Homosexual Acts are Not Against the Natural Law

[Rau]

…If you want to say that blindness, being born with no arms, and being born in a vegetative state are somehow comparable to being born with same-sex attraction, then you have to explain the similarity. Quite frankly, I don’t think there is one.

The similarity is clear. We are not given eyes other than to see. Is there a design wherein a human has eyes but they do not function? I don’t believe so. Men deliver sperm in the sex act. This makes it abundantly clear I think that the natural partner for such acts are women!

You might say that none of those things are willed by God, but then you’re just assuming your conclusion on same-sex attraction from the outset. You might say that all of them are harmful, but in what way is same-sex attraction harmful? You might say that it’s harmful because it opposes God’s design for human sexuality, but that’s precisely what’s in question. You might say that it’s wrong because it puts your soul in jeopardy, but again you’d be assuming your conclusion from the outset.

I’m assuming nothing. I’m observing that man’s body is designed such that it delivers sperm during the sexual act. I’m noting that for a man to choose another man for an act with that attribute is highly suggestive that something is “amiss”.

The question I’ve been asking from the beginning is whether same sex relationships are compatible with God’s design and therefore in tune with the Natural Law.

Clearly they are not.

 

[Rau]

I’m still having trouble wrapping my head around the “sex is for procreation” argument. Maybe I’m thick, but there seem to be some holes. Even if a couple is “open to life”, a child is not guaranteed or even universally the goal, yes? Otherwise we’d have litters of offspring! If procreation is the only or primary objective, why aren’t Catholic women constantly pregnant? Why are sterile couples allowed to mate (and you can talk about God’s miracles for infertile couples, but why stop there? If God can impregnate a virgin he could impregnate a gay lesbian couple too if he wanted, right?). You would think if the only “fruit” God cares about is wee ones, healthy women would be fertile 100% of the time, and would successfully conceive after each sexual encounter. You would think orgasm would be linked to successful fertilization in some way, but it’s not (for women). All those fringe benefits - intimacy, pleasure, bonding, ecstatic union, love - are those really just extras? Or have we oversimplified our understanding of the purpose of sex? What if “to be fruitful” includes but is not limited to procreation, and also includes those other things I’ve mentioned?

And if sex is not exclusively about procreation, then the Natural Law argument very quickly loses steam, in my view.

Not sure who, if anyone, said that “sex is solely for making babies”. But we can all observe that the male sexual act delivers sperm, and we understand the purpose of sperm is to seek out an egg and make a baby. Surely, to the objective observer, this suggests that man’s natural partner for the sexual act is a woman - after all - what purpose could the sperm EVER serve in an act with a man?

As we have discussed before, the fruits of sex are many, but they come as a “package” - intimacy, pleasure, bonding…and procreative potential. Does it just seem a little bit likely that there is a method, a plan in all this? Does it seem that men and women bonding in this way is highly congruent with their potential roles as parents of their offspring, an offspring that requires parental support and nurturing for many years.

 

[Nixbits]

I note that all of the comments on this thread that mention same sex attraction focus only on male same sex attraction. No one has mentioned female same sex attraction. Why is this, I wonder?

 

[DavidGonzalez]

The similarity is clear. We are not given eyes other than to see. Is there a design wherein a human has eyes but they do not function? I don’t believe so. Men deliver sperm in the sex act. This makes it abundantly clear I think that the natural partner for such acts are women!
Clearly they are not.

Ok I know I said that I wouldn’t post any more, but this is a perfect example of exactly why I’m giving up on posting…

I’ve already answered this objection in my first post. But instead of grappling with what I’ve said, you’re simply closing your eyes to it and repeating the standard line.

Let me try again…

You’re right that a man’s external body is obviously designed for sexual relations with woman. You want to conclude that this proves that male-female relationships are the only sexual relationships that God had in mind when creating mankind.

The problem is that your analysis is only skin deep. You’re focusing on the exterior design of the body while ignoring the interior design. You’re ignoring the fact that God seems to have designed some people with sex drives that are attracted to the same sex.

Therefore, you might as well say, 1) God designed some people to be attracted to the same sex, 2) This doesn’t hurt anyone if their same-sex relationships and loving and committed, and 3) Same-sex relationships are not opposed to the Natural Law.

We’re trying to have a dialogue here, not a one way conversation. You’re supposed to read what I have to say, consider it, and then respond.

