Homosexual Acts are Not Against the Natural Law

[Joie_de_Vivre]

If SSA was demonstrated to be in some way genetic in origin, it would certainly raise the question of why God would purposely put something into someone’s genetic makeup that would cause them to have disordered desires that could lead to immoral acts. It would raise questions about why a just God would burden some people with this but not others.

Have you considered it is the result of genetic mutation and that it exist is God’s passive will instead of his active will?

I wouldn’t mention these things to gay-persons outright. However, it is a basic logical proposition. If you exclude a primary purpose of pro-creation from the equation, the only purpose left in the gay sex is the pleasure function. If the participants are merely using each other for pleasure, then their concerns and actions towards the other are entirely self centred.

Now, granted, the majority of gay people, and straight people, aren’t presented with situations which require them to show acts of unselfish love - we live very secure lives. However, that is not to say that is a good thing.

(Also, mentioning that I have ‘gay friends’ and live in an environment where that is normal and unavoidable was not my spin on the 'I’m not racist, my best friend’s from Pakistan argument, I was just trying to highlight that I have not been raised to view gay marriage as wrong, quite the opposite.)

EDIT: However, the self-gratification attitude has nothing intrinsically to do with gay people. It is manifest in society today - take the reaction to Charlie Hebdo for example. People derided the terrorists, and rightly, but not because of their henious act of murder, but because they tried to constrain ‘freedom of speech’. People now see freedom as good in and of itself, and look little to the uses of freedom which make it good, which Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons through their use of mockery, were not fulfilling, because they only insulted and did not seek to change opinions.

What would you say about heterosexual couples who deliberately do not have kids?

I liked your list, Joie, but #19 is no good. Have you read Athenian literature? I have, I do it every day. The men talk about teenage boys EXACTLY the way men nowadays talk about supermodels. Their conversation makes absolutely no sense unless they genuinely experienced attraction.

(Moreover, slave *girls *were perpetually available to Athenian men. There was no low-access situation with respect to the female sex. Lesson: same-sex attraction in a society can be learned.)

I’m not saying that they did not experience it I was saying that it does not necessarily follow that because someone engages in gay sex that they must experience SSA it was a generalized instead of one specifically about Athenian aristocrats hence the prison reference. What was the status of women? Was there gynophobia present? Could you provide some example so I can read and understand what you are talking about?

There are more than just sexual feelings as part of homosexuality; many of the LG people I know were attracted to the same sex before they knew what sex was. The engaging in sex part can certainly be conditioned, but I not so sure as to the feelings of attraction to the same gender which is distinct from viewing them as objects to be used for venereal pleasure. How do men talk about supermodels?

Yes.

Elaborate.

 

[DavidGonzalez]

It’s easy to blame the fall for what we can’t explain.

Well put

 

[Peter_Plato]

There are more than just sexual feelings as part of homosexuality; many of the LG people I know were attracted to the same sex before they knew what sex was. The engaging in sex part can certainly be conditioned, but I not so sure as to the feelings of attraction to the same gender which is distinct from viewing them as objects to be used for venereal pleasure.

Then it isn’t very clear what it is that you mean by “attracted to the same sex.” If, as it appears, you intend this attraction to have little or nothing to do with the act of sex, then it would seem that what you are arguing for is a kind of bias in love – that individuals could (and possibly should) be biased towards whichever gender they are attracted to as the key determiner in terms of how love is to direct agency.

I see no distinction in this view between having an attraction to one gender and having a prejudice against the other. You seem to be arguing that love for other individuals ought to allow this kind of “discrimination” in terms of being susceptible to and guided by “attraction.” That is, we ought to be able to “love” those we are “attracted to” differently than those to whom we feel no attraction.

This just seems an odd kind of view with regard to the Christian call to love others as we love ourselves irrespective of whether we are “attracted” to them or not. Attraction, in the sense you seem to imply, would be given much more of a determining role than has ever been the case in Christian theology and ethics. It becomes a dilutant, so to speak, with regard to our love for others by placing a qualifier on the kind of love we ought to have for others as others – the particular group we are “attracted” to becomes a “favoured” class.

