Homosexual Acts are Not Against the Natural Law

[rick607]

kpeople: I’d call a foul here if I were a mod.

There are millions of Catholics all over the world who question. IIRC, this is the Catholic **Answers **Forum, not necessarily a place where we all get together and cheer each other for agreeing.

That being said, I can understand the OP’s quandary. If a person is born gay, how can that person be condemned for acting in accordance with his nature?

In some ways, it’s not fair, is it? Mental illness, physical disability, widowhood, homelessness can all be crosses to bear. But we don’t associate those crosses borne as being connected to sin. If I’m asthmatic, and don’t “take up my cross” and don’t use my inhaler, I’ll have trouble breathing. There’s no sin involved. If I’m gay and act on it, I’ve not taken up my cross and I’ve sinned. And I’m condemned for it.

On the other hand, gay sex is sinful.

If someone were to be born " GAY " how can it be that they change and marry the opposite sex ? If I’m born with black skin , one day I can’t decide to have green skin.

I don’t have an answer, just more questions.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

If the whole argument against same-sex relations is that they are incapable of producing offspring, then why all this fear about it being “passed on”?

Sexual orientation, in my opinion, cannot be passed on, but if you think in can be then shouldn’t you encourage homosexuals to stick together and avoid sexual contact with the opposite gender? Wouldn’t they do less “harm” if they were in relationships with each other than if they were forced to pretend to be straight?

 

[Rau]

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?

No, I am not conflating the two.

If the means of bonding of which we speak were appropriate for two men, why is its attainment tied to an act that delivers sperm?

The relevance of sperm in man+woman bonding is apparent. It plainly has no place in man+man.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

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.

So is love, emotional intimacy, and relationship forming critical to the sexual act, or window dressing? If it is critical in the same way procreative function is, then what are we to make of it’s existence in the absence of actual procreation? If it can exist without successful procreation, is that not by design?

 

[Bruised_Reed]

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

(…)

Zolatn, would you please stop that. sss fellow and others mention they are gay because it is relevant to the thread or IRL, it’s relevant to the conversation. People who are gay don’t introduce themselves as gay or mention it unless someone else brings it up, the same way someone might say something about Catholicism and I will pipe up and say, “Catholic over here,” so they know they are in mixed company.

So, it comes across as disingenuous or inattentive to suggest what you did. I’m a celibate, single person, I don’t find I need to introduce myself that way ever which makes the suggestion seem a rather phony way to relate to people or have a conversation similar to the thread topic.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

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

(…)

Zoltan, stop telling gay people how they should talk about themselves. Suggesting this seems disingenuous or inattentive especially since ssa fellow has mentioned he is SSA because it is relevant to the thread/discussion. Moreover, I don’t know of any person, gay or lesbian, who introduces themselves as gay unless someone else brings it up first; kind of like when someone says something about Catholicism, I pipe up and say, “Hi, Catholic in the room,” so they know they are in mixed company. And as a celibate (I guess), single person, I have never had the opportunity to use that in a conversation. Doing so seems like a rather phony and awkward way of relating to others.

And you want people to thank you for the way you take about them and others?

 

[Thorolfr]

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).

Is that actually the case? According to the American Psychiatric Association:

No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.

psychiatry.org/lgbt-sexual-orientation

 

[edwest2]

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

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.

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.

Regarding your last statement, pray it does not happen. The Pastoral care of homosexual persons is important. Helping everyone get a proper understanding of what authentic human sexuality is would help everyone.

Ed

 

[JimG]

“Conjugal sex,’ by definition, means marital sex between a man and a woman. There is no such thing as conjugal sex between same sex partners. Conjugal relations, marital relations, are in fact not possible to same sex partners. It is a contradiction in terms.

As to why biology and anatomy matters as opposed to what we are on the inside, anatomy does matter where sex is concerned, since conjugal sex can only be had between opposite sex persons.

Who we are on the inside has to do with our inclinations and our feelings, and those can vary widely. Attractions and feelings can come and go. They are not our identity. Regardless of feelings, we are either man or woman.

Certainly persons of the same sex can have intimate friendships. Can a father and a son have a family bond? Of course. So can a mother and a daughter. So can two sisters, or brothers. So can male friends or female friends. A lot of best friends are persons of the same sex. Just because they are close friends we don’t have sexual intimacies with them.

