Gays and transexuals

[Steel_Pinwheel]

Because of the extreme nature of Political Correctness, I doubt anyone could get funding for a study that did not aim to show a biological cause of homosexuality. Yet, it’s obvious to anyone who opens their eyes that homosexuality is strongly correlated with environment and values, and a biological cause remains undiscovered. The difficulty of changing should not be mistaken for it not being a choice. (Sex is a powerful reinforcer. And, the underlaying psychological factors may be difficult to deal with by people wanting to change. E.g. How do you get over being homosexually molested a a child?)

Does anyone really believe that lesbians are born that way? Many lesbians decide to be that way late in life. Studies looking for biological causes usually focus on men and ignore women.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

The point of noting that one grave sin is worse than another is to understand reality, to apprehend the truth. We’re talking about *sins *though, that is, their matter or object, not personal culpability, so this should be no excuse for throwing stones at anybody.

While it is possible that one grave sin is worse than other, determining this seems to be ignoring the log in your own eye for the sake of comparing how big it is to someone else’s.

Thank you, by the way, for the correction. I’d do it myself, now that you’ve pointed it out, but I can’t figure out how.

The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed not for fornication, but for sodomite fornication. There is no comparable destruction of cities for fornication alone. That does not mean that fornication is not also damnable. But if Dante is right, there will in hell be circles within circles, and lowest depths that we can hardly imagine.

“In the 3rd ring of the 7th Circle. The third ring–inside the first two–is a barren plain of sand ignited by flakes of fire that torment three separate groups of violent offenders against God: those who offend God directly (blasphemers: Inferno 14); those who violate nature, God’s offspring (sodomites: Inferno 15-16); and those who harm industry and the economy. (Inferno 17).”

Yes, but weren’t Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed not only for the sodomite fornication but also the deliberate choice to forever turn their backs on God, that not even ten righteous could be found in the cities? This, I argue, is the spectacular element of their depravity which merited the destruction.

If they were people who engaged in homosexual acts but who firmly sought the Truth despite this social depravity — like a Plato or a Socrates, for example — then theirs might be the Kingdom of God. Dante puts in the very first circle of Hell, remember, these righteous pagans, who would be released upon the coming of Christ. I imagine they would have a nice long stint in Purgatory, but they might yet be saved.

 

[BlueShadow123]

Its sad how they have to be called to chastity if they are born gay.

There aren’t many people who don’t want to get married and fall in love.

Its natural instinct to want that anyways.

But there is no 100% proof of people being born gay. Only studies that can assume it.

Key word: “assume”.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Elijah

If they were people who engaged in homosexual acts but who firmly sought the Truth despite this social depravity — like a Plato or a Socrates, for example — then theirs might be the Kingdom of God.

Not sure I get your point.

I don’t believe Plato and Socrates were homosexuals. In fact, they opposed the homosexual act. Neither Plato nor Socrates rejected God because they had no way of knowing the Judaic God. Plato certainly believed in God, and Socrates, before he drank hemlock, asked Plato to offer a sacrifice to Asclepius, the Greek god of medicine.

 

[Betterave]

While it is possible that one grave sin is worse than other, determining this seems to be ignoring the log in your own eye for the sake of comparing how big it is to someone else’s.

That doesn’t make sense. I’ve neither picked a pocket nor robbed a bank - but I know that robbing a bank is worse, and if I didn’t I simply wouldn’t have a very tight grip on reality (or Catholic doctrine). I could just as easily pick a mortal sin that I’ve committed and compare it to some other mortal sin that is not as bad but that I haven’t committed - my personal stake in it would be irrelevant. Your personalizing this is totally wrong-headed, i.e., it’s simply not to the point.

Thank you, by the way, for the correction. I’d do it myself, now that you’ve pointed it out, but I can’t figure out how.

Huh?

 

[philokalia7]

Where in the Catechism does it say any such thing?
The classification of sins into mortal and venial sins is most clearly taught in a masterful work called the Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas. Your inability to think without having something spelled out for you in a book is astounding Elijah, “where does it say that in the Catechism” this is the height of intellectual laziness. No Elijah! You must use your brain, you must think, Hmmm, is having sex out of marriage a mortal sin? Yes, very good, now think Elijah…yes thats it, think, fire up those neurons, Is homosexual sex a mortal sin…hmm… yes…and …duh…its also intrinsically evil, therefore it is a more grave mortal sin than heterosexual fornication. You Elijah have just demonstrated before all CAF that you have an inability to think rationally and logically. In case you think I’m wrong about the mortal sin thing just ask your Priest, I’m done with you, you are a disgrace to your University, and to American education in general.