Personally, I think this view has it entirely backwards. Our attractions ought not become determiners of the “good” based merely on the fact that we are “attracted” to some things or some kinds of people over others. Rather, the determinable good ought to define what it is that we learn or train ourselves to become attracted to. Nor should our “attractions” dictate or influence how we are to view other persons as those we are called to love. Your view seems to cast a shadow of preference over the purity of Christian love for others, even our enemies, as other.

Aristotle’s view on the passions requiring training by reason and guidance towards end goods is a much saner and mature view than one that promotes the prerogative of the passions to direct the will towards whatever objects we find attractive. This latter view leads very quickly to a capricious, transitory and tenous mode of existing.

 

[ericc]

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?

SSA is against law of nature because as a species it cannot survive. Nature weeds out the weakest unless the species in question becomes parasitic.

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.

The Church is responsible for saving souls, not to help you attain sexual or companionship happiness. That is of the flesh, not the spirit. The Church has already taught SSA BEHAVIOUR is an abomination to the Lord, not the state of homosexuality itself. Yes, indeed the SSA cross is heavy to carry. All the more one need to pray to resist temptation. Receive the sacraments to strengthen your will , pray to all the saints for intercession.

For those that remain celibate in order not to displease the Lord, “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 in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which shall not cut off.” Isaiah 56:4.

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

You shouldn’t feel that way. Avoidance of sin is good for you spiritually. I wouldn’t want to be included in the list of sins. Pursuit of earthly happiness is not an objective of the faith. Soul saving is. If indulging in homosexual acts brings happiness, then one can argue that adultery, pornography, sadism/masochism brings happiness for some and therefore should be on the same footing.

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?

I want to be the kind of Catholic that believes and obey what the Church teaches, because She is Holy. She is protected from teaching error. You are not. She is the Bride of Christ. I don’t close my eyes to Church individuals that commit faults or teach errors. Since you are in my mind teaching something contrary to God’s teachings, you can see that I didn’t close my eyes to that. I will become very vocal if you were to market that SSA act is not sinful. And I repeat, the act is sinful, not the person with that tendency.

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.

The Church is not in the business of boasting secular developments. If secular developments are good for the faith, the Church does support them in some way or other. If secular developments are against the faith such as abortion and SSA behaviour, the Church does speak out against them.

You haven’t made the case that the Church is wrong in condemning SSA acts. The Bible is so clear whether OT or NT, SSA acts are wrong. The Church can not teach the reverse, period. For you to claim that SSA act is permissible by God and not sinful, is totally wrong. If you can prove it otherwise, we are fair-minded to hear your case. I can see that you are trying to make exceptions/excuses for it, but I can tell you that what you are advocating is against the faith.

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…

That is politician talk. My grandkids (if I live long enough to have them) will be proud that I stood up and defend those who try to sneak in abominable acts into the faith.

If one need help in overcoming SSA tendencies, there are organizations out there.

I came across this peoplecanchange.com. They offer counseling services for those with SSA tendencies. A survey they have done indicated the following:
peoplecanchange.com/change/causes.php

97% said problems in the father-son relationship while they were growing up contributed to their developing same-sex attractions (SSA) – and men usually identified it as one of the three most significant factors.

The same percentage of men who said father-son problems contributed to their SSA – 97% – also said problems in their male-peer relationships contributed. And half said it was one of the “top three” factors.

Nine out of 10 survey respondents said aspects of their relationships with their mothers contributed to their SSA

48% of respondents said that, as children or youth, they had been sexually abused by an older or more powerful person.

93% said they had had other sexual experiences – including pornography, sexual fantasy and sex play with other boys – as children or youth, and of those who did, 93% said they believed these experiences contributed to their SSA feelings.