In some respects, it is only natural that men are attracted to men and women to women. Why do boys and girls often play in segregated groups? Because they understand each other, have many of the same interests, and get along together. That’s natural. That’s why marriage can be difficult. Men and women are not always on the same wavelength. And that’s natural too. But it is the differences that make them a unity as a couple. It is the difference that makes them capable of marriage—to each other.

There are a lot of unmarried people in the world. Marriage seems in fact to be on the decline. And Christ expects everyone to be chaste, since sex is reserved for marriage. Homosexual persons are in the same position as unmarried single heterosexual persons in that regard.

 

[Todd977]

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?

I think you are forgetting that, as a consequence of Adam and Eve’s Original Sin, human nature is now subject to all sorts of disorders, both physical and mental, including disordered desires. Whatever their origin (genetic, prenatal or postnatal), such disordered desires, including same-sex attraction, are not part of God’s original design for mankind and consequently not in keeping with the Natural Law.

Though not conclusive in itself, the fact that those with same-sex attraction represent only a very small portion (perhaps less than 2%) of the human population strongly suggests that same-sex attraction was not part of God’s original design for mankind but is rather a disorder resulting from Original Sin.

 

[CanadianNewbie]

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

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.

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.

Woah woah woah.
I’m going to have to ask you to start backing up.
I was reading through this thread as part of my trawling through the contents of this site, getting insight into the spectrum of Catholic peoples’ positions on various topics, but wow. I had to throw on the brakes and respond to this one. Because I was a bit irked going through the thread, but when I got to this crescendo of sanctimony, I needed to remove my glasses, pinch the bridge of my nose, and against my better judgement get involved.

So, here’s my issue… You’re responding to this poor guy, in what I’d argue is nearly if not the most smarmy, sanctimonious way possible. Trying to save his life? Being incredulous that he didn’t thank you? I mean, wow. Just wow.

See, you’re just twisting the knife at this point. You and people of your ilk have already won in the case of this poor dude. He calls himself “ssa fellow”. He’s already wearing the othering label that you’ve made up for him. He self-identifies as someone with an affliction. Your work here is done.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. First, you should know that I’m a celibate single person. Or, as I prefer to identify, gay. Not same-sex attracted, not disordered, broken, or suffering from a condition, but simply gay. Gay as a bag of skittles.

I don’t need your pity or cautionary advice. And I certainly don’t need a cure, as there’s nothing wrong with me.

I can’t help but identify with this guy who you’re kicking while he’s already down - where people like you put him in the first place. It’s profoundly sad.

SSA Fellow, I’m not sure if you’re still following this thread, but I want you to know that there’s nothing wrong with you. You have just as much worth and dignity as anyone else, whether they be gay or afflicted with OSA (opposite sex attraction), and if you ever need to talk, I’m here.

It’s been interesting to see all the different opinions on this subject, and I have nothing but respect for the amount of love, compassion, and nuanced opinion everyone here seems to be able to muster for every other topic.

Thanks for listening, and have a great night everyone.

 

[Rau]

…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.

So scripturally, you feel there is no issue with homosexuality, as long as the parties have a loving and committed relationship.

Don’t you find it curious that there is not a single solitary reference in Scripture that presents a homosexual relationship in a positive way?

In summary, your fact base and thinking seems to be:

1. There are condemnatory references to same sex relations in Scripture;
2. There is not a single positive reference to same sex relations in Scripture;
3. The Church established by Christ, and given the “keys”, teaches such relations are wrong;
4. Same sex relations involve the mind (for reasons unknown) driving the body in a direction…
5. …which is at odds with the nature of the body;

and that on the basis that persons desire same sex relationships (ie. point 4 alone), you conclude that God intends that they be pursued - that is, the presence of said desire must outweigh all other factors.

 

[ericc]

]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.

Although I don’t understand why people sin and everyone does, therefore it is God’s fault? Don’t you agree with this logic, anything that can go wrong can be blamed on God since, he created it, designed it, will it to existence and holding it in existence?

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?

You have not proven that God design some people for same-sex attraction. It could be by self-choice. In the same manner that some people have a fetish for certain exotic behaviour. Perhaps it is some hormonal development at some stage of the formation of the being causing such results to happen. Perhaps the parents bad living habits caused damaged genes. Perhaps over emphasis on attaining physical beauty lead to worship of the flesh and caused a mis-wiring of the brain. Many possibilities but scape goat is God. You have already judged.

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.