It seems to be the case that God has designed some people for opposite-sex relationships in their exterior body but same-sex relationships in their interior body. I don’t see why you think the exterior body is so important that you can completely ignore the interior design.

 

[Boreas]

David, I think you are missing the point. I said some of this in my previous post, but I am not sure if anyone read it. (It was probably too long).

The act of loving (giving of self) and the consequence (procreation) are inseparable from one another. The way you are speaking suggests that you believe that there is a distinction between physical compatibility and emotional compatibility.

Our souls inhabit our bodies. The body houses the soul. The spiritual is intertwined with the physical. They cannot be separated. As God intended, man would give himself to a woman in matrimony in order to love God to the fullest possible extent. This love is not just emotional attachment and willing the good of the other, it is also the expectation of procreation.

God is love. God created the world. When we participate in sexual love, we are called to be procreative. Thus, procreativeness is just as necessary as the giving of self. You can’t separate the two.

There are exceptions. Others have said that these exceptions can be traced to sin entering the world. We can’t say why specifically some have SSA, just like there are other cases where we can’t say so-and-so has this or that. But they are exceptions, and they don’t disprove the rule.

It also seems that you are hinting that the expectation of SSA individuals must be perpetually chaste is unfair. I don’t think you understand what fairness is. It isn’t about what we are given in life, it is about how we respond to the crosses that we receive. No one has said that it is easy, but because it is hard is no reason to give up. God bless.

 

[Rau]

…
You’re right that a man’s external body is obviously designed for sexual relations with woman. You want to conclude that this proves that male-female relationships are the only sexual relationships that God had in mind when creating mankind.

The problem is that your analysis is only skin deep. You’re focusing on the exterior design of the body while ignoring the interior design. You’re ignoring the fact that God seems to have designed some people with sex drives that are attracted to the same sex…

It seems to be the case that God has designed some people for opposite-sex relationships in their exterior body but same-sex relationships in their interior body. I don’t see why you think the exterior body is so important that you can completely ignore the interior design.

I am not ignoring anything you said. Your premise that God intended some men to pursue same sex relationships (which is the implication to be drawn from your assertions regarding design) is in my opinion utterly without foundation. Further, to accept it requires accepting that God chooses a design in which the mind, by design(!), drives the body to acts which are inconsistent with the evident nature of the body!

Do you prefer to view the homosexual man’s desires as “right” and his body “wrong”? Or is it your position that they are both right and God intended two men to exchange sperm? And on what basis do you reject the simpler idea that same sex attraction is not a Godly intent at all, but an earthly corruption, like so many others we experience and cope with.

What logic is there in using one’s sexual faculties other than in accordance with their design? I have no issue in two persons forming as close a bond as you like, but the sexual act is ultimately a physical act, using the body. And in that act, all its fruits, including procreative potential, are bound together. They are a package. The implications are clear.

 

[Rau]

I am not ignoring anything you said. Your premise that God intended some men to pursue same sex relationships (which is the implication to be drawn from your assertions regarding design) is in my opinion utterly without foundation. Further, to accept it requires accepting that God chooses a design in which the mind, by design(!), drives the body to acts which are inconsistent with the evident nature of the body!

Do you prefer to view the homosexual man’s desires as “right” and his body “wrong”? Or is it your position that they are both right and God intended two men to exchange sperm? And on what basis do you reject the simpler idea that same sex attraction is not a Godly intent at all, but an earthly corruption, like so many others we experience?

What logic is there in using one’s sexual faculties other than in accordance with their design? I have no issue in two persons forming as close a bond as you like, but the sexual act is ultimately a physical act, using the body. And in that act, all its fruits, including procreative potential, are bound together. They are a package. The implications are clear.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Ok I know I said that I wouldn’t post any more, but this is a perfect example of exactly why I’m giving up on posting…

I’ve already answered this objection in my first post. But instead of grappling with what I’ve said, you’re simply closing your eyes to it and repeating the standard line.

Let me try again…

You’re right that a man’s external body is obviously designed for sexual relations with woman. You want to conclude that this proves that male-female relationships are the only sexual relationships that God had in mind when creating mankind.

The problem is that your analysis is only skin deep. You’re focusing on the exterior design of the body while ignoring the interior design. You’re ignoring the fact that God seems to have designed some people with sex drives that are attracted to the same sex.

David: First, let me say that I’m attracted to other men, so I’m not unfamiliar with the sort of soul-searching you are suggesting.