87% said they believed their personality traits were a contributing factor.

So it is possible to postulate that some SSA tendencies may be contributed by these external causes rather than a caused-by-God thing.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’m not saying that they did not experience it I was saying that it does not necessarily follow that because someone engages in gay sex that they must experience SSA it was a generalized instead of one specifically about Athenian aristocrats hence the prison reference. What was the status of women? Was there gynophobia present? Could you provide some example so I can read and understand what you are talking about?

Women were no more oppressed than they were, say, in 18th century Britain. Sex with women was extremely popular, and available. But pederasty and adult homosexuality were just as common. And the conversations in all Plato’s dialogues, for example, show that the elites talked about the beauty of young men and boys perpetually – not primarily looking at them as sex objects, but as “specimens”, the same way men talk about Kate Upton today.

There are more than just sexual feelings as part of homosexuality; many of the LG people I know were attracted to the same sex before they knew what sex was.

Myself included.

The engaging in sex part can certainly be conditioned, but I not so sure as to the feelings of attraction to the same gender which is distinct from viewing them as objects to be used for venereal pleasure.

I daresay the opposite was true of Athens. Probably only a smallish minority of men actually had sex with their eromenos (younger lover/student), whereas a large majority of men talked about the good looks and allure of various youths. Actual sex was frowned upon, in such relationships.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

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

psychiatry.org/lgbt-sexual-orientation

That’s a blatant lie by the APA, I guess.

See link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-012-0021-9

Epidemiological studies find a positive association between physical and sexual abuse, neglect, and witnessing violence in childhood and same-sex sexuality in adulthood, but studies directly assessing the association between these diverse types of maltreatment and sexuality cannot disentangle the causal direction because the sequencing of maltreatment and emerging sexuality is difficult to ascertain.

The entire issue that study is from takes for granted that the correlation exists.

 

[Rau]

…moreover, one person on this thread already explained that twin studies show that some people are genetically predisposed to develop of homosexuality. Did God make a mistake?

He did not suggest that one’s genetic makeup reflects God’s will, nor does the genetic research make clear the connection between genetics and homosexuality. Genetic variations are rife and we do not attribute them to the will of God - see Post #113, point 1. And finally, the presence of a desire is not a go-ahead to act on it, as you point out yourself below.

So what should people with same-sex attraction do? Follow the way God made them on the outside so that the parts fit?

They should live chastely; they need not pursue any sexual relationship - they are not obligatory. I am not suggesting that a man, because he has the body of a man, must go and seek a woman partner. I am suggesting that man, as a thinking creature, can recognise the incongruity of sexual acts between two men. You have asked:

Why wouldn’t God want some people to be attracted to the same sex?

Actually, I am sure he wants us to be attracted to many people, of both sexes. I have a few very close same sex relationships. This requires an attraction, no? But those relationships are not sexual. Sexual activity played no part in forming those bonds. I am able to recognise that sexual attractions/relations are tied up with the pro-creative potential of man, and such relations are the relevant bond-forming means in that context alone. The nature of the act makes that clear. Now while the fact that I am not homosexually inclined may make that easy for me to accept, I believe every person is capable of seeing this truth, though it may be difficult for many to admit or accept.

I need to make it clear that my argument is not based on desire. One or two people have suggested this.

I’m not saying that just because a desire exists, it is from God. There are all sorts of desires that are not from God, such as the desire to murder. You can’t say that just because you feel like murdering someone, God designed you to be a murdered.

I’m not talking about desire but the design of our sexuality. You might think that someone’s sexuality is not a part of the body. You might think it’s something psychological. But I think there’s ample reason to believe it’s both psychological and physical.

