Homosexual Acts are Not Against the Natural Law

[edwest2]

Having been here in CAF for a few months, I’ve learned a lot about the Catholic position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage, but I personally don’t see how we as a society are going to go back to a widespread view that homosexuality is a disorder or that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry.

To be honest, I’m astounded myself sometimes at how much things have changed in my own lifetime. Forty-three years ago, homosexuality was still classified as a mental illness, and 30 years ago there were still hardly any churches where LGBT people would have been welcome aside perhaps from the United Church of Christ and the almost exclusively gay and lesbian Metropolitan Community Church. I would never have imagined in my wildest dreams back then that same-sex marriage would become legal.

Now there are many churches that welcome LGBT people from my own Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the Disciples of Christ, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ (UCC), many Anglican churches, Quakers, Metropolitan Community Church, some United Methodist churches, some American Baptist churches. Same-sex marriage is now legal in 37 states and many ELCA, Presbyterian, Anglican, Quaker, UCC, and Disciples of Christ churches will marry same-sex couples. Many of these churches now allow non-celibate gays and lesbians to be clergy. At the last LGBT pride parade where I live, there was a contingent from the local Methodist and UCC churches. There was even a contingent of LGBT Catholics.

Just a couple of days ago, I was watching NCIS on TV and this episode was about an openly gay US Marine who was being considered for a Medal of Honor. His same-sex spouse was called his “husband” by the actor who plays Gibbs and by the other NCIS characters. Even I was surprised by that episode.

I don’t think that there is any going back at this point no matter how much some people might still disapprove.

Honestly. Then why post here?

Going back is not the right term. Why did the American Psychiatric Association decide to remove homosexuality from their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 1973? They had spent decades talking to homosexual persons, making assessments and publishing scholarly articles for others in their profession to comment on. However, there were closeted gays in the APA and radical gay activists that worked to arrange a vote, so what was a disorder yesterday became not a disorder the next day. All that research was out the window.

amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370

So, political pressure, not sound research, changed the landscape. Sex-change operations increased in frequency. And for those who think that today, the APA was not a critical element, take Transgender people. In 2013, their diagnosis was changed. How?

“Whereas previously a man who self-identified” as a woman (or vice versa) could have been classified as mentally ill, now the DSM-5 uses the term “gender dysphoria,” which means it is only a mental illness if you’re troubled by this self-identification. Elated activists in the “LGBT” community had lobbied the APA for the change for years.”

I don’t find lobbying by a special-interest group to be a sound, or scientific, way to change a diagnosis.

Gay marriage was inevitable, to be followed by multiple conjugal partners and other types of “families” that really aren’t families. And it appears that it’s mostly about enshrining certain sexual combinations into law.

Why some non-Catholic religious groups decided to accept a flawed premise is not for me to comment on, except to repeat the truth about marriage. The Catholic Church is about truth. The truth will set us free. Approval or disapproval is not the issue.

Ed

 

[LisaA]

Honestly. Then why post here?

Going back is not the right term. Why did the American Psychiatric Association decide to remove homosexuality from their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 1973? They had spent decades talking to homosexual persons, making assessments and publishing scholarly articles for others in their profession to comment on. However, there were closeted gays in the APA and radical gay activists that worked to arrange a vote, so what was a disorder yesterday became not a disorder the next day. All that research was out the window.

amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370

So, political pressure, not sound research, changed the landscape. Sex-change operations increased in frequency. And for those who think that today, the APA was not a critical element, take Transgender people. In 2013, their diagnosis was changed. How?

“Whereas previously a man who self-identified” as a woman (or vice versa) could have been classified as mentally ill, now the DSM-5 uses the term “gender dysphoria,” which means it is only a mental illness if you’re troubled by this self-identification. Elated activists in the “LGBT” community had lobbied the APA for the change for years.”

I don’t find lobbying by a special-interest group to be a sound, or scientific, way to change a diagnosis.

Gay marriage was inevitable, to be followed by multiple conjugal partners and other types of “families” that really aren’t families. And it appears that it’s mostly about enshrining certain sexual combinations into law.

Why some non-Catholic religious groups decided to accept a flawed premise is not for me to comment on, except to repeat the truth about marriage. The Catholic Church is about truth. The truth will set us free. Approval or disapproval is not the issue.