Now your claim is that (a) some people were emotionally/mentally designed for same-sex attraction, (b) consensual homosexual relations harm no one, and therefore (c) homosexual activity is not wrong. I simplified, but that’s the basic idea.

I strongly object to (a). Although there is significant evidence that some people are more likely to experience same-sex attraction, there is strong evidence that homosexuality is NOT innate. Twin studies show something like a 45-50% correlation. For innate traits (like blond hair) they show a 100% correlation.

No, what the evidence shows is that certain genetic tendencies will make a person MORE LIKELY to eventually be gay. Similarly, certain genetic tendencies make a person more likely to be prone to wrath, or prone to lust, or prone to alcoholism, prone to apathy, and so on. Could we call these “predispositions”? Sure. Are they all bad? No. They usually come with corresponding strengths, connected with a person’s personality. Those prone to wrath are often more intense and passionate people; those prone to apathy are often intellectually strong; and so on. I expect that every person’s innate challenges come with innate strengths.

Can you conclude from “some people are genetically more likely to be gay” that “some people are designed to be gay”? Not unless you can similarly determine that “some people are designed to be alcoholics.” (NOTE: I am not presuming, at this point in the argument that “being gay” is a bad trait. I am just demonstrating that your argument that “some people are designed to be gay” has problems.)

There are more problems with (a). For instance, can you explain to me why boys who are abused in their youth are significantly more likely to identify as gay, when they become adults? (This is not “fringe” science; it is accepted by all serious researchers on the topic). Can you explain to me why 40-60% of aristocratic men in societies like ancient Athens experienced same-sex attraction? If same-sex attraction is wholly genetic, then why does its frequency vary so wildly in various cultures?

Moreover, I’m concerned about the way you are using “designed”. I think God shows us that our bodies are designed for coitus because coitus is fruitful. Gay couples, however, can’t have children with one another. If they could, I’m rather confident I would have married another man before I ever even met my wife. To me, the fact that gay sex doesn’t make kids is a pretty strong reason to think that I wasn’t designed for gay sex. Depositing all my genetic material in the available orifices of another man doesn’t seem like a particularly good reproductive “design” to me.

God bless you!
Prodigal

 

[Prodigal_Son]

One more thing, David…

I would be the first person to agree that the Church has been lacking in compassion toward gay men and women, and I’m very pleased that you’re working with a ministry that is reaching out to them with Christ’s love. Those of us with same-sex attraction need love and acceptance from the Church – far more than we need theological truths about what our bodies were made for. But we ALSO need theological truths about what our bodies were made for.

 

[Melchior_1]

Hey Dave,

I know you said that you wouldn’t reply, but I figured I’d chime in anyway.

A part of natural law is that things happen in a natural order. A part of this is the natural procreation of the species, per Darwin. Homosexual acts do nothing to continue the species, and further make zero sense biologically. There is zero rationality or logic behind it, and natural law is nothing if not orderly. There is structure, there is purpose. And outside of the emotional aspect, there is nothing rational or ordered about it.

As to “why would God make things this way”? It is more that in our brokenness God can still work through us. We all have our crosses that we must carry. If we are all to act on how we are created, the world would would be in a worse place. There is chaos in the world, “we” chose this by eating the apple. God could shut down the chaos (and will after the Second Coming), but like all good parents he’s letting us live with the consequences of our actions.

Others have mentioned the topic of chastity, and that all are called to it. And that sexual intercourse is to be saved for marriage. The reason for this is a fairly deep one, one which people tend to gloss over and push to the side.

You and I have discussed this before, that we are made in the image of God - and that due to God being all things masculine and all things feminine, alone man and woman are an incomplete image. Through the sexual union, we then become made in the full image of God. For this to happen, he gave us a Sacrament (Marriage), which is a covenant. This covenant mirrors the one He has with us, and the consummated act of Marriage also mirrors the consummated act of the Eucharist - which is why as Catholics believe in the sacred institution of Marriage.

The above paragraph breaks down what marriage is, and when you look at it that way, it means that marriage as a sacred institution is only applicable to a man and woman - which means that it isn’t available to those of the same sex to partake in. This means that the option to have sex with a partner of the same gender is not an option.

