybody do whatever they please, whatever makes them happy. I see love differently–love for me means that I look out for what is really best for the people I love.”
Then they’ll respond with “how is it ‘love’ to deny somebody something they desire?”
And I’ll say “Did your parents always let you do everything you wanted to do? Or did they say ‘no,’ knowing that denying you that pleasure would be better for you in the longrun? That is why the Church teaches against homosexual acts–because the Church looks out for the eternal welfare of all people, not the temporal happiness, which fades as time passes.”

Of course, that only makes the minority really think about it. I heard a quote once that went: “For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation will do” or something to that effect (actually I think that was somebody’s signature on CAF). We can explain, defend, and protect our faith from attacks and loaded questions about homosexuality and other issues, but the truth is that if someone doesn’t want to believe, they won’t.

But that doesn’t mean we should lose heart. Defending and explaining the Faith not only occasionally converts people’s way of thinking, but it strengthens us in our own convictions. At times, God will send us these tests. If the opponent remains unchanged, at least you will have grown stronger.

Oh, and I should add that although the young man with whom I discussed homosexuality last week remained unmoved in his error, people around us were visibly affected by the Truth that my friend and I spoke in response to his angry questions and erroneous charges against the Church. So it’s always worth it

 

[Mersenne]

However, some of the more fruitful conversations on the topic have included me talking charitably from their view: “look, we’re both after the same thing here. The difference is our definition of “love.” You seem to think that “love” means letting everybody do whatever they please, whatever makes them happy. I see love differently–love for me means that I look out for what is really best for the people I love.”
Then they’ll respond with “how is it ‘love’ to deny somebody something they desire?”
And I’ll say “Did your parents always let you do everything you wanted to do? Or did they say ‘no,’ knowing that denying you that pleasure would be better for you in the longrun? That is why the Church teaches against homosexual acts–because the Church looks out for the eternal welfare of all people, not the temporal happiness, which fades as time passes.”

But since you can’t show that this eternal paradise exists, all you’re really doing is promoting suffering.

 

[Robertsxxx]

This is the most frustrating thing to talk to people about. They’re so emotionally invested in the issue that I can’t get a word through before I’m called a bigot and the Lord is called a monster for “homophobia”.

Any tips on how to effectively argue our side?

Hm… can you give examples of the arguments you are using to claim there is something wrong/bad about homosexuality? If you start with the Bible tells me so, or similar reference based on religious teachings only, then I understand why you’re being shunned or the God that gives you specific laws/rules to live by is called a “homophobe”.

*ho·mo·pho·bi·a
**Fear of or contempt **for lesbians and gay men.
**Behavior **based on such a feeling. * (dictionary.com)

Considering that homo is an abomination, or
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely** be put to death**; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13)

I would call that homophobia since it fits the term.

 

[EphelDuath]

The argument I’m using is that just because one is “born” a homosexual doesn’t mean it’s OK. I used this analogy: somebody may also be born to be genetically close to alcoholism, but that’s not an excuse to ignore natural law and drink excessively.

I was condemned for comparing the two.

 

[Robertsxxx]

The argument I’m using is that just because one is “born” a homosexual doesn’t mean it’s OK. I used this analogy: somebody may also be born to be genetically close to alcoholism, but that’s not an excuse to ignore natural law and drink excessively.

I was condemned for comparing the two.

Um… comparing sexual identity & substance dependance is… yeah I guess you wouldn’t produce the best impressions.

I do agree that just because you might be born with a predisposition towards being a certain way, that does not mean it is ok to endorse that behavior. However, alcoholism is activily harmful, physically, psychological & socially.
Can you provide arguments that homosexuality is harmful? Before you show it is wrong you’re basically arguing: you shouldn’t be left handed! even though you were predisposed to be lefthanded. (I hope it was an accurate example, I think handedness* is partially passed down or inborn; for many many years left-handed children were punished & taught to be otherwise because being left handed was considered wrong, now more & more studies are showing it is not, & I think actually has some benefits, but don’t quote me on this one)

 

[Deconi]

This is the most frustrating thing to talk to people about. They’re so emotionally invested in the issue that I can’t get a word through before I’m called a bigot and the Lord is called a monster for “homophobia”.

Any tips on how to effectively argue our side?

Do we have a side?

If you can be born homosexual, you can be born paedopheliac, murderer, rapist, et al.

A ‘gene’ can be blamed for anything!

 

[Robertsxxx]

If you can be born homosexual, you can be born paedopheliac, murderer, rapist, et al.
:

But doesn’t our nature come from God? So God makes us murderers, rapists, etc?

 

[Deconi]

But doesn’t our nature come from God? So God makes us murderers, rapists, etc?

Nice twist. Peddle it elsewhere!

 

[Robertsxxx]

Nice twist. Peddle it elsewhere!

