- Status
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
You don’t agree with anything I post, Shelby…That is a indication of a closed mind. A closed mind cannot learn…Someone who cannot learn does not know anything.Are you for real? The more you talk the more misinformed and limited you seem.
R
Rau
Guest
Because their sexual attractions are exclusively to the same sex. I recognize the word does get used with two different meanings. Depending on the meaning, an expression like “practicing” homosexual is, or is not, redundant language.
But in my earlier post, I did not intend to imply the pair were, or were not, engaging in sex acts. That is a separate question as to whether or not they love each other.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
OH…OK now I see “our problem”. We need to define homosexuality.
Homosexuality is same-gender sexual conduct.
A homosexual is a person who defines himself or herself by the participation in or desire to participate in such conduct.
This definition is both logical and intuitively sound. Do you agree?
R
Rau
Guest
But does not resolve the potential ambiguity because it says “participation or desire”. One may desire, but not participate. Now often the term SSA is used to refer just to the desire. However, some persons may say “I am a homosexual and I choose to remain chaste”.
When sex acts are the point, I tend to refer to them as such in order to be clear.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
HOMOSEXUALITY has to do with SEX.
Same Sex Attraction (SSA) is an innocent term. A heterosexual could have an attraction to another because they share the same interests. (Sailboats) Like wise, homosexuals could feel the same way.
Homosexuality is participation or desire to participate in same sex sex. Not attraction.
Desire or inclination is what leads to the act itself. To have such desires or inclinations is essentially homosexuality. One who has desire or inclination and does not participate is still a homosexual.
S
shelby_sun
Guest
Back at you!!! I don’t see where you have agreed with anything I have said either. I have never claimed to be right. You are just mad that you cannot convince me to think as you do.
I don’t claim to KNOW anything, I have just stated my opinion and what I believe. Only God knows and I am betting your not God, hope that doesn’t shock you.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Well at least you are an honest person Shelby. God loves you.
R
Rau
Guest
Not much debating word meanings academically. Better just to favour using unambiguous language. BTW no one would suggest that the average married heterosexual experiences SSA, but of course he has lots of friends of the same sex that he shares interests with!
But I do agree with your very last sentence. The desire need not rise to the level of sin, it may remain temptation. In this respect, it is analogous with the inclinations of a heterosexual.
R
Rau
Guest
No. Normalcy is not a useful or relevant concept here (and it is also a “definitionally-challenged” word).
The inclination is not a sin for anybody. A disordered inclination is not sinful. The inclination of a heterosexual to have sex with a non-spouse is also disordered, (Whether it is “normal” is moot.). Disordered inclinations are to be resisted for all.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
I have to stand firm on this Rau.
“Normalcy” has everything to do with it. If homosexuality reaches the level of normalcy it must be accepted by society as a natural form of sexual activity. The Church would have to “adjust” its teaching on the subject. It would not be a disorder.
The inclination of a heterosexual to have sex with a non-spouse can be a sin in the eyes of the Church.
But…
It is not disordered if the non-spouse is of the opposite sex. It may be wrong morally, socially and religiously but it is the natural human tendency to be attracted to and be inclined to have sex with the opposite sex.
" Disordered inclinations are to be resisted for all." This is true and society is justified to require (by law) that disordered inclinations be resisted. For example:
A pedophile may very well be struggling to control his inclinations towards children…but he should not be working at a grammar school.
R
Rau
Guest
I encourage you to not waste your time over the language of normalcy. I just think this term, like “natural” is inadequate language for the topic.
You are right to say that the mere “inclination” to mate with the opposite sex is not disordered. Our biology gives (most of) this predisposition. The other predisposition is disordered, not sinful, but disordered due to its object being inappropriate.
Bit do not think that solely the homosexual inclination is disordered. The CCC says:
2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
Zoltan, Catholics don’t advocate that our moral beliefs be codified as law! Can you imagine the law against Lust? Or the law against masturbation? Law against contraception? Yet all these things are intrinsically disordered (disordered in themselves).
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Rau, you have said this before…
I am getting a very strong impression that you would like to eliminate the “Normal/natural” arguments from our discussion.
That leads me to suspect that you would like nothing more than to promote homosexuality as normal/natural, ACCEPTABLE sexual conduct. And therefore see it granted legal “married” status that can very well lead to loggerheads between Church and state.
Just the impression I get…could be wrong.
Yes, Rau, homosexual inclination is not the ONLY disorder. But IT IS A SERIOUS DISORDER.
Are you trying to minimize it? Or…justify it?
The Catholic Church’s teaching about homosexuality is true not because it is Catholic, but because it is the TRUTH. As are all of the Church’s teaching.
A rational person knows that lust is not right. He does not need a law or a religion telling him that.
A rational society will not accept masturbation as proper behavior. Can you imagine… “Sorry, John can’t come to the phone right now…he’s masturbating.”
A rational person knows that contraception is not natural.