I understand that you are involved in a ministry reaching out to those with same-sex attraction, and that some of them would be put off by the Church’s teaching on the topic. But we can’t sacrifice or pervert the consistent teaching of the Church to appease others. There are other methods and ways to have people feel welcome. I encounter this in the youth ministry I volunteer with, we can’t be changing what the Church teachings just to please them.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

Not sure who, if anyone, said that “sex is solely for making babies”. But we can all observe that the male sexual act delivers sperm, and we understand the purpose of sperm is to seek out an egg and make a baby. Surely, to the objective observer, this suggests that man’s natural partner for the sexual act is a woman - after all - what purpose could the sperm EVER serve in an act with a man?

As we have discussed before, the fruits of sex are many, but they come as a “package” - intimacy, pleasure, bonding…and procreative potential. Does it just seem a little bit likely that there is a method, a plan in all this? Does it seem that men and women bonding in this way is highly congruent with their potential roles as parents of their offspring, an offspring that requires parental support and nurturing for many years.

You are conflating the purpose of sperm with the purpose of sex. If we did the same with the ovum, one would think women would exclusively have sex during their fertile period, or that their fertile period would be constant. People bonding is congruent with forming relationships, which can certainly include child rearing… but if the prerequisite for children is not just sperm delivery, but emotional bonding, bonding which can and should exist even in childless couples, then perhaps that is the primary goal of sexual intimacy. Otherwise any unsuccessful fertilization should have a corresponding lack of pleasure, bonding, ecstasy, etc., right? Why would non procreative sex (as in, sex that does not result in offspring regardless of intent) still “work” in all those other areas?

 

[Crow_and_dove]

Ok I know I said that I wouldn’t post any more, but this is a perfect example of exactly why I’m giving up on posting…

I’ve already answered this objection in my first post. But instead of grappling with what I’ve said, you’re simply closing your eyes to it and repeating the standard line.

Let me try again…

You’re right that a man’s external body is obviously designed for sexual relations with woman. You want to conclude that this proves that male-female relationships are the only sexual relationships that God had in mind when creating mankind.

The problem is that your analysis is only skin deep. You’re focusing on the exterior design of the body while ignoring the interior design. You’re ignoring the fact that God seems to have designed some people with sex drives that are attracted to the same sex.

Therefore, you might as well say, 1) God designed some people to be attracted to the same sex, 2) This doesn’t hurt anyone if their same-sex relationships and loving and committed, and 3) Same-sex relationships are not opposed to the Natural Law.

We’re trying to have a dialogue here, not a one way conversation. You’re supposed to read what I have to say, consider it, and then respond.

It seems to be the case that God has designed some people for opposite-sex relationships in their exterior body but same-sex relationships in their interior body. I don’t see why you think the exterior body is so important that you can completely ignore the interior design.

You nailed it! If we are supposed to be beings of body AND spirit, our analysis of God’s creation cannot involve simply ignoring the interior realities of so many of Gid’s children. The Truth must apply to all to be true.

 

[meltzerboy]

You are conflating the purpose of sperm with the purpose of sex. If we did the same with the ovum, one would think women would exclusively have sex during their fertile period, or that their fertile period would be constant. People bonding is congruent with forming relationships, which can certainly include child rearing… but if the prerequisite for children is not just sperm delivery, but emotional bonding, bonding which can and should exist even in childless couples, then perhaps that is the primary goal of sexual intimacy. Otherwise any unsuccessful fertilization should have a corresponding lack of pleasure, bonding, ecstasy, etc., right? Why would non procreative sex (as in, sex that does not result in offspring regardless of intent) still “work” in all those other areas?

This is an interesting point. Sexual intimacy goes beyond biological sex for the purpose of procreation and is a part of emotional intimacy and love in a relationship.

 

[DavidGonzalez]

David: First, let me say that I’m attracted to other men, so I’m not unfamiliar with the sort of soul-searching you are suggesting.

Now your claim is that (a) some people were emotionally/mentally designed for same-sex attraction, (b) consensual homosexual relations harm no one, and therefore (c) homosexual activity is not wrong. I simplified, but that’s the basic idea.

I strongly object to (a). Although there is significant evidence that some people are more likely to experience same-sex attraction, there is strong evidence that homosexuality is NOT innate. Twin studies show something like a 45-50% correlation. For innate traits (like blond hair) they show a 100% correlation.

No, what the evidence shows is that certain genetic tendencies will make a person MORE LIKELY to eventually be gay. Similarly, certain genetic tendencies make a person more likely to be prone to wrath, or prone to lust, or prone to alcoholism, prone to apathy, and so on. Could we call these “predispositions”? Sure. Are they all bad? No. They usually come with corresponding strengths, connected with a person’s personality. Those prone to wrath are often more intense and passionate people; those prone to apathy are often intellectually strong; and so on. I expect that every person’s innate challenges come with innate strengths.