Ed

When the people of states vote, they vote down gay “marriage.” So much for this becoming mainstream…anywhere but the Left Coast and among Beltway Elites and New England. But unfortunately this agenda is being advanced by those whom I truly believe are well meaning but truly ignorant about basic biology. As I said we have this Barney the Dinosaur meme that if you’re “nice” it doesn’t matter what you do or with whom. For the Left, the actual truth doesn’t matter unless it pushes their agenda. If it doesn’t it can be conveniently ignored as it has been about the pathologies associated with same sex relationships and the dumbing down of psychiatric disturbances. When something is a mental illness only if the PATIENT says it is, this is lunacy but not by the patient but by the doctor.

 

[edwest2]

When the people of states vote, they vote down gay “marriage.” So much for this becoming mainstream…anywhere but the Left Coast and among Beltway Elites and New England. But unfortunately this agenda is being advanced by those whom I truly believe are well meaning but truly ignorant about basic biology. As I said we have this Barney the Dinosaur meme that if you’re “nice” it doesn’t matter what you do or with whom. For the Left, the actual truth doesn’t matter unless it pushes their agenda. If it doesn’t it can be conveniently ignored as it has been about the pathologies associated with same sex relationships and the dumbing down of psychiatric disturbances. When something is a mental illness only if the PATIENT says it is, this is lunacy but not by the patient but by the doctor.

This brings up the question: “Doesn’t the doctor, who has the training to make a diagnosis, as opposed to the patient, understand this?” A number of ideas are being marketed and they all boil down to pleasure. But, that’s not enough. Either society accepts it or it is spread by force of law. Gay storybooks for little kids in public schools? How did they get there? Did teachers and school libraries suddenly decide, “Well, now that gay marriage is legal in our state, the kids need to become accustomed to it?” I don’t think so. Just like bakers and florists had to become accustomed to it. Just as those who watch TV - and are aware - suddenly, with no prior history, see gay married characters.

Homosexual persons had moms and dads or one or the other. They know how babies get here. Sex education in schools? What a great idea, eh? I think gay lobbyists and a number of organized and networked gay marriage advocates are working very hard to keep people believing what they want them to believe.

A few examples:

Marriage Equality USA
Human Rights Campaign
Freedom to Marry

Yes, there are some who don’t understand what’s at stake but I’ve found it to be an unexamined viewpoint. I actually heard: “They’re not hurting anyone.” Force is something people don’t like.

And LGBT persons are welcome to attend Mass at Catholic Churches.

Ed

 

[Rau]

…When something is a mental illness only if the PATIENT says it is, this is lunacy but not by the patient but by the doctor.

Of course, you know my take on all this by now, so read this with that in the back of you rmind…

I have just the tiniest bit of sympathy for the mental health people. As a practical matter, the situation was more or less the following:

• no known cause for homosexuality;
• most gay persons did not want treatment;
• most gay persons did not believe themselves in need of treatment
• the capacity of gay persons to function in the community was (in the view of most of them) not encumbered (though their treatment by others was likely a hindrance);
• no effective treatment.

Of course, the change in classification of homosexuality does positively reinforce/promote all the above (ie. positive feedback), but I think that was the prevailing situation prior to the change. And I’m not disagreeing with the view that the APA was ‘politically’ influenced - frankly, I don’t know the history in that regard.

Now, to my mind, homosexuality does reflect something gone amiss in the individual. But what is it that the mental health professionals can usefully do in this circumstance, other than study the issue more?

 

[LisaA]

This brings up the question: “Doesn’t the doctor, who has the training to make a diagnosis, as opposed to the patient, understand this?” A number of ideas are being marketed and they all boil down to pleasure. But, that’s not enough. Either society accepts it or it is spread by force of law. Gay storybooks for little kids in public schools? How did they get there? Did teachers and school libraries suddenly decide, “Well, now that gay marriage is legal in our state, the kids need to become accustomed to it?” I don’t think so. Just like bakers and florists had to become accustomed to it. Just as those who watch TV - and are aware - suddenly, with no prior history, see gay married characters.

Homosexual persons had moms and dads or one or the other. They know how babies get here. Sex education in schools? What a great idea, eh? I think gay lobbyists and a number of organized and networked gay marriage advocates are working very hard to keep people believing what they want them to believe.

A few examples:

Marriage Equality USA
Human Rights Campaign
Freedom to Marry

Yes, there are some who don’t understand what’s at stake but I’ve found it to be an unexamined viewpoint. I actually heard: “They’re not hurting anyone.” Force is something people don’t like.

And LGBT persons are welcome to attend Mass at Catholic Churches.