Our sexuality is expressed through thoughts, desires, acts and so forth. We are thinking corporeal beings (imbued with something special by God we call soul). Your posts clearly argue that same sex attraction (regardless of whether you call it desire, or ‘sexual design’) was from God. You argued that it is part of God’s design. Unfortunately, you provided no basis or rationale for that. You provided no explanation for why we should conclude that God would choose a design, for some people, in which the mind drives the body to acts which are inconsistent with the evident nature of the body! You provide absolutely no rationale for why we should 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. And those corruptions need not be a physical flaw, but a spiritual one - the desire to lie, lust, or the desire for pre-marital sex.

How do you know that God didn’t make it [same sex attraction] that way on purpose? ?

Because homosexual acts - the physical acts - are evidently dissonant. And because our world suffers a great many other corruptions with which we must cope. If God intended same sex sexual relations, then at least some of the following would be true:

• Scripture would not have included condemnatory statements;
• Scripture would have made a positive reference, at least in passing, to homosexual relationship(s)
• We would be able to understand in rational terms how God’s plan is served by homosexual relationships
• The Church, given the keys, would have taught that homosexual relationships are good.

Instead, all we have is that some people experience a strong desire for these relationships.

 

[edwest2]

SSA is against law of nature because as a species it cannot survive. Nature weeds out the weakest unless the species in question becomes parasitic.

The Church is responsible for saving souls, not to help you attain sexual or companionship happiness. That is of the flesh, not the spirit. The Church has already taught SSA BEHAVIOUR is an abomination to the Lord, not the state of homosexuality itself. Yes, indeed the SSA cross is heavy to carry. All the more one need to pray to resist temptation. Receive the sacraments to strengthen your will , pray to all the saints for intercession.

For those that remain celibate in order not to displease the Lord, “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 in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which shall not cut off.” Isaiah 56:4.

You shouldn’t feel that way. Avoidance of sin is good for you spiritually. I wouldn’t want to be included in the list of sins. Pursuit of earthly happiness is not an objective of the faith. Soul saving is. If indulging in homosexual acts brings happiness, then one can argue that adultery, pornography, sadism/masochism brings happiness for some and therefore should be on the same footing.
I want to be the kind of Catholic that believes and obey what the Church teaches, because She is Holy. She is protected from teaching error. You are not. She is the Bride of Christ. I don’t close my eyes to Church individuals that commit faults or teach errors. Since you are in my mind teaching something contrary to God’s teachings, you can see that I didn’t close my eyes to that. I will become very vocal if you were to market that SSA act is not sinful. And I repeat, the act is sinful, not the person with that tendency.

The Church is not in the business of boasting secular developments. If secular developments are good for the faith, the Church does support them in some way or other. If secular developments are against the faith such as abortion and SSA behaviour, the Church does speak out against them.

You haven’t made the case that the Church is wrong in condemning SSA acts. The Bible is so clear whether OT or NT, SSA acts are wrong. The Church can not teach the reverse, period. For you to claim that SSA act is permissible by God and not sinful, is totally wrong. If you can prove it otherwise, we are fair-minded to hear your case. I can see that you are trying to make exceptions/excuses for it, but I can tell you that what you are advocating is against the faith.

That is politician talk. My grandkids (if I live long enough to have them) will be proud that I stood up and defend those who try to sneak in abominable acts into the faith.

If one need help in overcoming SSA tendencies, there are organizations out there.

I came across this peoplecanchange.com. They offer counseling services for those with SSA tendencies. A survey they have done indicated the following:
peoplecanchange.com/change/causes.php

97% said problems in the father-son relationship while they were growing up contributed to their developing same-sex attractions (SSA) – and men usually identified it as one of the three most significant factors.

The same percentage of men who said father-son problems contributed to their SSA – 97% – also said problems in their male-peer relationships contributed. And half said it was one of the “top three” factors.

Nine out of 10 survey respondents said aspects of their relationships with their mothers contributed to their SSA

48% of respondents said that, as children or youth, they had been sexually abused by an older or more powerful person.

93% said they had had other sexual experiences – including pornography, sexual fantasy and sex play with other boys – as children or youth, and of those who did, 93% said they believed these experiences contributed to their SSA feelings.