As above, prove your case. Natural law/biological law, says that a species can not survive on same sex mechanism. Natural law say this is an aberration and natural law will weed it out. That is if you respect Natural law. But God is gracious and love. Even for those with SSA he still promises you everlasting life if you accept his grace, obey his commandments. The flesh is no avail but the spirit lives on. Fear not the one that destroy the body but the one that destroy the soul.The question is in whose company do you want to spend eternity with?

Those with SSA truly has a heavy cross to bear. Prayers and the sacraments can help with self-restraint so as not to fall into temptation. I would imagine, the heavier the cross, the more immense the rewards. It is a difficult problem which may require a life-long sacrifice. And that reminds me of eunuchs.

Isaiah 56:4

For thus says the Lord
"To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give them an everlasting name which shall not be cut off.

 

[Tigg]

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.

We can talk about that interior design although it might be well to first ask ourselves, (like God did Job) where were we when he made the world and laid the earth’s foundation? Surely you aren’t in the remotest suggesting God makes mistakes. Or if He allowed a blunder in that interior design, that must surely absolve one from following the directives given to the rest of humankind. Are you somehow suggesting that predetermined interior factors determine our actions and behavior; if so, you are rejecting more than church teaching regarding same sex. You are rejecting the idea of grace and salvation freely given to every person born. Or maybe God doesn’t really mean what He says. You’ll need to clarify your comments.

 

[Lapey]

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.

This is an enormous stretch considering the sake of souls is on the line. Don’t you agree? People twist scripture passages far too often to “allow” whatever vice affects them. Take divorce and re-marriage for instance; many denominations have made new meanings to the words of Jesus on this subject. But the truth in His words have not changed, it is still adultery just like homosexual acts are completely sinful.

Remember this too, same sex attraction is not a sin, homosexual relations are sinful.

While Jesus did meet the woman caught in adultery where she was, in her sin, He very clearly told her, “go and sin no more”. Doesn’t seem like anything changed, sin is sin both mine and yours.

 

[lmelahn]

It seems to me that homosexual acts are not against the Natural Law.

The argument to the contrary usually goes as follows:

1. God created the universe and everything in it not haphazardly but with purpose.
2. We can discover God’s intention by analyzing his design of the universe and everything in it.
3. The male reproductive system and the female female reproductive system are designed for each other.
4. Therefore, God’s plan for human sexuality involves opposite sex relations.
5. The male reproductive system is not designed for another the male reproductive system. The same is true for the female reproductive systems.
6. Therefore, same sex relations are not part of God’s plan.

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.

I don’t think we need to appeal directly to God in order to argue against the immorality of homosexual acts.

In any event, it is dangerous to introduce a sharp dichotomy between what you have called the internal design and the external design. In reality, we are one and whole, and something as “external” as the form of our organs is in perfect continuity with our most “internal” aspects (intellect, will, spiritual life).

Therefore, the incompatibility of the reproductive organs is a sign of a greater incompatibility that transcends the merely physical level.

Keep in mind that when a man attempts a sexual act with another man (or a woman with another woman), on the physical level, he simply does not have the ability to satisfy his partner’s desires. One consequence of this is that homosexual partners often injure themselves in the process, or resort to bizarre means as an attempt to make up for the intrinsic lack of gratification of their act.

So it is not simply a question of the “design” of the organs. It is a question of respecting people’s dignity and safety. You see, then, that even though we have started from what appears to be the merely “physical” level, it is easy to find connections to the deeper facets of man.

Following the Natural Law simply means doing what is good for you: that is, acting in such as way as to bring about your happiness (or at least so as not to bring about misery). Homosexual acts fail to qualify, because they bring about frustration and often bodily harm.

The fact that some people, through no fault of their own, experience an attraction to persons of the same sex does not really change the equation. If they were to foster and encourage that kind of attraction, they would end up causing themselves a lot of unhappiness.

(Notice that I deliberately left to one side the issue that homosexual acts are incapable of procreating. That is also true, but it is not the mere fact that homosexual acts are not fertile that makes them evil. It is the fact that, when people use their sexual faculties–which is intended for the procreation of children–in ways that contradict that purpose, they experience frustration and dissatisfaction.)

 

[marymary1975]

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.

The problem with your post is that…despite the fact that others have already answered that point to you…you keep coming back and repeating that “God designs homosexuals that way.”. That is incorrect! God did not designed anyone a homosexual and several people have explained to you that before. Homosexuality as well as any other sin entered the world as a result of the fall. God did not design ANYONE with SSA. God designed humans perfect with no attraction to sin and with all their passions and desires in order. There was no SSA in God’s design. With the fall SIN enters the world. So SSA is a product of the fall not God’s design.

