Homosexual Acts are Not Against the Natural Law

[LisaA]

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.

Come on Meltzerboy, how many young girls were tossed out of the house for getting pregnant? That’s probably a result of heterosexual activity How many children were tossed out for other behaviors that didn’t meet mom and dad’s approval? There is this weird theory that it’s all about being gay when the same issues arise in families for a host of other reasons.

 

[meltzerboy]

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.

People who identify in terms of primarily their sexual identity (probably not the majority of gay people) are, in a sense, forced to do so, by the prejudices that society has held towards them. It is society that identifies them in a negative light based only on their sexuality, just as society has done with regard to Blacks, Latinos, women, Jews, and Catholics. The biases, while not quite as explicit as in former times, are still very much present. Just read some of the comments about gays, the gay lifestyle, and the gay agenda on CAF, often imbued with varying degrees of fear, anger, and self-righteousness, and this Forum is, by far, not the worst of it.

 

[PaulinVA]

People who identify in terms of primarily their sexual identity (probably not the majority of gay people) are, in a sense, forced to do so, by the prejudices that society has held towards them. It is society that identifies them in a negative light based only on their sexuality, just as society has done with regard to Blacks, Latinos, women, Jews, and Catholics. The biases, while not quite as explicit as in former times, are still very much present. Just read some of the comments about gays, the gay lifestyle, and the gay agenda on CAF, often imbued with varying degrees of fear, anger, and self-righteousness, and this Forum is, by far, not the worst of it.

Yes, but the thing is, I don’t know if someone is gay unless they tell me. Well, if they introduce someone of the same gender as their spouse, I know.

I think the problem with identifying with a “community”, be it black, gay, latino, whatever, is that it is, indeed, self limiting. It’s self limiting any time you identify with a minority.

If you asked me to describe myself, I would never use my sexual attraction as an attribute. Why? Some would say because I live a heteronormative lifestyle and am blind to other options. I would say that it doesn’t define me in any way. It’s not on my radar.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Since we are discussing a comment 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.

Funny story and quite ironic actually, but my response to the post of yours was actually cut short because my wife asked me to go to the store to pick up some olive oil – do you get the irony? I was quite perturbed actually because I had a couple of thoughts going through my head that I just needed to get down, but I acquiesced to my wife’s request.

AND, being the subjugated patriarch that I am, I submitted the post and did my duty.

What is even more delicious, however, is that as I get to the store, I see a fellow in a wheelchair struggling to move through the snow – obviously in great distress. Again, being the caring patriarch that I am, I get out of my car and go over to help the genetleman. As I get closer, I hear him swearing up a blue streak.

His words (expletives deleted) were something like, “I told her she should have taken the car herself and got the groceries. No, she said I had to do it – in my wheelchair. I can hardly get around in this snow.”

The delicious irony is that my distress at my wife’s inopportune request of me was put into perspective by this man’s predicament and the unreasonableness of his wife’s expectation of him.

Obviously, whatever I had to say about patriarchal societies in reply to your post is simply inconsequential compared to the object lesson regarding the ostensibly matriarchal society this poor fellow in the wheelchair finds himself in.

Lillian Hellman – I think – had an appropriate quote. She said something like, “Arguing about the rights of women is much like arguing about the rights of volcanoes.”

I count this little experience as another God-incidence in a long litany of such that have occurred to me over my lifetime. The funny thing is that my “rights” have never even come up. I don’t presume to have any.

I do have responsibilities, however, the main two being

1. insuring the well-being of all those around me and
2. knowing the true good and attaining it with all my power.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

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.

You don’t seem to have the foggiest idea of what SSA is.