87% said they believed their personality traits were a contributing factor.

So it is possible to postulate that some SSA tendencies may be contributed by these external causes rather than a caused-by-God thing.

Well said. This all boils down to those who believe the Church is wrong about homosexual acts. It is not.

Ed

 

[Rau]

Awesome post. I agree with everything you wrote.

Joie is awesome when she makes the effort to spell it out…[Joie: hint, hint]

 

[JimG]

Yes, homosexual acts are against the natural law, and the Church is right about the moral law. But I wasn’t thinking about that recently while reading a book. It was a book about the hardships of some German immigrants who decided to come to the new world in the 1830’s to escape starvation, drought, and misery in their own land. The hardships they endured both in their land, in the journey, and when they got here—landing in Louisianan and having to sell themselves into slavery to pay for the trip—made me think that we are living in a bubble. Most of history has been that way for most people–hard and difficult. Nobody had time to think about sexual orientation, which is a modern invention anyway. I think perhaps that’s a big reason for inordinate sexual desires. We all have too much time on our hands.

 

[Rau]

…It becomes a dilutant, so to speak, with regard to our love for others by placing a qualifier on the kind of love we ought to have for others as others – the particular group we are “attracted” to becomes a “favoured” class.

A favoured class - yes, that is a naturally occurring phenomenon - “Friends”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

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.

Sure. Let’s start there.

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.

This is all wonderful too.

Consequently, our opinion on the Natural Law depends on knowledge that we do not yet have.

This doesn’t follow. Natural law is not the theory that anything present in nature is good, or that any genetic trait is good. (Club feet are genetic, e.g.) Natural law is the study of regularities in nature, and how these regularities pertain to human flourishing.

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.”

Would you say the same of alcoholism? What about club feet?

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

Only in the same sense that he designed people to be genetically predisposed to alcoholism. Again, that does not prove that God wanted these people to be alcoholics.

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…

You keep forgetting. God designed the “external body”, as you call it. (That’s a heresy, by the way. Bodies and souls are not separate entities, but a unity.) As a man attracted to other men, I would really wish that God would “encode” that desire into my body, if He wanted me to act on it. So, for instance, since the penis is a reproductive organ, I would expect that the penis would have some *purpose *in the context of a sexual relationship with another man. It ought to be fruitful. But if I have sex with another man, it ISN’T fruitful.

Possible conclusions: (1) God loves straight people more than gay people, because he gave straight sex a life-giving purpose. (Gay people want babies too!). Or (2) God encoded His teaching against homosexual activity into our bodies.

I opt for #2.

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.

Say: “allowing them to be tempted to have same-sex relationships.” And when you say it that way, you’ll see that this is no different from the way that people are tempted to curse, or steal, or lie.

But what do we know? God’s ways are higher than our ways.

That’s a rejection of natural law theory. Natural law theory claims that all the basics of morality can be obtained by human reason.

Finally, what does God want from these people?

He wants them to take up their crosses and follow Him.

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???

Again, this is the heresy that body and soul are separate. I think you are confusing a person’s *affections *with a person’s nature.

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.

No, it doesn’t, actually. Moreover, Paul several times explicitly condemns the actions of arsenokoitai, “those who lie with men”, i.e. men who have sex with men. This, despite the fact that pseudo-marital long-term relationships between men were not foreign to Paul, since he was a Roman.

 

[Peter_Plato]

A favoured class - yes, that is a naturally occurring phenomenon - “Friends”.

So why should “friends” of one gender be favoured over another?

What does friendship inherently have to do with physical attraction? Or physical attraction with friendship?

Why would physical attraction even be a feature of friendship, except when it pertains to a comprehensive union of mind, body and soul, which is what conjugal marriage essentially is?

Such a union is not limited to or by physical attraction since it must go far beyond mere physical attraction in order to be successful as a marriage.

 

[Rau]

The main problem with comparing your examples with homosexuality and the reason your assertion doesn’t work is…your examples are of one person hurting another; a same sex relationship is someone* loving* another.

