Homosexual Acts are Not Against the Natural Law

[LisaA]

Sure, if we consider bisexuals to be gays and lesbians.

Maybe I have misinterpreted but my impression is that you disagree with the labeling of people by what they are doing with their genitals at the particular time. If so I agree, if not maybe you can explain the “invention” of homosexuality and heterosexuality as you phrased it. I think the desire to label persons based on their current sexual expression is mostly an effort to carve out special rights based on an artificial construct.

Maybe if the “rights” of bi-sexuals are to be protected, this cohort would receive special dispensation to marry one of each sex so as to cover all possible preferences

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Maybe if the “rights” of bi-sexuals are to be protected, this cohort would receive special dispensation to marry one of each sex so as to cover all possible preferences

This premise, coming soon to a sitcom near you…

 

[Crow_and_dove]

I suppose that would be because fatherhood just is evil and having expectations just is pernicious.

Nothing like a balanced view of the world.

No yelling, just that you really should have that jaundice medically checked since views that arise from it cannot be treated by reason and logic.

Speaking of bafflement, a world view that says a mother can kill her child rather than care for him/her is somehow always morally superior to one where a father can have defined and clear expectations of his children baffles and confounds me. I suppose you would have no qualms with such a world view, however. Is that correct?

Consider the question a bit of diagnostic probing and nothing more. I am pretty sure you would choose “bafflement and even damnation” to anything I would be able to offer, even if what I did offer was clear and compelling.

I am not convinced that the alternative of patriarchy (which is defined, in part, as “a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it”, for those interested), is murderous mothers. Women are not psychotic serial killers but for the firm hand of the human male. The world view you describe is one I do not share, nor is it one any person of conscience is likely to aspire to.

Declaring the inherent value and rights of the female does not deny those qualities to the male. If you feel doing so upsets your “balance”, one might suspect that the situation was unbalanced. Sharing equal power only implies a loss to some if one side has an excessive amount to begin with.

Here is my “diagnostic probing”. A person in a position of priviledge might just choose to justify their priviledge by, in effect, blaming the less priviledged group for their state and, further, claiming divine sanction. This is what is done in virtually every patriarchal society, but this method is employed in situations of racism, classism, and homophobia as well.

It must be a terribly frightening world for those who ascribe to this view, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Crow_and_dove]

Bottom line is that a SSA pair will be extinct in one generation, unless they top up the population from a heterogeneous population. Which mean survival of the SSA population is parasitic. it contributes nothing to the human race production wise. Not against natural law? How could one believe that? And in order to make sure that SSA population survive , it has to promote that SSA is OK, is natural,generates happiness,and provide the legal and social environment etc except they have to make sure the marketing isn’t too effective otherwise that would doom the human race if everyone ended up SSA. If that happens, then they have to do reverse marketing and that the pursuit of personal happiness is not as simple as it sounds. Imagine world population 80% SSA and relying on the 20% to maintain the human race. Something is very very unnatural here.

Homosexuals are not a separate species! They will not be “extinct” unless the human race itself dies off! And that is not likely to happen even if every gay person who wanted to got married today. There are plenty of heterosexuals to keep the human species going. Infertile individuals are not treated as a seperate “parasitic” species, and neither are homosexual couples simply because they cannot procreate.

As much as it might pain you, homosexuals are your sisters and brothers. Are we not called to LOVE our neighbors? Describing them as if they weren’t even human is about as hateful as it gets.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Homosexuals are not a separate species! They will not be “extinct” unless the human race itself dies off! And that is not likely to happen even if every gay person who wanted to got married today. There are plenty of heterosexuals to keep the human species going. Infertile individuals are not treated as a seperate “parasitic” species, and neither are homosexual couples simply because they cannot procreate.

As much as it might pain you, homosexuals are your sisters and brothers. Are we not called to LOVE our neighbors? Describing them as if they weren’t even human is about as hateful as it gets.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

Since you know that God is not an evil being, and since you know that half of your species is not suffering subjugation, where does that leave you?