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

The concept of heterosexuality was invented in the 19th century, it was used by psychology to effective appropriate morality. Homosexuality was effectively used as a foil to it, the bad guy. The terms heterosexual and homosexual weren’t originally used or introduced into broader culture by what we now refer to LGBT people, it was used by people by people who wanted to make sure to proclaim themselves not one of those evil, sick, degenerates. Basically heterosexuality was invented as a secular way for people to proclaim their normality because apparently simply following God is not enough. Such concepts are bad for good Christian morals is it portrays “the homosexual” as some vile sexual deviant and equates him with sin and portrays “the heterosexual” as normal and not deviant, effectively sweeping the innumerable ways “the heterosexual” could engage in sexual sin under the rug.

tl;dr heterosexuality is a dirty modernist, secular liberal 19th century invention that is corrosive to good Christian morality; kill it with fire.

Marrying for love being considered a reasonable idea was thought to be symptomatic of a diseased mind before the 18th century, it all changed with Rousseau’s Julie, ou la nouvelle Héloïse which introduced the idea to wide sections of Europeans. Before that marriage was a rationally driven thing, driven by producing stable households, taking care of parents, productions and rearing of children. Marriage was orderly, it very much contributed to the stability of society, it was the bedrock upon which society stood. Unlike what most people think, marriage was not something done in the early teens, it was instead done in the 20s, west of the Hajnal Line you were often looking at 23 for women and 25 for men, not much of an age gap. The age of marriage was usually linked to prosperity, prosperous families married earlier, less prosperous ones later, this is the result of them waiting to acquire sufficient assets to be able to form a viable household as opposed to a whirlwind creation from a torrid love affair. Once “love” displaces progeny for the central part of marriage it becomes east for children to become optional, contracepting becomes permissible, once that happens then if a woman is pregnant if the offspring were to hinder the love of the couple then terminate it. Once marriage is wholly about love with children an accessory though a common one, why not permit even those couples who are wholly incapable of reproducing together be married? After all their love is just as real and children aren’t essential, if they decide they want that accessory they can always acquire one through adoption.

tl;dr marrying for love is a terrible 18th century idea that inevitably leads to gay marriage (along with contraception, abortion and infanticide).

This post probably makes clear my abysmal writing skills.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

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?

The concept of women being in charge terrifies some people especially men.

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.

It is so important to maintain and us v. them dichotomy that some people will treat them as less than human to do so.

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.

Christianity exists outside of the West.

 

[meltzerboy]

The concept of women being in charge terrifies some people especially men.

It is so important to maintain and us v. them dichotomy that some people will treat them as less than human to do so.

Christianity exists outside of the West.

Cognitive psychologists have indeed found that the “us vs. them” mindset is a NORMAL cognitive function in many aspects of life. It serves to create a sense of a separate identity apart from the identity of others, which in turn seems to fulfill a motivational need in most people. Yes, we want to “fit in” with the crowd and not appear out of place, but, at the same time, we do not want to “dissolve” in the crowd and lose our individuality.

Further, the human mind and brain appear to be structured in terms of thinking in dichotomies rather than trichotomies, for example.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

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.

Actually plenty of straights kids have while being bullied for being gay.

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.

Dude, there is no d before the g in the word privilege.

Intersectionality.

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.

Everyone except hetero, cis, white men have been screwed over at some point by them.

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?

I hear that Christie is spineless and Huckabee is a bigot.

At this point white gay men are privileged in most of the US, but nonwhite gay men and women are not privileged.

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.

White gay men are privileged, the rest of the LGBT community is not.

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.

Why do we target gay relationships much harder than fornicating relationships despite fornication and homosexual acts both being intrinsically disordered? Prioritizing fighting against fornication would save more souls and give us a moral high ground to stand on.

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.

Stop considering yourself ontologically American, it is contrary to your identity as a child of God.
:tsktsk:

 

[Peter_Plato]

Everyone except hetero, cis, white men have been screwed over at some point by them.

Yes, of course, no true hetero cis white man (like no true Scotsman) has ever been screwed over by any other true hetero cis white man (or anyone else for that matter.). Hetero cis white man is a privileged class of beings that is entirely impervious to all attacks merely by virtue of membership in that club.

Throw in “patriarch” and we have ultimate unassailability – no true hetero cis white patriarch has ever victimized at any time in all past history. Now THAT is a privileged class!