Can you conclude from “some people are genetically more likely to be gay” that “some people are designed to be gay”? Not unless you can similarly determine that “some people are designed to be alcoholics.” (NOTE: I am not presuming, at this point in the argument that “being gay” is a bad trait. I am just demonstrating that your argument that “some people are designed to be gay” has problems.)

There are more problems with (a). For instance, can you explain to me why boys who are abused in their youth are significantly more likely to identify as gay, when they become adults? (This is not “fringe” science; it is accepted by all serious researchers on the topic). Can you explain to me why 40-60% of aristocratic men in societies like ancient Athens experienced same-sex attraction? If same-sex attraction is wholly genetic, then why does its frequency vary so wildly in various cultures?

Moreover, I’m concerned about the way you are using “designed”. I think God shows us that our bodies are designed for coitus because coitus is fruitful. Gay couples, however, can’t have children with one another. If they could, I’m rather confident I would have married another man before I ever even met my wife. To me, the fact that gay sex doesn’t make kids is a pretty strong reason to think that I wasn’t designed for gay sex. Depositing all my genetic material in the available orifices of another man doesn’t seem like a particularly good reproductive “design” to me.

God bless you!
Prodigal

Hi there. I know I said I wouldn’t make any more posts but you brought up some really good points. And I’m happy that you took the time to really consider what I had to say.

So you’re absolutely right. Twin studies show that genes do not cause homosexuality by themselves. Otherwise every time one identical twin was gay, the other would have to be gay as well.

But twin studies do show that whenever one identical twin is gay, the other is more likely to be gay than the average person. Therefore, some people may be genetically predisposed to the development of homosexuality.

In the same way, no one is born an alcoholic. But some people are born with genetic information that makes it more likely for them to develop alcoholism if they drink a little too much a little too often.

Now the other factors in the development of homosexuality are more or less a mystery at this time. They are often called “environmental factors.” This could be anything from early childhood experiences to hormonal levels in the womb. You mentioned child abuse and widespread pederasty in ancient Greek society.

Now I think that first we have to admit that we don’t know everything about the origins of homosexuality. Consequently, our opinion on the Natural Law depends on knowledge that we do not yet have.

If the environmental factors that cause homosexuality consist of early childhood experiences, then we might say that homosexuality is caused more by “human freedom” than “God’s design.” But if hormonal levels in the womb are the cause, then we should admit that homosexuality is caused more by “God’s design” than “human freedom.”

But one thing we can agree on is that God did design some people to be genetically predisposed to the development of homosexuality.

Now on what grounds do you want to say that it would be immoral to act on this disposition? You may appeal to God’s design of exterior body. The parts don’t fit…

But the the problem is the same. Your analysis of God’s design is only skin deep. God designed some people for opposite sex relationships in their exterior body while predisposing them for same sex relationships in their interior body.

Why would God do this? One person in this thread commented that this apparent contradiction is proof that it couldn’t be from God. But what do we know? God’s ways are higher than our ways.

Finally, what does God want from these people? Does he want them to follow the design of their exterior body? Our does he want them to follow the way he predisposed them to be on the inside?

Why do so many people in this thread think that what we are on the outside is more important than what we are on the inside???

(Ok I really shouldn’t respond anymore cause this is taking me away from my work. God bless you guys )

 

[truetofaith]

God said it in Leviticus 18: 22

Also read Rom 1: 24 - 30 & 1Corinth. 6 : 9

If God created people to be homosexual, born that way, …then why does he call it an abomination in the Bible? It would be God’s fault!

 

[Peter_Plato]

…
But twin studies do show that whenever one identical twin is gay, the other is more likely to be gay than the average person. Therefore, some people may be genetically predisposed to the development of homosexuality.

In the same way, no one is born an alcoholic. But some people are born with genetic information that makes it more likely for them to develop alcoholism if they drink a little too much a little too often.

Now the other factors in the development of homosexuality are more or less a mystery at this time. They are often called “environmental factors.” This could be anything from early childhood experiences to hormonal levels in the womb. You mentioned child abuse and widespread pederasty in ancient Greek society.