Ed

It truly is fascinating that these soft sciences don’t see the lunacy of these positions. You cannot vote something out of the catergory of mental illness based on the self reporting of those who suffer from these pathologies. This isn’t the most objective source of information! Anyone who’s been around addicts knows how self delusion…I don’t have a drinking problem!..prevents addressing the problem and becoming clean and sober.

Obviously promoting homosexuality as just another adult relationship equivalent to having a married mommy and daddy is agenda driven. As you said today in elementary schools children are being indoctrinated that “all families are the same…” and that even pre pubescent children should learn about sexual practices. It’s one thing to point out the obvious…a child has a mommy and a daddy but how it was done isn’t relative or appropriate at young ages. Yet it’s occurring, often at the instigation of Planned Parenthood which seems to be ginning up more business for the future. Further the gay activist have taken over with these specious “anti bullying” programs. Of course no one condones bullying but the reality is that it’s been going on for as long as there have been children and the vast majority has nothing to do with sexual orientation. But it’s the new cause celebre along with “transgender” males being allowed on the girl’s soccer team and inside their restroom.

Schools are run by very left wing teacher’s unions and often are female led. Much as I love the fair sex, it tends to base things on feelings, how other feel, and what was intended rather than what actually works. I suspect the average teacher feels no compulsion to promote homosexuality but unfortunately these agenda driven subjects are forced upon them. We have a very sad case of an award winning MATH and technology teacher who was at one of our most prestigious high schools being tossed out for refusing to allow Planned Parenthood into his MATH class to promote a sexual “exploration” organization where teens would be free to ask questions of these oh so objective and caring souls. Honestly if I had school age children I’d eat cat food to keep them out of these indoctrination bureaus.

 

[edwest2]

Of course, you know my take on all this by now, so read this with that in the back of you rmind…

I have just the tiniest bit of sympathy for the mental health people. As a practical matter, the situation was more or less the following:

• no known cause for homosexuality;
• most gay persons did not want treatment;
• most gay persons did not believe themselves in need of treatment
• the capacity of gay persons to function in the community was (in the view of most of them) not encumbered (though their treatment by others was likely a hindrance);
• no effective treatment.

Of course, the change in classification of homosexuality does positively reinforce/promote all the above (ie. positive feedback), but I think that was the prevailing situation prior to the change. And I’m not disagreeing with the view that the APA was ‘politically’ influenced - frankly, I don’t know the history in that regard.

Now, to my mind, homosexuality does reflect something gone amiss in the individual. But what is it that the mental health professionals can usefully do in this circumstance, other than study the issue more?

They can help people with unwanted same-sex attraction understand themselves.

Ed

 

[LisaA]

Of course, you know my take on all this by now, so read this with that in the back of you rmind…

I have just the tiniest bit of sympathy for the mental health people. As a practical matter, the situation was more or less the following:

• no known cause for homosexuality;
• most gay persons did not want treatment;
• most gay persons did not believe themselves in need of treatment
• the capacity of gay persons to function in the community was (in the view of most of them) not encumbered (though their treatment by others was likely a hindrance);
• no effective treatment.

Of course, the change in classification of homosexuality does positively reinforce/promote all the above (ie. positive feedback), but I think that was the prevailing situation prior to the change. And I’m not disagreeing with the view that the APA was ‘politically’ influenced - frankly, I don’t know the history in that regard.

Now, to my mind, homosexuality does reflect something gone amiss in the individual. But what is it that the mental health professionals can usefully do in this circumstance, other than study the issue more?

Actually the reference above was with respect to the “transgender” baloney which is now claiming that if Joe thinks he’s really Josephine if it doesn’t bother him or cause him any mental anguish what the heck…he can BE Josephine. This was similar to the evolution of homosexuality going from a mental illness to a mental illness only if it bothered the patient to now saying it’s absolutely normal just another way to “do it” like an addendum to the Kama Sutra.

You are correct, perhaps Same Sex Attraction isn’t on par with other mental illnesses and reclassifying it or carving out only those cases that caused great mental disturbance isn’t the worst thing the APA has done. But that it was based on a vote, after huge pressure by gay activists makes it rather suspect. Sadly it has swung in the opposite direction where those who offer therapies to help those who WANT counseling or other assistance to get out of the gay lifestyle are banned by some governments as if someone who wants NOT to be gay is too stupid to make his or her own decisions. There are legitimate groups and therapies that are not forced on anyone but the gay activists are apparently so unsure that their sexual practices are not sufficiently fulfilling someone might want to leave, they prevent these therapies from even being offered.

