Homosexual Acts are Not Against the Natural Law

[Rau]

I’m not sure it’s a bad reason. I mean, certainly, one should measure all the physical, moral, and spiritual consequences, but if that all checks out, I’m not sure why doing something simply for enjoyment would be wrong.

I go back and forth on this question. At the moment, I think that pleasure is a sometimes a valid reason for action.

Pleasure is a perfectly valid reason for sex with one’s spouse. It is not a justification for related corruptions.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Pleasure is a perfectly valid reason for sex with one’s spouse. It is not a justification for related corruptions.

Or even – – chess with one’s spouse.

Just don’t go cheatin’ on her with other chess players!

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m not sure it’s a bad reason. I mean, certainly, one should measure all the physical, moral, and spiritual consequences, but if that all checks out, I’m not sure why doing something simply for enjoyment would be wrong.

I go back and forth on this question. At the moment, I think that pleasure is a sometimes a valid reason for action.

Not quite what I said, though.

I asked if “feeling good” could ever be a sufficient end for and behaviour or action. When the good feelings attend to some other end that might make pleasure a valid reason, but if merely producing the “feeling” of pleasure (as distinct from happiness) of itself can be a sufficient moral end, I suspect that would become problematic.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Not quite what I said, though.

I asked if “feeling good” could ever be a sufficient end for and behaviour or action. When the good feelings attend to some other end that might make pleasure a valid reason, but if merely producing the “feeling” of pleasure (as distinct from happiness) of itself can be a sufficient moral end, I suspect that would become problematic.

I think the key question is, “Is this the sort of good feeling that tends to lead to flourishing?” If it is, and if there are no special moral circumstances that apply, it’s all good.

Of course, the devil’s in the details, because we are the types of beings that see consequences in a very confused way, when we desire some activity a great deal. Hence my signature line.

 

[Thorolfr]

Further suppose that the promotion of eating ice cream or riding roller coasters necessarily meant promoting utter disregard for the lives of those new or potential human beings.

I can understand being concerned about real human beings, but I find it difficult to have the same concern for “potential human beings”. That’s why using a condom or masturbating do not seem problematic to me personally. This issue of “potential human beings” reminds me of the lyrics from the little song from Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life, “Every Sperm is Sacred”:

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

But I know that the Catholic Church sees this issue differently than what I do.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I can understand being concerned about real human beings, but I find it difficult to have the same concern for “potential human beings”. That’s why using a condom or masturbating do not seem problematic to me personally. This issue of “potential human beings” reminds me of the lyrics from the little song from Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life, “Every Sperm is Sacred”:

But I know that the Catholic Church sees this issue differently than what I do.

But I wonder, Thor: do you think the world has become a better place because of the widespread use and availability of contraceptives?

 

[LisaA]

I can understand being concerned about real human beings, but I find it difficult to have the same concern for “potential human beings”. That’s why using a condom or masturbating do not seem problematic to me personally. This issue of “potential human beings” reminds me of the lyrics from the little song from Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life, “Every Sperm is Sacred”:

But I know that the Catholic Church sees this issue differently than what I do.

The Catholic Church’s approach is not exactly the same as ancient Judaism that specifically prohibited “spilling seed…” But all sexual expression is to be open to life which means a) an opposite sex couple and b) no use of ABC. It is not concern for individual sperm cells or even eggs but that you are degrading your body, the Temple of the Holy Spirit but not showing reverence for the creative power you were given. Of course even in a Marital Embrace where a child is conceived, many millions of little sperm cells die as they swim upstream. The issue isn’t the wasted sperm but the cavalier and carnal approach to this amazing human power…to co create with God a new and unique human being.

 

[James82]

In response to Rau and Prodigal Son,

It seems my response in the form of Rom 1: 24-32 was insufficient for your liking. In that passage St. Paul alludes to immoral sex acts being the result of turning away from God’s providence. We can then infer from this that like any other situation that results in turning away from God, a lack of love is the inception of said turning away.

I will grant you that this does not ‘explain’ the genesis of same sex attraction, in as much as you want it to explain that. As I believe I said in an earlier post, what is the inception of any disordered feeling or desire? The fall and sin…from the Christian perspective there simply isn’t another explanation. If the only possible path of homosexual lust is homosexual action, then we must deduce that the desire is in the camp of disorder as well. Why is that?? How should I know? Does it matter?