It leaves me pretty convinced that idolatry is alive and well. People have created a God who supports patriarchy in order to avoid the hard truth of systemic injustice. And women are being subjugated even today, around the world, in the names of various gods. It just so happens that the God I worship is, as you say, not an evil being, but one of perfect Goodness.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am not convinced that the alternative of patriarchy (which is defined, in part, as “a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it”, for those interested), is murderous mothers. Women are not psychotic serial killers but for the firm hand of the human male. The world view you describe is one I do not share, nor is it one any person of conscience is likely to aspire to.

When you incorporate your prejudices into the definition of what is being considered, then any reasonable discussion about patriarchy becomes impossible since by definition every patriarchal society excludes and subjugates women by the mere fact that the society has been defined that way. Ergo every patriarchal society MUST subjugate women by virtue of its being a patriarchal society.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

I think the desire to label persons based on their current sexual expression is mostly an effort to carve out special rights based on an artificial construct.

Well said! The label “heterosexual” is used in order to create special priviledges that are denied to those who are labeled differently, despite their similar needs.

 

[LisaA]

It leaves me pretty convinced that idolatry is alive and well. People have created a God who supports patriarchy in order to avoid the hard truth of systemic injustice. And women are being subjugated even today, around the world, in the names of various gods. It just so happens that the God I worship is, as you say, not an evil being, but one of perfect Goodness.

What are you talking about? As a member of the half of the species you are defending, I assure you we are not being subjugated by God or anyone else. As to other countries, since you are claiming women ARE being subjugated, perhaps you might consider that these women are NOT under the Judeo-Christian moral code but that of Islam or other tribal gods. None of which has anything to do with our Catholic faith nor this thread. The original reference was with respect to Thomas Aquinas and other early Christians who lived in a different world than do we. Further they had no way of testing female intelligence as women were not educated at the time. Certain beliefs are discarded as more information becomes available. The earth is not flat.

Homosexual acts are against Natural Law, are abnormal by definition on a biological basis given that all species are ordered to survive and to procreate. Homosexual acts are in opposition to both standards. They may provide transitory pleasure but then so do drugs, alcohol, and beautiful sunsets. None are lasting. None provide any function or purpose beyond the transitory pleasure. Those who are subjected to these overwhelming desires are to be prayed for just as anyone else facing a self destructive demon is to be prayed for.

 

[meltzerboy]

Well said! The label “heterosexual” is used in order to create special priviledges that are denied to those who are labeled differently, despite their similar needs.

It is quite understandable that the “privileged” generally do not view themselves as such. Rather, they view their own status as the norm.

 

[LisaA]

It is quite understandable that the “privileged” generally do not view themselves as such. Rather, they view their own status as the norm.

Those who are attracted to the opposite sex are “privileged?” I would use the term reflecting their biological gender in an appropriate way.

This is not the same as an ethnic elite or as in our country the elite of the overly educated class in the Ivy League and Beltway. Clearly those folks consider themselves worthy of privilege and their outlook the norm despite all evidence to the contrary. There is a reason they call it the Ivory Tower

 

[Crow_and_dove]

When you incorporate your prejudices into the definition of what is being considered, then any reasonable discussion about patriarchy becomes impossible since by definition every patriarchal society excludes and subjugates women by the mere fact that the society has been defined that way. Ergo every patriarchal society MUST subjugate women by virtue of its being a patriarchal society.

My “prejudiced” definition came from a dictionary. Since we are discussing a comment made by Thor, I believe, that Paul viewed women as inferior to men, I am unclear as to how the definition I provided is inappropriate. Would you like to supply an alternate definition?

Would you like to respond to the rest of my post, or reduce it to a conflict with dictionary definitions of the word patriarchy? I do feel a reasonable conversation is possible, and I’m not the one assuming the alternative to patriarchy is baby-murder. Not exactly a rational conclusion, but feel free to show us the rationale that got you there.

 

[meltzerboy]

Those who are attracted to the opposite sex are “privileged?” I would use the term reflecting their biological gender in an appropriate way.

This is not the same as an ethnic elite or as in our country the elite of the overly educated class in the Ivy League and Beltway. Clearly those folks consider themselves worthy of privilege and their outlook the norm despite all evidence to the contrary. There is a reason they call it the Ivory Tower

Of course straight people are privileged. They have never had to fight for their rights as human beings, have never been denied employment or housing on the basis of sexual preference, have never been teased and bullied by other kids in school for being too feminine or too masculine, have never been described as evil, sinful, immoral, selfish, or criminal due to their sexual desires, have never had to grow up in isolation with no role models in their community or on television. Straight people have never experienced any of this based on their sexual orientation, and so they tend to think their own experiences are simply the norm, not recognizing how privileged they are in most societies just by being straight. The same is true in our society for men, Whites, and (Protestant) Christians.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

What are you talking about? As a member of the half of the species you are defending, I assure you **we are not being subjugated by God **or anyone else.