As it is I have next to zero respect for these soft sciences. They are junk science without even a couple of good graphs and charts to promote their ideas. Things have become completely relative and victim oriented. Now drug addicts are merely “self medicating” and the mentally ill are pandered to in their delusions regarding their chromosomal gender. A world gone mad, run at the various lusts and urges with self gratification as the goal in life.

 

[Lucy107]

I don’t recall anybody arguing the sinfulness of non-procreative sexual acts on this thread.

I did, in my first post here.

Now, to my mind, homosexuality does reflect something gone amiss in the individual.

It’s engaging in sex when one doesn’t want to have children that reflects something gone amiss in the individual, and it doesn’t matter whether the individual is homosexual or heterosexual.

There is a crucial similarity between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex that is engaged in with the desire or hope not to produce children: in both cases, the persons involved see themselves and their sexual partner as reduced to mere objects of sensual desire, as means to an end.

No, this is not the proper way to view a child of God.

It’s just that in society at large, it has been so socially implicitly acceptable to objectify women in heterosexual relationships, that it usually isn’t noticed that the real problem is objectification of self and other (whether heterosexual or homosexual).

 

[Midwest88]

I think gay lobbyists and a number of organized and networked gay marriage advocates are working very hard to keep people believing what they want them to believe.

A few examples:

Marriage Equality USA
Human Rights Campaign
Freedom to Marry

I’ll add the “It Gets Better” movement. It should be re-named “You’ll Be More Indignant” movement.

 

[Rau]

It’s engaging in sex when one doesn’t want to have children that reflects something gone amiss in the individual

Is it your view that sex ought be engaged in only with the hope for a pregnancy? Does that extend to an obligation to choose the timing of sex to make that outcome most likely? Does it mean abstaining after menopause?

BTW, the “something gone amiss” observation of mine, which you took out of context in your post, was a reference to the presence of SSA in some individuals, not to the behavior of some of those persons.

 

[Lucy107]

Is it your view that sex ought be engaged in only with the hope for a pregnancy? Does that extend to an obligation to choose the timing of sex to make that outcome most likely? Does it mean abstaining after menopause?

Yes on all counts. Because this is the only way to be a responsible prospective parent and the only way to treat oneself and others with proper respect.
Everything else is schizophrenic mental and moral jugglery.

 

[Rau]

Yes on all counts. Because this is the only way to be a responsible prospective parent and the only way to treat oneself and others with proper respect.

Have you met anyone who shares that perspective? Do you know of any Church that teaches this?

 

[Lucy107]

Have you met anyone who shares that perspective? Do you know of any Church that teaches this?

To the best of my knowledge, there are some conservative/traditionalist Catholics, some conservative/traditionalist Buddhists, some conservative/traditionalist Hindus, and some conservative/traditionalist humanists who also have that perspective.

But as a church/religion that teaches that as an actual doctrine, to the best of my knowledge, only the Hare Krishnas (ISKCON) do.

To me, this perspective isn’t specifically religious or specific to a particular religion, but is simply common-sense.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Yes on all counts. Because this is the only way to be a responsible prospective parent and the only way to treat oneself and others with proper respect.
Everything else is schizophrenic mental and moral jugglery.

My wife and I have been married ten years, and we have five kids. My wife has fibromyalgia, which makes prolonged and intense activity painful for her. Our income puts us near the poverty line, since I’m in grad school, and need to dedicate much of my time to completing school and teaching. My wife works 36 hours a month, while I take care of the kids.

If we had never used NFP, we would probably have 8 kids right now. I’m quite sure that would not help us be better parents to the children we have. Do you disagree? Or what would you recommend for us?

 

[Lucy107]

If we had never used NFP, we would probably have 8 kids right now. I’m quite sure that would not help us be better parents to the children we have. Do you disagree? Or what would you recommend for us?

By asking me this, you are steering the discussion into a very delicate situation.

Obviously, I am not going to advise you on anything nor recommend anything to you at this point. What you do is between you and God.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

By asking me this, you are steering the discussion into a very delicate situation.

No, I’m asking you if your moral position on this matter, which you are willing to publicly proclaim and criticize others for not following, despite the fact that neither the Church nor any other reputable organization endorses it, is reasonable. And I am using a very concrete case study to test your position: my children’s lives.

Either you can give an adequate answer, or you should rethink your moral position.

 

[LisaA]

I did, in my first post here.

***It’s engaging in sex when one doesn’t want to have children that reflects something gone amiss in the individual, and it doesn’t matter whether the individual is homosexual or heterosexual.***There is a crucial similarity between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex that is engaged in with the desire or hope not to produce children: in both cases, the persons involved see themselves and their sexual partner as reduced to mere objects of sensual desire, as means to an end.