For seven years I struggled with an immense substance addiction, it was the most horrible time of my life. I fought and struggled all to no avail, until finally, by the grace of God the fog slowly lifted. How is this pertinent? There will be temptation and testing for everyone in this life, regardless of their plight.

Does the origin of my desire to abuse a substance have any bearing on the fact that I had to defeat it with God’s help? No!

However, you did not see me muscling in and bemoaning my plight and attempting to get everyone to ‘accept’ me and my addiction. I did not dare attempt to start threads ‘why substance addiction is not against God’s will’.

While I applaud those who are working out their demons with the guidance of the Church, I will not applaud someone who claims to be working with the Church claiming that perversity is not against Natural Law…What?! This extends to any who support such a claim as well.

I would expect as much from a non-believing poster, but not someone in ministry! Collectively we have seen this issue destroy whole ecclesial communities, and we want to have esoteric debates on it’s genesis and inception and what makes it ‘intrinsically disordered’?!

Prodigal,

Again while I can appreciate your struggle in as much as I had the struggle of my life; I believe it is best you fight out with a priest and a support group. I hope I don’t come across too callous. Here is an excellent article by someone regarding this issue. I couldn’t of dreamt of putting it any better myself. A must read.

lifesitenews.com/opinion/the-strange-notion-of-gay-celibacy

 

[Prodigal_Son]

In response to Rau and Prodigal Son,

It seems my response in the form of Rom 1: 24-32 was insufficient for your liking. In that passage St. Paul alludes to immoral sex acts being the result of turning away from God’s providence. We can then infer from this that like any other situation that results in turning away from God, a lack of love is the inception of said turning away.

I will grant you that this does not ‘explain’ the genesis of same sex attraction, in as much as you want it to explain that. As I believe I said in an earlier post, what is the inception of any disordered feeling or desire? The fall and sin…from the Christian perspective there simply isn’t another explanation. If the only possible path of homosexual lust is homosexual action, then we must deduce that the desire is in the camp of disorder as well. Why is that?? How should I know? Does it matter?

Neither Rau nor I disagree that homosexual desire is disordered. We both agree, also, that it is the result of sin. We do not, however, think that – as in the Romans 1 passage – it is always the result of the spiritual rebellion of the individual who is tempted. We think the Romans 1 passage may describe some people (e.g. people who turn to homosexual sex because they’re bored, or because they love transgression), but it does not describe others.

For seven years I struggled with an immense substance addiction, it was the most horrible time of my life. I fought and struggled all to no avail, until finally, by the grace of God the fog slowly lifted. How is this pertinent? There will be temptation and testing for everyone in this life, regardless of their plight.

Agreed. Praise God for your healing!

However, you did not see me muscling in and bemoaning my plight and attempting to get everyone to ‘accept’ me and my addiction. I did not dare attempt to start threads ‘why substance addiction is not against God’s will’.

OK. Did you read anywhere where I tried to get everyone to accept my sexual desires?

While I applaud those who are working out their demons with the guidance of the Church, I will not applaud someone who claims to be working with the Church claiming that perversity is not against Natural Law…What?! This extends to any who support such a claim as well.

Did I tell you to applaud such a person?

I agree that homosexual sex is against natural law!

Prodigal,

Again while I can appreciate your struggle in as much as I had the struggle of my life; I believe it is best you fight out with a priest and a support group. I hope I don’t come across too callous. Here is an excellent article by someone regarding this issue. I couldn’t of dreamt of putting it any better myself. A must read.

lifesitenews.com/opinion/the-strange-notion-of-gay-celibacy

I’m friends with the author, actually. I agree with 99% of what he says there. I’m puzzled as to what you think about me. You seem to assume that, since I admit to having same-sex attraction, I must be trying to defend my disorder.

 

[Thorolfr]

But I wonder, Thor: do you think the world has become a better place because of the widespread use and availability of contraceptives?

I think that contraceptives have their uses. For example, abstinence only sex education programs in schools might sound like a good idea, but some young people will have sex regardless and I think it would be better if they knew something about using condoms. Although not perfect, they can still prevent the spread of venereal diseases and prevent pregnancies among teens who are not ready for marriage.