I’m not the one who said God supports patriarchy, you will note. But His Name has been used to justify oppression historically. I am not saying YOU are being subjugated. You are not all women everywhere and throughout all time.

To reiterate, I do NOT believe that God supports or condones patriarchy.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

Of course straight people are privileged. They have never had to fight for their rights as human beings, have never been denied employment or housing on the basis of sexual preference, have never been teased and bullied by other kids in school for being too feminine or too masculine, have never been described as evil, sinful, immoral, selfish, or criminal due to their sexual desires, have never had to grow up in isolation with no role models in their community or on television. Straight people have never experienced any of this based on their sexual orientation, and so they tend to think their own experiences are simply the norm, not recognizing how privileged they are in most societies just by being straight.

Very well said. It should be noted - priviledge is not static or simple. Their are many priviledges, and we all experience priviledge to some degree, which varies in certain situations. A Christian might be less privileged in a country that had a different religious majority, for example. Getting defensive (I say in anticipation of responses to your point, meltzerboy) does little - we all participate in the system.

 

[LisaA]

Of course straight people are privileged. They have never had to fight for their rights as human beings, have never been denied employment or housing on the basis of sexual preference, have never been teased and bullied by other kids in school for being too feminine or too masculine, have never been described as evil, sinful, immoral, selfish, or criminal due to their sexual desires, have never had to grow up in isolation with no role models in their community or on television. Straight people have never experienced any of this based on their sexual orientation, and so they tend to think their own experiences are simply the norm, not recognizing how privileged they are in most societies just by being straight. The same is true in our society for men, Whites, and (Protestant) Christians.

And thin people have never been subjected to being denied their rights as human beings, employment, housing or being teased for being overweight. Women as well have faced a fight for their human rights, denied employment or housing or even the ability to vote. We won’t even get into the world of racial minorities. And I am sure you can speak to the incredible anti Semitism that was a scourge of the last Century and raising its ugly head now.

So I still don’t get your point. Yes in the past there were certainly egregious acts toward a large number of minority groups…if you are overweight (and I am not) there is still a very serious biogtry in employment and advancement. When considering political candidates what do we hear about Christie and Huckabee? They’re fat. There is still much to be concerned with in the rise of anti-Semitism. But somehow I can’t get too wrapped around the axle about the supposed oppression of gays and Lesbians currently. In fact this tiny minority has invaded our schools with its agenda of normalization, attempted to silence anyone who simply wants to live by the traditional definition of marriage, and attacked individuals and businesses that were not willing to “go along to get along” and participate in gay themed events. Who is being oppressed these days?

You know people need to quit all of the handwringing over past wrongs. At this point gays are privileged as are minorities in their ability to say and do outrageous things that are given a pass because of their status. We need to speak the truth in love but the truth first.

But back to the OP. Homosexual acts are not normal behavior from a biological basis. Pretending doesn’t make them so. Trying to assuage our guilt for past wrongs doesn’t make it so either. As human beings those who suffer from SSA are to be considered children of God just like those who do not. But that doesn’t mean we pretend what is happening is not self destructive. We may not be able to convince them that they are hurting themselves by this activity but please don’t ask for approval or participation.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course straight people are privileged. They have never had to fight for their rights as human beings, have never been denied employment or housing on the basis of sexual preference, have never been teased and bullied by other kids in school for being too feminine or too masculine, have never been described as evil, sinful, immoral, selfish, or criminal due to their sexual desires, have never had to grow up in isolation with no role models in their community or on television. Straight people have never experienced any of this based on their sexual orientation, and so they tend to think their own experiences are simply the norm, not recognizing how privileged they are in most societies just by being straight.