Heterosexual acts outside marriage are still immoral. Let’s turn what you say on it’s head — as Chesterton notes, there is little which cannot be made clearer by turning it upside down. If homosexual acts are inherently more evil than heterosexual acts which are already evil, that is to say that heterosexual acts are always more moral than homosexual acts, that they cannot be equally sinful.

To decry homosexual acts as less immoral serves what purpose? I don’t see how it has any effect but to bracket sinners into a group where other sinners may more easily throw stones at them.

Friend, you’re very off-track here.

Fresno State, not that it matters. That school had as much to do with my education as the DMV had with teaching me to drive.

 

[RichP]

Its sad how they have to be called to chastity if they are born gay.

Why is being called to chasity sad? Is chastity some sort of monsterous evil? Or does gay make it sad? Even if one is not gay, they are called to chastity until marriage. And even when one is married, they are called to a form a chastity, to be only with their spouse.

Chasity is not some sort of punishment; it is the recognition that there is someone in our life (like God) more important than our own self…

 

[BlueShadow123]

Why is being called to chasity sad? Is chastity some sort of monsterous evil? Or does gay make it sad? Even if one is not gay, they are called to chastity until marriage. And even when one is married, they are called to a form a chastity, to be only with their spouse.

Chasity is not some sort of punishment; it is the recognition that there is someone in our life (like God) more important than our own self…

It’s not bad by my terms, if you feel you want to do it. The fact that most people are born gay is usually what leads them AWAY from God. God says homosexuality is an abomination, and if they are born gay, why would they want to follow a God who allowed them to be born that way and yet call it an abomination?

Plus, if they don’t want to take part in chastity, I can guarantee you that they wont.
Being gay is no way to really call somebody to chastity, I think there would have been better ways to do it. Most gay people want to be able to fall in love and marry who they want, and they are allowed to love who they want, not necessarily marry them though. Depends on where you live. Most of people want to be able to fall in love and get married someday. Its only natural for the gays to want it too, and I hope they can all find happiness someway in their life, like everybody else. However, the thing is that we assume they are born gay, we don’t really know 100% yet and that definitely DOES matter. Because if they aren’t born gay, then they need to work on becoming straight. (only if they want to) If they are born gay, then they’ll have to deal with it in ways they feel works best for them. Not everybody believes in God, and not everybody believes in YOUR God. That is their choice to make.

PS: in reference to my first statement in my post, I have only seen 2 gay people who are Christian. The rest have absolutely no religion at all, they are atheists. And I certainly don’t blame them for that if they are gay. If I was gay, I’d probably be an atheist too because I wouldn’t understand why God would allow me to be born that way. If I was gay, id sure want to get married and fall in love. And I would, so I don’t blame them for wanting it either.

 

[roelblomsma]

Suppose that serial killers are born that way, e.g., due to a defect in the part of the brain that feels empathy. Does that make it moral for them to go around killing?

Suppose that adulterous men are born with such a high level of some hormone related to sexual desire that it is much more difficult for them to be faithful to one woman. Does that make it moral for them to go around committing adultery?

I’m afraid I can’t deem a particular behavior moral simply because a person might be born with an innate tendency towards that behavior.

Well, my point exactly. I do think that a psychopath or a schizophrenic can not be held accountable for his or her actions because he or she is simply not able to act normal. Should they walk around on the street…no of course not… should they be morally held accountable for what they do…also no! They can’t know.

Similar, if a man should have a sexual disorder because of hormones, probably he will not be able to control himself. Should he be held accountable,…no because he can’t help himself.

 

[Betterave]

It’s not bad by my terms, if you feel you want to do it.

So chastity is good if you want to do it, bad if you don’t want to do it?? What do you think chastity is??
(RichP made a very good point, which I’d have thought would be obvious to anybody who knows what chastity is.)

The fact that most people are born gay is usually what leads them AWAY from God. God says homosexuality is an abomination, and if they are born gay, why would they want to follow a God who allowed them to be born that way and yet call it an abomination?

PLEASE don’t pretend that it is a Christian doctrine that if people are born with homosexual inclinations then they are born ‘abominations’ - that is not even close to true and would be extremely offputting - i.e., a counter-witness to the faith - to those who struggle with same-sex attraction who didn’t know that it wasn’t true.

 

[roelblomsma]

Besides, the whole homo-punishing thing is, for what I recall in the OT. It is also said in the OT that prostitutes should be stoned… Now, what was Jesus’ reply to that… See what I’m getting at…I think He thought us tolerance and not blindly following the scripture.