You have been told that already and you keep repeating that God designed. So understand that they were not designed like that, it is a product of our sinful nature (hence other poster’s comparisons with other sins).

 

[styrgwillidar]

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.

…

Not sure what you mean, Christ didn’t say adultery was ok, He forgave the woman but told her to sin no more.

The big difference between the Jews of the Old Testament and the Catholic Church of the New Testament is one of authority. The Jews were given direction by God on how to handle things, the law, expectations and consequences to be administered.

The Catholic Church was given additional authority the Jews did not have.

The authority to forgive sins. Not to claim they were not sins, not to change the law as to whether they were moral or immoral. But to forgive them vice punish them.

 

[marymary1975]

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.

This is also not correct. First if you remember the first thing that Jesus said to the adulterous woman was “do not sin anymore.”. Second indeed Jesus changed some laws from the old testament, but the only laws that were changed were the ones explicitly stated by Jesus. Jesus knew perfectly the entire content of the old testament so he only makes explicit reference to what needs to be eliminated. What he didn’t, remains. Jesus never changed the law on homosexuality on the OT so it stands. Moreover one law from the OM that Jesus explicitly maintains and mentions that it must be followed is “you shall not fornicate.”. Guess what…homosexual relations even committed ones are fornication because they can never get married. Based on that, your statement as to St Paul is also incorrect because hr knew that even a commitment homosexual relationship is fornication. To add to that, the original word used by him plus the entire sequence of the text it is clear that he is talking about homosexuality.

 

[DavidGonzalez]

I don’t think we need to appeal directly to God in order to argue against the immorality of homosexual acts.

In any event, it is dangerous to introduce a sharp dichotomy between what you have called the internal design and the external design. In reality, we are one and whole, and something as “external” as the form of our organs is in perfect continuity with our most “internal” aspects (intellect, will, spiritual life).

Therefore, the incompatibility of the reproductive organs is a sign of a greater incompatibility that transcends the merely physical level.

Keep in mind that when a man attempts a sexual act with another man (or a woman with another woman), on the physical level, he simply does not have the ability to satisfy his partner’s desires. One consequence of this is that homosexual partners often injure themselves in the process, or resort to bizarre means as an attempt to make up for the intrinsic lack of gratification of their act.

So it is not simply a question of the “design” of the organs. It is a question of respecting people’s dignity and safety. You see, then, that even though we have started from what appears to be the merely “physical” level, it is easy to find connections to the deeper facets of man.

Following the Natural Law simply means doing what is good for you: that is, acting in such as way as to bring about your happiness (or at least so as not to bring about misery). Homosexual acts fail to qualify, because they bring about frustration and often bodily harm.

The fact that some people, through no fault of their own, experience an attraction to persons of the same sex does not really change the equation. If they were to foster and encourage that kind of attraction, they would end up causing themselves a lot of unhappiness.

(Notice that I deliberately left to one side the issue that homosexual acts are incapable of procreating. That is also true, but it is not the mere fact that homosexual acts are not fertile that makes them evil. It is the fact that, when people use their sexual faculties–which is intended for the procreation of children–in ways that contradict that purpose, they experience frustration and dissatisfaction.)

Hold on a second… Are you saying that same-sex relationships are against the Natural Law because they fail to satisfy the desires of the people involved but instead bring about unhappiness and misery?

Do you have any idea how unhappy and miserable gay Catholics become when they’re pressured if not threatened into living a celibate lifestyle? Many become so frustrated in fact that they leave the Church.

And if homosexuality does bring about unhappiness, I think it’s clear that most of that unhappiness is caused by not feeling included.

Listen, I don’t actually think any of you are homophobic. But I I think many of you are the-Church-might be-wrong-phobic.

So what kind of Catholic do you want to be? The kind that loves the Church so much that you close your eyes to her faults and continue to think and do things that hurt others? Or do you want to be the kind of Catholic who loves the Church so much that you’re willing to go through the pain of looking these problems in the face so that you can do something about it?

Imagine how much more proud of the Church we would be if she could take full credit for the Civil Rights movement for example. She can take partial credit at best. And unfortunately we have to admit that some bishops and religious orders owned slaves.

Let’s be the type of Catholics our grandchildren can be proud of. Let’s not make them have to apologize for yet one more scandal…