No, but straight people have borne for thousands of years the responsibilities and burdens that come with rearing and raising children and keeping families together and healthy by caring for the well-being of all members of those families – working steadfastly years on end, suffering with the heartbreaks and disappointments of loving other human beings unconditionally and generally bearing the same kinds of bullying and teasing for a host of other reasons that will never be accorded the kind of heroic standing as that accorded to the more privileged classes.

By the way, it hasn’t been BECAUSE heterosexuals were heterosexual that all those privileges have been accorded them – it was because they were wealthy, good-looking, esteemed, powerful, etc., etc., nothing integrally having to do with heterosexuality, per se. Heterosexuals were also and often ridiculed for their looks, for their frailty, for the clothes they wore, for the family they came from and even for their nationality. To lump all privileges together as if the reason for those privileges had to do with heterosexuality seems a bit contrived.

 

[meltzerboy]

Very well said. It should be noted - priviledge is not static or simple. Their are many priviledges, and we all experience priviledge to some degree, which varies in certain situations. A Christian might be less privileged in a country that had a different religious majority, for example. Getting defensive (I say in anticipation of responses to your point, meltzerboy) does little - we all participate in the system.

That is correct. There are variations in privilege from one society to another. That is why I specified in our society (meaning the U.S.) when referring to the privileges bestowed upon men, Whites, and (Protestant) Christians.

I would also add that rejection by one’s own family due to sexual orientation is not part of the experience of straight people, as it is by some gay people.

 

[LisaA]

No, but straight people have borne for thousands of years the responsibilities and burdens that come with rearing and raising children and keeping families together and healthy by caring for the well-being of all members of those families – working steadfastly years on end, suffering with the heartbreaks and disappointments of loving other human beings unconditionally and generally bearing the same kinds of bullying and teasing for a host of other reasons that will never be accorded the kind of heroic standing as that accorded to the more privileged classes.

By the way, it hasn’t been BECAUSE heterosexuals were heterosexual that all those privileges have been accorded them – it was because they were wealthy, good-looking, esteemed, powerful, etc., etc., nothing integrally having to do with heterosexuality, per se. Heterosexuals were also and often ridiculed for their looks, for their frailty, for the clothes they wore, for the family they came from and even for their nationality. To lump all privileges together as if the reason for those privileges had to do with heterosexuality seems a bit contrived.

AMEN! I have to wonder if it’s that gays and Lesbians so self identify with their sexual interests that they erroneously perceive an imagined privilege given to heterosexuals simply by virtue of their preference for biologically normal sexual activity. There is this obsession with bullying, of course it’s “all” about sexual identity now when in the past it was about appearance, clothing, wearing glasses, pimples or a host of other physical characteristics that have sadly been the subject of childish teasing from the beginning of time.

How do most of us self identify? As a Catholic, a woman, an American, tall, blonde…whatever. How often does anyone bring up their sexual interest if they are NOT homosexual? Yet so many gays and Lesbians are so wrapped in the contrived identity of what they are currently doing sexually that it seems to overcome all other features. How amazingly self limiting.

 

[meltzerboy]

No, but straight people have borne for thousands of years the responsibilities and burdens that come with rearing and raising children and keeping families together and healthy by caring for the well-being of all members of those families – working steadfastly years on end, suffering with the heartbreaks and disappointments of loving other human beings unconditionally and generally bearing the same kinds of bullying and teasing for a host of other reasons that will never be accorded the kind of heroic standing as that accorded to the more privileged classes.

By the way, it hasn’t been BECAUSE heterosexuals were heterosexual that all those privileges have been accorded them – it was because they were wealthy, good-looking, esteemed, powerful, etc., etc., nothing integrally having to do with heterosexuality, per se. Heterosexuals were also and often ridiculed for their looks, for their frailty, for the clothes they wore, for the family they came from and even for their nationality. To lump all privileges together as if the reason for those privileges had to do with heterosexuality seems a bit contrived.

Your last statement is exactly my main point. It seems contrived if one is heterosexual only because one doesn’t have to think twice about one’s sexuality. There is no sense of being different, no sense of fear or apprehension that someone in one’s own family or place of employment may suspect or find out, no sense of being a second-class citizen, no sense of self-loathing largely imposed by society’s attitudes, including religious attitudes, towards homosexuals. Gay people are ALSO judged by all the criteria you mentioned with regard to straight people, but the difference is they carry with them the additional burden of being gay in a predominantly straight society.