The subject is homosexual acts, not two person loving each other.

Now - is the sexual act intrinsic to the loving? No - it is not. Love and sex are related, but they are not interchangeable and sex is not always found in a loving relationship (nor should be).

The sexual act has a proper place, or context, by its nature. Examining that nature reveals that proper place, and it is not the relationship of two persons of the same sex.

 

[Rau]

So why should “friends” of one gender be favoured over another?

What does friendship inherently have to do with physical attraction? Or physical attraction with friendship?

Why would physical attraction even be a feature of friendship, except when it pertains to a comprehensive union of mind, body and soul, which is what conjugal marriage essentially is?

Such a union is not limited to or by physical attraction since it must go far beyond mere physical attraction in order to be successful as a marriage.

I was not remarking on all the aspects you mention above. I remarked that attraction (generically) is surely a part of friend selection / friendship formation. So yes, we have a favoured class (friends), which need not be of a single sex.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I was not remarking on all the aspects you mention above. I remarked that attraction (generically) is surely a part of friend selection / friendship formation. So yes, we have a favoured class (friends), which need not be of a single sex.

That is what I thought you were getting at… just clarifying.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Then it isn’t very clear what it is that you mean by “attracted to the same sex.” If, as it appears, you intend this attraction to have little or nothing to do with the act of sex, then it would seem that what you are arguing for is a kind of bias in love – that individuals could (and possibly should) be biased towards whichever gender they are attracted to as the key determiner in terms of how love is to direct agency.

While it isn’t inherently sexual there is a certain erotic element to it in that there is a long to be with the person and such.

What kind(s) of love are you referring to?

I see no distinction in this view between having an attraction to one gender and having a prejudice against the other. You seem to be arguing that love for other individuals ought to allow this kind of “discrimination” in terms of being susceptible to and guided by “attraction.” That is, we ought to be able to “love” those we are “attracted to” differently than those to whom we feel no attraction.

Nothing I said involves “ought”. I am attracted to men, I am not attracted to women, that I am attracted to the former and not the latter does not mean I am prejudiced against women, indeed I see women have many wonderful qualities and can understand why men like them, but nonetheless I am attracted to men, not to women.

This just seems an odd kind of view with regard to the Christian call to love others as we love ourselves irrespective of whether we are “attracted” to them or not. Attraction, in the sense you seem to imply, would be given much more of a determining role than has ever been the case in Christian theology and ethics. It becomes a dilutant, so to speak, with regard to our love for others by placing a qualifier on the kind of love we ought to have for others as others – the particular group we are “attracted” to becomes a “favoured” class.

I have not implied anything of the sort.

Personally, I think this view has it entirely backwards. Our attractions ought not become determiners of the “good” based merely on the fact that we are “attracted” to some things or some kinds of people over others. Rather, the determinable good ought to define what it is that we learn or train ourselves to become attracted to. Nor should our “attractions” dictate or influence how we are to view other persons as those we are called to love. Your view seems to cast a shadow of preference over the purity of Christian love for others, even our enemies, as other.

Aristotle’s view on the passions requiring training by reason and guidance towards end goods is a much saner and mature view than one that promotes the prerogative of the passions to direct the will towards whatever objects we find attractive. This latter view leads very quickly to a capricious, transitory and tenous mode of existing.

Okay, now I’m not even sure you are replying to my post.

removed
If one need help in overcoming SSA tendencies, there are organizations out there.

I came across this peoplecanchange.com. They offer counseling services for those with SSA tendencies. A survey they have done indicated the following:
peoplecanchange.com/change/causes.php

97% said problems in the father-son relationship while they were growing up contributed to their developing same-sex attractions (SSA) – and men usually identified it as one of the three most significant factors.

The same percentage of men who said father-son problems contributed to their SSA – 97% – also said problems in their male-peer relationships contributed. And half said it was one of the “top three” factors.