No, this is not the proper way to view a child of God.

It’s just that in society at large, it has been so socially implicitly acceptable to objectify women in heterosexual relationships, that it usually isn’t noticed that the real problem is objectification of self and other (whether heterosexual or homosexual).

That’s your opinion and not shared by the Church. You don’t indicate whether you are Catholic or not so perhaps your faith teaches you something very different. While not objectifying the other person IS part of our Church’s teaching, sex within marriage has two components, unitive and procreative. If the couple is open to life…not using ABC…that is makes the marital embrace a potentially procreative act, even if the wife is post menopausal or not in a fertile period. We are not livestock, only engaging in sexual activity when the female is fertile (in heat as we call it down on the farm). As to homosexual relationships, they always objectify the other since there is no potential for life…ever. Further given that the wrong body parts are used for the wrong purpose (one shouldn’t be using the digestive tract for sex nor the reproductive organs to process food) we are engaging in actions detrimental to physical as well as emotional health. As the Psalm says, we are wonderfully and fearfully made. We should have intense respect for the proper functioning of our bodies. They are truly a miracle.

Where did you come up with this theory and are you aware this is not what the Church teaches? I suggest you read Theology of the Body or any of the Christopher West books. Your theories are not quite on course with what our Church teaches.

 

[Lucy107]

No, I’m asking you if your moral position on this matter, which you are willing to publicly proclaim and criticize others for not following, despite the fact that neither the Church nor any other reputable organization endorses it, is reasonable.

Is my position reasonable for people who are determined to enjoy life in some particular way? Of course not.
Is it reasonable for people who have limited material means? Yes.

neither the Church nor any other reputable organization endorses it

As I am not appealing to any authority, your point doesn’t apply. I only mentioned those organizations or religions as examples, not as authority.

And I am using a very concrete case study to test your position: my children’s lives.

What about your children’s lives? I have nothing to do with them.

This is a discussion forum, not an actual meeting of a Catholic group where the future of a potential member would be decided.

Obviously, if I were to go to my local Catholic group and express my position directly and without being invited to do so, I would probably be rejected.

But a discussion forum is not the same; it is intended specifically to discuss issues.

Either you can give an adequate answer, or you should rethink your moral position.

Do convince me of the superiority of your position.

---

Where did you come up with this theory and are you aware this is not what the Church teaches? I suggest you read Theology of the Body or any of the Christopher West books. Your theories are not quite on course with what our Church teaches.

I am aware that the way I have formulated my position is not exactly the same as what the Catholic Church teaches. I think it is in its spirit, though. Nor am I in any way proposing that the position I present is the same as the Church’s.

I think the Church’s position is making a concession for people who are eager to enjoy sensual pleasures. There are more such concessions, like the one about drinking alcohol moderately.

I also didn’t “come up with this theory.” My perspective is simply based on a concern for myself and others. And it is shared with some other people from different religions, although it certainly isn’t mainstream anywhere.
I look at the way people usually live, the terms on which they engage in sex, and I think I would be utterly miserable if I were to live that way too.

I didn’t indicate a religious affiliation in my profile because I don’t have one.

As I am contemplating baptism in the Catholic Church, this issue is something I need to get some clarity on, among some others.

Since I don’t intend to ever preach my position as the Church’s, nor ever bring it up other than in situations specifically intended for such discussions, am not married and probably never will be, my stance on these matters doesn’t affect anyone but me.
But the stance that Catholics have in these matters does affect me, when these Catholics are in some position of power over me; me seeing some things differently than those Catholics could mean sanctions for me, perhaps enough differences would mean they would deny me baptism; and also, I don’t trust those people as much as I would like to trust someone through whom I would receive the sacraments.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Is my position reasonable for people who are determined to enjoy life in some particular way? Of course not.
Is it reasonable for people who have limited material means? Yes.

How many children do you have? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to remain emotionally stable when having an income of less than $30000 and five children under 9 years old – much less 7-8 children under nine? Much less a serious health issue?

Do you think that God desires children to have emotionally unstable parents?

I’m all for a rational discussion of the issues, but when you dismiss the realities of people’s lives by lightly saying it is “reasonable” for people who have “limited material means”, I get a little frustrated.

 

[JimG]

It seems to me that Lucy107’s position is not all that far removed from the Catholic Church position. The Church teaches that every marital act must be open to life, i.e., that no artificial barriers to conception can intervene in a marital act.

NFP is simply a form of abstinence, and abstinence is not contraception.