None of these things need laws to make them wrong. The Church teaches that they are wrong…because they are…not because the Church say so.
R
Rau
Guest
Wow - you see “gay sympathisers” behind every door!
Zoltan, to be clear, I think “natural” and “normal” are words which don’t work well in this debate. They are not effective at explaining positions. Their meanings are less clear than you think. Some folks will point to “evidence” of homosexual behaviour in animals as proof that it is natural - and draw some conclusion from that! You can see how this just has no relevance to a discussion about what is moral?
Discussions remain more coherent when we focus on what the other says, rather than speculate on what they think. I have posted on the subject of homosexuality, gay marriage and sexual morality and the like many times on these forums and I don’t think you’ll find much support for your “suspicions”.
Neither, and I certainly don’t want to demonise it! As the Church says: *2358 … This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. *
By the way, the term “disorder” is the wrong word. (The Church doesn’t make diagnoses…). The word you’ll find in the Catechism is “disordered”. [The inclination is “objectively disordered”; same sex sex acts are “intrinsically disordered”, etc.]
Well, yeah!
I think my point was we Catholics don’t advocate that (secular) laws be put in place to reflect our moral beliefs. Not sure why you stated all the above, which is not in debate. But Zoltan, you said earlier: “…society is justified to require (by law) that disordered inclinations be resisted” Which led me to enquire whether you feel the society would be justified to make law to the effect that masturbation or non-procreative sex should be resisted? It’s overreach isn’t it?But since you mention contraception - you are right that, by a definition of “natural” that I think most people would accept, contraception is not “natural”. [Nor is a cancer drug, BTW.] But I think it requires a little more than mere rationality to see the truth that contraception is morally wrong. And it is quite a stretch further to conclude the law should preclude it.
N
Nacho45
Guest
The Church teaches the only authorized sexual relations are between a husband and wife within a valid marriage. Homosexual “marriages” are not valid and they give the false indication homosexual acts are acceptable when they are not. In other words, we can debate for 100 years as to which shade of blue is really blue, but in the end, if its orange then it isn’t blue…there is no such thing as “gay marriage” no matter how many people pretend it exists. There is and never will be any allowance for homosexual acts. The Church is clear. I encourage those who are confused on the matter to listen to the Church.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Hmmmm, Yes I do…not behind EVERY door…but I do see them as well as “gay activists”Wow - you see “gay sympathisers” behind every door!
i question their motives.
Now I am beginning to suspect a “cop-out”.
I have stated before that “Normal and natural” is the most essential part of this discussion.
You gloss over it. The meanings are crystal clear.
Why do you say they are words which don’t work well in this debate? ( don’t work well for which side???)
I, and others, have debunked the “evidence” of animal behavior as a natural justification of homosexuality several times on this forum. It is a very lame proposal.
Since homosexuality is same-gender sexual conduct and a homosexual is a person who defines himself or herself by the participation in, or desire to participate in, such conduct…an intelligent person would ask…is this conduct and/or the desire to participate in such conduct normal or natural human behavior???.
If “yes”… then homosexuality should be accepted socially and religiously and perhaps glorified as it once was in ancient Rome and Greece (Although they never recognized a homosexual relationship as a marriage, they did glorify it)
If “NO” …then such behavior MUST be condemned and suppressed by society since specific diseases are rampant within the homosexual community and should not be spread.
If “NO” …the Church would not have to be so pastoral and use kind words like “disorders”.
The Church could very well condemn homosexuality and it’s inclination as deviant behavior worthy of excommunication.
R
Rau
Guest
They don’t work well because **both **sides use them to bolster their side!!!
We weren’t debating whether homosexual acts are wrong, just whether we need to use the words “natural” and “normal” to argue the case. [Here is how “normal” is used by the “other side”. *John is heterosexual. It is normal for him, from time to time, to desire sex, but he controls his temptations. Frank experiences SSA. For him, it is normal to desire same sex relations, but he controls his temptations.]
Good grief Zoltan - are you saying the Church reversed a teaching?
Nonsense. The Church simply realised it has no business pontificating on the **cause **- of which it has no knowledge. A bit like the Galileo saga. The church realised it had no teaching authority on astronomical matters. Not on medical or psychological matters either. The Church also says of the homosexual inclination: “Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained”. The inclination is not sinful - if it were chosen, it would be. The acts are chosen. They are sinful.
P
Prodigirl
Guest
Where in the New Testament does Jesus threaten little children with an eternity in the fires of Hell, the concept of which is totally beyond the understanding of any 5- or 10- or 15-year old? Where in Jesus’ teachings did men of God find permission to rape young boys and then enjoy the protection of His disciples? These things WERE NOT brought to me by Jesus, you are absolutely correct. They were, however, brought to me by the Catholic Church, in the authoritative vestments and the rituals and the men who purport to speak for Jesus and, indeed, for God Himself.
I hope that answers your question.
- Status