 

[Betterave]

Besides, the whole homo-punishing thing is, for what I recall in the OT. It is also said in the OT that prostitutes should be stoned… Now, what was Jesus’ reply to that… See what I’m getting at…I think He thought us tolerance and not blindly following the scripture.

What do you mean by ‘tolerance’ and where did Jesus teach us that?

It’s obvious that we shouldn’t ‘blindly’ follow scripture, so please don’t bother pointing that out again.

Similar, if a man should have a sexual disorder because of hormones, probably he will not be able to control himself. Should he be held accountable,…no because he can’t help himself.

Obviously it is for God to judge how much each individual is responsible for his or her particular actions, not us. But obviously Jesus taught us a little more than just some bland fuzzy notion of ‘tolerance.’

 

[Elijah_Baley]

Friend, you have a serious, serious problem. Let go of that anger.

The classification of sins into mortal and venial sins is most clearly taught in a masterful work called the Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas.

Fornication is always a mortal sin. This is what puts it on the same ground as homosexual acts. We can easily stratify sins into mortal and venial, but I posit that is wrong to stratify them into mortal and more mortal.

Your inability to think without having something spelled out for you in a book is astounding Elijah, “where does it say that in the Catechism” this is the height of intellectual laziness.

It was a method to try to show you that greater minds even than yours have said nothing on the matter, that you are on very tenuous ground. Of course, the Catechism is at least a marvelous tool for sticky situations when you’re willing to admit you don’t know what you’re talking about, and any Catholic who thinks less of it must be suspect.

No Elijah! You must use your brain, you must think, Hmmm, is having sex out of marriage a mortal sin? Yes, very good, now think Elijah…yes thats it, think, fire up those neurons, Is homosexual sex a mortal sin…hmm… yes…and …duh…its also intrinsically evil, therefore it is a more grave mortal sin than heterosexual fornication.

Fornication is an intrinsic evil, as is homosexual acts. From this, it follows that it is a mortal sin — to say it is an mortal sin and to say that it is an intrinsic evil is to be redundant, that something is both blue and very blue. These two classifications do not stack.

You Elijah have just demonstrated before all CAF that you have an inability to think rationally and logically. In case you think I’m wrong about the mortal sin thing just ask your Priest, I’m done with you, you are a disgrace to your University, and to American education in general.

If I were wrong, is this a Christian way to tell me?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Elijah

*Originally Posted by philokalia7 View Post
You Elijah have just demonstrated before all CAF that you have an inability to think rationally and logically. In case you think I’m wrong about the mortal sin thing just ask your Priest, I’m done with you, you are a disgrace to your University, and to American education in general.

If I were wrong, is this a Christian way to tell me? *

Elijah, you were only chastised for not being able to think logically.

You have chastised philokalia for not being Christian?

 

[irishpatrick]

Serious questions:

The OP speaks of not only gays, but also of transsexuals. Now, say a man chooses to get surgery to become a physical female. That person would still have the dna of a man, so I assume “he” would still be a man in the eyes of the Church/faith.Is that right? Is it a sin for that man to get the surgery?

Further, let us say that newly formed “female” marries a biological male. Are they in fact engaging in homosexual activity when they have sex?

It seems the Catechism and the Church has plenty defined regarding homosexuality, but not about transsexualism (forgive me if I have butchered this stuff).

Let us flip this. Say the man who wants the surgey never stops thinking of himself as a woman, he cannot escape it no matter what “he” does. Say he decides to go all in on his physical male nature and chooses to get married to a biological woman. Does that then become a quasi lesbian relationship?

Further, what happens to the souls of people who do get the sugery, and then marry their new “opposite” sex? Are they then fornicating because two people with the same gender dna cannot be sacramentally married?

The transsexual aspect is far more morally difficult imo.

 

[Betterave]

Elijah

*Originally Posted by philokalia7 View Post
You Elijah have just demonstrated before all CAF that you have an inability to think rationally and logically. In case you think I’m wrong about the mortal sin thing just ask your Priest, I’m done with you, you are a disgrace to your University, and to American education in general.

If I were wrong, is this a Christian way to tell me? *

Elijah, you were only chastised for not being able to think logically.

You have chastised philokalia for not being Christian?

No, Elijah didn’t do that, and philokalia is right about the point in question, but he *was *being to harsh (specifically with the personal attack - that’s a clear no-no).

 

[Betterave]

Fornication is always a mortal sin. This is what puts it on the same ground as homosexual acts. We can easily stratify sins into mortal and venial, but I posit that is wrong to stratify them into mortal and more mortal.