Now I think that first we have to admit that we don’t know everything about the origins of homosexuality. Consequently, our opinion on the Natural Law depends on knowledge that we do not yet have.

If the environmental factors that cause homosexuality consist of early childhood experiences, then we might say that homosexuality is caused more by “human freedom” than “God’s design.” But if hormonal levels in the womb are the cause, then we should admit that homosexuality is caused more by “God’s design” than “human freedom.”

But one thing we can agree on is that God did design some people to be genetically predisposed to the development of homosexuality.

I am expecting no response, but a point should be made here on the distinction between genetic disposition and epigenetic expression. If conditions such as diabetes, obesity or susceptibility to disease are somewhat if not fundamentally dependent upon the expression or suppression of epigenetic markers by environmental factors and behaviours of generations preceding, then epigenetic traits are those we can pass on by what we do and how we choose to act. Therefore, the genetics do not determine our behaviour or predilections but our behaviour and predilections can have determinable results in terms of epigenetic expression.

This is why normalizing gay behaviour could have serious and drastic consequences for future generations because of which epigenetic markers are passed forward. And if those epigenetic markers are eventually subsumed into the genome itself as an aspect of DNA itself, then what we do, think and are will influence the behaviour and “attractions” of future generations.

Original sin as a theological reality of human existence may be finding substantive support in science.

See: strangenotions.com/science-reveals-who-we-are-is-determined-by-how-we-are/

 

[DavidGonzalez]

If God created people to be homosexual…then why does he call it an abomination in the Bible?

The same Old Testament says that women who commit adultery should be stonned to death. But Jesus taught us how to interpret these Old Testament passages in a New Testament way.

Anyway I think the Old Testament condemnation of homosexuality had more to do with the idea that God wanted the Israelis to have as many children as possible for the sake of 1) ensuring the survival of the chosen people, and 2) having the resources to defeat the Canaanites.

St Paul also condemns homosexual acts in Romans, of course. But I don’t think he had in mind people with deep seated homosexual tendencies in loving and committed relationships. If you pay close attention to the text, it sounds like he’s talking about straight people who got carried away at a party.

 

[Melchior_1]

Anyway I think the Old Testament condemnation of homosexuality had more to do with the idea that God wanted the Israelis to have as many children as possible for the sake of 1) ensuring the survival of the chosen people, and 2) having the resources to defeat the Canaanites.

Or; the marriage covenant mirrors God’s covenant with us, allowing us further to be made in his image.

St Paul also condemns homosexual acts Romans, of course. But I don’t think he had in mind people with deep rooted homosexual tendencies in loving and committed relationships. If you pay close attention to the text, it sounds like he’s talking about straight people who got carried away at a party.

Do you not think Paul, a man who provided key details about specific situations in specific areas, would have specified that he meant what you said? Would the Early Church Fathers not have picked up on what he said (as opposed to their uniform stance of sex being for one man, one woman)? Would not have Paul’s proteges spread the message you posit? Further, would it not be mentioned elsewhere? Would there not be more symbolism, more imagery within the Bible?

All imagery, allegories, metaphors, and parallels in Scripture point towards one man and one woman being the ordered structure and framework. The early Church Fathers were unanimous in saying one man, one woman.

Finally, you’re giving this passage a personal interpretation. The Magisteruim feels differently, and in this case they are the ones with the Keys.

 

[Melchior_1]

Regarding internal design, internally there can be disorder. Those disorders “feel” natural, yet they are not correct. it also opens us up to a host of issues when gender and sexual identify becomes something entirely subjective.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I’m not in physical danger. I’m a virgin. I follow Church teaching.

Then why claim to be gay? Why not introduce yourself as a celibate single person?

Thanks for the personal attack, which was fallacious though… :nope:

You said you were gay and you asked: “But, how is “conjugal love” between two men harmful?”

My reply was not a personal attack. It was a genuine, loving attempt to save your life.

A “thank you for your concern, Zoltan” would have been nice.

I just find the Church’s teaching very difficult to actually explain to people. And you seem to be saying that it rests on the assertion that people are not born gay. Well… I’m just telling you, that sooner or later we’re probably going to know a lot more about that.

Let’s hope not.

If science were to identify a biological cause of homosexuality, that day would begin the “race for the cure.” And a great many purportedly happy homosexual men and women would secretly join that race. (That could be a good thing) HOWEVER…

My greatest fear, as a Catholic, would be if a DNA test could determine innate homosexuality …there would be an increase in the number of abortions.