 

[Rau]

In response to Rau and Prodigal Son,

It seems my response in the form of Rom 1: 24-32 was insufficient for your liking. In that passage St. Paul alludes to immoral sex acts being the result of turning away from God’s providence. We can then infer from this that like any other situation that results in turning away from God, a lack of love is the inception of said turning away.

I will grant you that this does not ‘explain’ the genesis of same sex attraction, in as much as you want it to explain that. As I believe I said in an earlier post, what is the inception of any disordered feeling or desire? The fall and sin…from the Christian perspective there simply isn’t another explanation. If the only possible path of homosexual lust is homosexual action, then we must deduce that the desire is in the camp of disorder as well.

James you put forward the Romans quote and you needn’t speculate on what I might want from it.

If this was to explain disordered inclinations as a consequence of the fall, then I really have no comment, but note that Prodigal makes a good observation on that text. If it was to suggest a responsibility for those inclinations should rest on the shoulders of the sufferer, then I hope the examples of “Jimmy” and “Prodigal” have caused you to think more.

 

[Rau]

… I’m puzzled as to what you think about me. You seem to assume that, since I admit to having same-sex attraction, I must be trying to defend my disorder.

It may be that James did not fully realise that persons like the fictional “Jimmy” and the real “Prodigal” actually exist.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I think that contraceptives have their uses. For example, abstinence only sex education programs in schools might sound like a good idea, but some young people will have sex regardless and I think it would be better if they knew something about using condoms.

But Thor, teenagers had MUCH less sex before contraceptives were on the scene. There were FEWER out of wedlock births, and FEWER diseases. “Young people will have sex regardless” is proved false by history. What is clear is this: young people will have sex if we protect them from the consequences.

I don’t support abstinence-only education. I oppose sex education entirely. Take the condoms and the birth control away, and tell them about the birds and the bees. The rest is their decision.

 

[Rau]

But Thor, teenagers had MUCH less sex before contraceptives were on the scene. There were FEWER out of wedlock births, and FEWER diseases. “Young people will have sex regardless” is proved false by history. What is clear is this: young people will have sex if we protect them from the consequences.

I don’t support abstinence-only education. I oppose sex education entirely. Take the condoms and the birth control away, and tell them about the birds and the bees. The rest is their decision.

Can you clarify what you oppose? Sex Ed in schools, “safe sex” Ed, or something else?

 

[Thorolfr]

But Thor, teenagers had MUCH less sex before contraceptives were on the scene. There were FEWER out of wedlock births, and FEWER diseases. “Young people will have sex regardless” is proved false by history. What is clear is this: young people will have sex if we protect them from the consequences.

I don’t support abstinence-only education. I oppose sex education entirely. Take the condoms and the birth control away, and tell them about the birds and the bees. The rest is their decision.

I don’t agree because sometimes the consequences can be catastrophic and many young people especially think that they are invincible and make rash decisions. Using a condom might be considered immoral by the Catholic Church, but getting a disease like AIDS is much worse. If even one young person is saved by safe-sex education and is taught how to use condoms, it is worth it in my opinion.

More than 30 years ago, I grew up knowing very little about sex or sexually transmitted diseases. I did not learn anything about it in school nor did I get a birds-and-the-bees talk from my parents. I’m sure that there were others like me back then and many naive young gay men (including almost all my friends from the 1980s) died from AIDS. I would never want to go back to the way it was back then in some parts of the country because I know from experience that ignorance can kill.

 

[Rau]

I don’t agree because sometimes the consequences can be catastrophic and many young people especially think that they are invincible and make rash decisions. Using a condom might be considered immoral by the Catholic Church, but getting a disease like AIDS is much worse. If even one young person is saved by safe-sex education and is taught how to use condoms, it is worth it in my opinion.

Many persons continue to contract HIV, and the reason is not the lack of availability of condoms. Prodigal’s earlier point about the level of unwanted pregnancies and the level of STDs in the present era, compared with prior, is interesting. I think you are ignoring it, or do you disagree on the facts?