Nine out of 10 survey respondents said aspects of their relationships with their mothers contributed to their SSA

48% of respondents said that, as children or youth, they had been sexually abused by an older or more powerful person.

93% said they had had other sexual experiences – including pornography, sexual fantasy and sex play with other boys – as children or youth, and of those who did, 93% said they believed these experiences contributed to their SSA feelings.

87% said they believed their personality traits were a contributing factor.

So it is possible to postulate that some SSA tendencies may be contributed by these external causes rather than a caused-by-God thing.

As it turns out, once you force people to create a narrative and convince them that they need to believe it to get better then they will believe it.

Women were no more oppressed than they were, say, in 18th century Britain. Sex with women was extremely popular, and available. But pederasty and adult homosexuality were just as common. And the conversations in all Plato’s dialogues, for example, show that the elites talked about the beauty of young men and boys perpetually – not primarily looking at them as sex objects, but as “specimens”, the same way men talk about Kate Upton today.

There are multiple 18th century Britains, you’ll have to elaborate.

What do you mean by specimen? I had mostly male friends who were quite candid around me, but I don’t know what you are talking about.

Myself included.

Indeed.

I daresay the opposite was true of Athens. Probably only a smallish minority of men actually had sex with their eromenos (younger lover/student), whereas a large majority of men talked about the good looks and allure of various youths. Actual sex was frowned upon, in such relationships.

Could you provide me with original sources? I’m not doubting you, I just prefer primary sources.

 

[ericc]

Well put

And even easier to blame God for the sins we would like to commit. Not my fault, you made me like this!

A secular judge won’t even accept this. You think God will? Don’t delude yourself. Seriously, for the sake of your soul.

 

[ericc]

As it turns out, once you force people to create a narrative and convince them that they need to believe it to get better then they will believe it.
.

I wasn’t aware that the survey or the narrative was coerced. You might know something about it that I don’t. Perhaps you;'d like to share? On the same note, how do you know that the narratives are not real, genuine feedback? If it is, the potential to help these people are enormous. We just cannot ignore it.

If you are alluding to the placebo effect, yes. it is something that doctors couldn’t really explain. But you see sometimes it works. For those who think they have a problem and actually don’t , a placebo may be opportunistically used. Even for those with real problems, placebos have been reported to work too in some cases. That’s why it is a head scratcher. But since SSA is not a medical issue in itself, other venues should be explored to help them. Just leaving them be is not the right thing to do if they are genuinely in need of help and want to be helped.

And if there are groups such as Alcoholic Anonymous, gamblers anonymous that can help people who genuinely WANTS to be helped, approaching similar organizations for SSA can be profitable. Question is , do they want to be helped or do they prefer SSA activities? If SSAs don’t want to be helped because they enjoy what they do yet expect the Church to change its doctrine to suit them, I don’t see the value of such discussions. I can see where they can use the authority given to the Church to bind/loose to get them a get-out-of-jail card. Hence the politicking. Basically, they want the Church to declare SSA acts a non-sin via its authority vested in the Church to bind it in heaven. But why stop there? Declare abortion, adultery, you name it to be ok in heaven too.

 

[DavidGonzalez]

This doesn’t follow. Natural law is not the theory that anything present in nature is good, or that any genetic trait is good. (Club feet are genetic, e.g.) Natural law is the study of regularities in nature, and how these regularities pertain to human flourishing.

Complete your thought.

How does forcing oneself to be celibate lead to self-flourishing? Don’t get me wrong. I do believe that some people with same-sex attraction may be called to celibacy just as some people with opposite sex attraction are called to celibacy. It depends on whether they can be happy that way.

But some people with same sex attraction struggle so much with celibacy that they end up falling into depression and abandoning their faith. It seems clear that the same would happen if we pressured every straight person into celibacy for religious reasons.

If following the Natural Law means respecting the regularities in nature that cause one to flourish, then you’ve got some explaining to do…