You didn’t answer.
Furthermore, maybe their nature is part of God’s plan to cause a specific chain of events?
Without the treachury of Judah there would be no sacrifice for all of people’s sins.

 

[Deconi]

You didn’t answer.
Furthermore, maybe their nature is part of God’s plan to cause a specific chain of events?
Without the treachury of Judah there would be no sacrifice for all of people’s sins.

You should begin to see the gradient of the slope you’re standing on with views like that.

I did answer.

 

[Robertsxxx]

You should begin to see the gradient of the slope you’re standing on with views like that.

I did answer.

Clarify it for me, I’m bad at seeing implicit messages.

 

[Deconi]

You didn’t answer.
Furthermore, maybe their nature is part of God’s plan to cause a specific chain of events?

You assume ‘natural’ without evidence.

Without the treachury of Judah there would be no sacrifice for all of people’s sins.

Next you’ll be lauding Judas as doing what he was ‘made’ to do.

 

[Mersenne]

Do we have a side?

If you can be born homosexual, you can be born paedopheliac, murderer, rapist, et al.

A ‘gene’ can be blamed for anything!

As long as you argue under the assumption that homosexuality is objectively the same as murder, rape, and pedophilia, without even attempting to put forth an argument or evidence to support that idea, then it is reasonable for people to label you a bigot.

It’s like if someone said “If black people are allowed to marry white people, then people should be able to marry goats and dogs.” If you implicitly compare black people to animals, and you can’t even see why that is an absurd assumption to run on, then you are a racist. If you implicitly compare homosexuals to murderers, and you act as if the assumption doesn’t even require evidence, people will label you a homophobe.

 

[Robertsxxx]

You assume ‘natural’ without evidence.

Next you’ll be lauding Judas as doing what he was ‘made’ to do.

I wasn’t assuming “natural”, I was replying to a statement made by you or somebody else.

 

[Deconi]

As long as you argue under the assumption that homosexuality is objectively the same as murder, rape, and pedophilia, without even attempting to put forth an argument or evidence to support that idea, then it is reasonable for people to label you a bigot.

It’s like if someone said “If black people are allowed to marry white people, then people should be able to marry goats and dogs.” If you implicitly compare black people to animals, and you can’t even see why that is an absurd assumption to run on, then you are a racist. If you implicitly compare homosexuals to murderers, and you act as if the assumption doesn’t even require evidence, people will label you a homophobe.

I care little about opinions of me.

There are arguments that paedophilia is ‘natural.’ Many murderers advance defences of ‘natural disposition’ for their actions. Rapists cry ‘natural urges’ and ‘natural sickness’ as some form of justification for their actions.

I view homosexuality in the same light since they advance the same or similar trash! Racists too will rejoice on the day ‘their gene’ is found!

Bigot? Hmm…may be a gene for that too, accept I bet my life you’ll not find one in me!

 

[Robertsxxx]

I care little about opinions of me.

There are arguments that paedophilia is ‘natural.’ Many murderers advance defences of ‘natural disposition’ for their actions. Rapists cry ‘natural urges’ and ‘natural sickness’ as some form of justification for their actions.

I view homosexuality in the same light since they advance the same or similar trash! Racists too will rejoice on the day ‘their gene’ is found!

Bigot? Hmm…may be a gene for that too, accept I bet my life you’ll not find one in me!

I think you missed the member’s idea of “If you implicitly compare homosexuals to murderers, and you act as if the assumption doesn’t even require evidence”.
Can you provide for how homo would be harmful, BESIDES relying on a religious book? That would allow you to equate homosexual activity to murdering.

 

[KephasAugustine]

But since you can’t show that this eternal paradise exists, all you’re really doing is promoting suffering.

Absolutely not! But if that’s how you interpret it…

Don’t mention eternity at all. It’s simply wrong, and out of love and charity we want to correct them (like a parent would correct a child).

Besides, when has the message of Christianity (let alone Catholicism) not been to endure suffering on earth for the sake of the Kingdom? Like I said if someone doesn’t want to accept the Truth, they won’t accept it–no matter how you giftwrap it.

 

[Mersenne]

Don’t mention eternity at all. It’s simply wrong, and out of love and charity we want to correct them (like a parent would correct a child).

Okay, then you’ve simply gone from needing to prove eternity to needing to prove that homosexuality is wrong. Without that, you’re still simply promoting suffering.

Besides, when has the message of Christianity (let alone Catholicism) not been to endure suffering on earth for the sake of the Kingdom?

I fail to see how that proves it’s existence.

Like I said if someone doesn’t want to accept the Truth, they won’t accept it–no matter how you giftwrap it.

Indeed, I have giftwrapped the truth for you and you have ignored it. I made an arguement and you didn’t really provide a response to anything I said, you merly shifted around the details without really apparently reading the meat of what I said. I don’t think you really want to know the truth.