If even one young person is saved through an education about the right and proper context for sexual relations, it is worth it in my opinion.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t agree because sometimes the consequences can be catastrophic and many young people especially think that they are invincible and make rash decisions. Using a condom might be considered immoral by the Catholic Church, but getting a disease like AIDS is much worse. If even one young person is saved by safe-sex education and is taught how to use condoms, it is worth it in my opinion.

More than 30 years ago, I grew up knowing very little about sex or sexually transmitted diseases. I did not learn anything about it in school nor did I get a birds-and-the-bees talk from my parents. I’m sure that there were others like me back then and many naive young gay men (including almost all my friends from the 1980s) died from AIDS. I would never want to go back to the way it was back then in some parts of the country because I know from experience that ignorance can kill.

Sure, and “knowledge” now kills millions of unborn human beings each year. But somehow that is okay because we really don’t “know” that they are human beings even though we know every one of us was there at one time in our life.

“Catastrophic consequences” are still happening and, in fact, are far more catastrophic because we have found a way for young persons to get what they want without the need for taking responsibility for those catastrophic consequences. I have this odd and sickening feeling that the catastrophic consequences will be far, far worse in the future when more and more young people are trained to believe they don’t need to take responsibility for any consequences at all because someone somewhere will find a way to excuse, rationalize or somehow “treat” those consequences and further inoculate them from feeling “bad” about anything a capricious little heart can possibly desire or do.

 

[Thorolfr]

Many persons continue to contract HIV, and the reason is not the lack of availability of condoms.

It’s not the lack of condoms, it’s knowledge about how to use them properly and about how easy it is to contract STDs. Since some young people will have sexual relations despite the possible consequences, they should know about the risks and about safe sex. Being ignorant about these issues is not going to prevent them from having sexual relations, but it will probably make it less likely that they will do so in the safest way possible no matter how unwise some people might consider this to be.

 

[James82]

Neither Rau nor I disagree that homosexual desire is disordered. We both agree, also, that it is the result of sin. We do not, however, think that – as in the Romans 1 passage – it is always the result of the spiritual rebellion of the individual who is tempted. We think the Romans 1 passage may describe some people (e.g. people who turn to homosexual sex because they’re bored, or because they love transgression), but it does not describe others.

Agreed. Praise God for your healing!

OK. Did you read anywhere where I tried to get everyone to accept my sexual desires?

Did I tell you to applaud such a person?

I agree that homosexual sex is against natural law!

I’m friends with the author, actually. I agree with 99% of what he says there. I’m puzzled as to what you think about me. You seem to assume that, since I admit to having samle-sex attraction, I must be trying to defend my disorder.

Prodigal and Rau,

In my haste I see that I did not properly distinguish between the thread author and yourself in my last few paragraphs, I apologize for that, that was a gross mistake. What is the direction of the thread now?

 

[Lucy107]

The problem is that this argument focuses on the external design of the body while ignoring the internal design. Although we don’t fully understand the causes of homosexuality at this time, it has become increasingly clear that some people are simply designed to have same-sex attraction. If so, then God was the designer.

Now why would God design some people for opposite-sex relationships in their exterior body but same-sex relationships in their interior life? I have no idea. But it doesn’t really matter. If God designed it that way, then who am I to judge?

So if we want to respect the Natural Law, then we have to accept same-sex relations because it seems to be the case that God himself designed some people that way on the inside even if not on the outside. To put it crudely, even if the exterior parts don’t fit, the interior ones sure do.

Any activity in which a person engages in which they see themselves or another person (or any other living being or object) as an object of their sensual desire, is sinful.

I think this reasoning explains the sinfulness of any non-procreative sexual activity (homosexuality, masturbation, engaging in sex with using contraceptives or otherwise with the desire not to procreate, abortion, necrophilia, sodomy).

Also, per this reasoning, conceiving children with the intention that these children should somehow cater to one’s sensual desires (ie. objectifying prospective children, such as when people have children “because everyone else has them too” so that such parents can feel “normal” and accepted by society, or “to have someone who will look after me when I’m old”), are problematic as well.

This reasoning also explains how for example killing, stealing, lying and disrespect for parents are sinful, as in all those cases, other people (who are the targets of such behavior) are reduced in the doer’s consciousness to mere objects.