You’re missing the point: all mortal sins are equally mortal. But some are worse than others. It is very unreasonable to deny this. Read the CCC yourself:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm
There is nothing to suggest that all mortal sins are equally evil. Do you really think it is equally evil to, say, kill a man because he beat up your daughter, as it is to walk into a Church and assassinate 60 people who are praying, because you hate Catholics and want them to convert to Islam or to leave your country? This point should be very obvious.

 

[paulinx]

No, neither of these actions are moral. Their tendencies must be kept in check because they interfere with others rights. The killer’s action interferes with others live. The adulterer’s actions interfere with the promise that he made to his wife.

Two consenting adults however… whose rights are they interfering with?

I agree that being born with a tendency doesn’t automatically make it moral. But there needs to be a reason to deem it immoral as well.

One can use the term “rights” to mean rights accorded or which ought to be accorded to us by society. In that case, I would say that though one might say that interfering with another person’s rights is wrong that it is not the case that just because something doesn’t interfere with another person’s rights it is not wrong. By “wrong” I don’t mean “ought to be made illegal” – I simply mean wrong. So what I am saying would be compatible with say libertarianism for example.

I think when speaking of homosexuality and the like that the way it is talked about seems to reflect an almost backward understanding of how things actually are. As you say there must be a reason homosexuality is wrong. One can’t say homosexuality is wrong and then from there say that homosexuality is wrong! But what is “wrongness” – it is variance with goodness. So to know what might be wrong we must know what is good – knowing what is wrong doesn’t teach us what is good because it is wrongness that is known as wrong in relation to the good – NOT vice versa. IOW, it’s not that heterosexuality (appropriately expressed) is right because it is NOT homosexuality; it is rather that homosexuality that is wrong because it is NOT heterosexuality. IOW, heterosexuality is what humans are meant to be. Man and woman find their fullest fulfillment in heterosexual relationships versus homosexual relationships. Men and women are not the same in their very psyches – as at the very least our psyches are shaped by our bodies. And so a complementarity – not merely physical but affective and even spiritual – is possible in a heterosexual relationship which is not possible in a homosexual relationship. Other things – which are good – may be present in a homosexual relationship – friendship, bonding, partnership, – and the complementarity of two different individuals. But sexual (i.e. gender) complementarity won’t be there since by definition they are of the same sex (i.e. gender) and so any complementarity would not be sexual. So in essence homosexuals – whether “chaste” or not – are missing out on that dimension of humanity – not that they are less human, but that they are not presently having human life to its fullest potential. That doesn’t even mean that they are less moral. They could be more moral.

And that is all that “wrongness” is – it is a privation of good, a variation from the good that one ought to have. And though it may not be sin to have homosexual inclinations, it is certainly God’s will to invite all to the fullest realization of our humanity, which includes our recognition of being made male and female, one for the other.

And so one can say that homosexuals have misdirected – whether in terms of emotions, desires, or actions and relationships – aspects to their being. They are desiring fundamentally good things – companionship, what have you – but are misguided in how they are specifically realizing them.

 

[roelblomsma]

What do you mean by ‘tolerance’ and where did Jesus teach us that?

It’s obvious that we shouldn’t ‘blindly’ follow scripture, so please don’t bother pointing that out again.

Obviously it is for God to judge how much each individual is responsible for his or her particular actions, not us. But obviously Jesus taught us a little more than just some bland fuzzy notion of ‘tolerance.’

Are you kidding me?!!! Have you even read the Gospels. You can’t be real.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”
“Love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and intelligence. Love others as well as you love yourself.”
“Judge another, and thy shalt be judged by the same means.”
and finaly
"Our Father…].forgive our trespases as we forgive those who trespas against us…
Etc. etc.

In Romans, Paul adresses the issue of the Jews and the Gentils and states that simply following the mosaic laws is of no use. Only actions inspired by faith in God count.

In short…Christianity is all about love and tolerance towards others. And, yes, towards oneself descipline and strictness.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Betterave

*No, Elijah didn’t do that, and philokalia is right about the point in question, but he was being to harsh (specifically with the personal attack - that’s a clear no-no). *

Which is more harsh as a personal attack: to be called illogical, or to be called unchristian?

I think it’s a clear no-no for a Catholic in this forum to call another Catholic unchristian. But I think it’s a clear yes-yes for a Catholic to call another Catholic illogical** if he is**. We have no obligation to deal with illogical people and it is fair to tell the person we consider to be illogical that we are done with them because they are not being logical.