 

[Peter_Plato]

Stop considering yourself ontologically American, it is contrary to your identity as a child of God.
:tsktsk:

While, say, considering some “children of God” being ontologically “White gay men” or “privileged,” or considering oneself to be gay or lesbian is NOT deserving of a :tsktsk:

 

[Prodigal_Son]

People who identify in terms of primarily their sexual identity (probably not the majority of gay people) are, in a sense, forced to do so, by the prejudices that society has held towards them.

Huh? I don’t get your meaning. If identifying as gay entails such suffering, what prevents them from staying quiet? (I’m not saying they SHOULD say quiet, I’m just asking in what sense they are “forced” to be open).

 

[LisaA]

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.

Meltzberboy for a well educated urban Jew in 2015, you seem to be living in the 1980s when ineed gays and Lesbians were sometimes treated with scorn, prejudice, even outright cruelty. It that were the situation today I’d think your post had a lot more credibility but it is NOT. In fact it’s as if we are bending over backwards to pander to the gay activist cohort, demanding other comply with their outlook, ignoring the real and significant violations of OTHERS’ rights in order to “play nice” to those who make their sexual interests public.

Aside from the Bakery Suers, one of the most outrageous cases dealt with a Christian counselor who said she did not want to counsel gay couples as she didn’t believe in gay “marriage,” she didn’t understand the dynamics of gay relationships and didn’t think she would be an effective counselor in such instances anyway. She was threatened with loss of her job, loss of her license, loss of her livlihood for making a perfectly appropriate professional judgement. My hairdresser does not do ethnic hair. If a black person comes in asking about a cut or other treatment, she makes a recommendation to another sylist. She said she’s tried to work with this hair but hasn’t had enough clients to develop an expertise and declines. So I guess she should lose her license for being “prejudiced” against those with African American hair? Judges in California were told they could not participate in Boy Scouts until the Scouts agreed to allow openly gay scouts (and pushing for gay scoutmasters) even though the majority of boys in scouting are pre puberty and scouting is not an organization where sexuality is even a factor.

IOW gays are using their sex lives as a cudgel to trample the rights of those who do not want to participate in their sexual choices.

Aside from that, unlike gender, race, or handicap, one is not aware of someone’s private life unless they tell you about it. And why would anyone other than their sexual partners want to or need to know?

 

[LisaA]

People who identify in terms of primarily their sexual identity (probably not the majority of gay people) are, in a sense, forced to do so, by the prejudices that society has held towards them. It is society that identifies them in a negative light based only on their sexuality, just as society has done with regard to Blacks, Latinos, women, Jews, and Catholics. The biases, while not quite as explicit as in former times, are still very much present. Just read some of the comments about gays, the gay lifestyle, and the gay agenda on CAF, often imbued with varying degrees of fear, anger, and self-righteousness, and this Forum is, by far, not the worst of it.

They are not forced to make public their sex lives, it is voluntary.

Also please read the comments regarding gays and the gay lifestyle in the context of the sentence. Rarely here or anywhere else does someone write a hateful, critical comment about someone with SSA or even someone who is engaged in a homosexual relationship. Most of us really don’t give a rip about others’ personal lives. It’s where this is pushed at us like a second helping at Christmas dinner that we say, no thank you. Anger? You bet I’m angry about the way this group is demanding that others forfeit their rights to accommodate someone’s sex life. How petty and how small to claim your right to a cake is greater than someone else’s right to practice their religion or that your right not to be “offended” means that someone should be silenced and removed from the public square. I am truly concerned about the totalitarian approach to anyone who expresses a preference for what has up until recently, been a normal man and woman with kids life. How dare we!

 

[Rau]

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.

Systemic injustice and subjugation! Another topic for you and the Deacon to discuss prior to RCIA?

 

[Thorolfr]

Aside from that, unlike gender, race, or handicap, one is not aware of someone’s private life unless they tell you about it. And why would anyone other than their sexual partners want to or need to know?

Straight people announce their sexual orientation in public every time they put a picture of their spouse or kids or boyfriend or girlfriend on their desks at work, hold hands with their spouse in public, introduce their spouse or girlfriend or boyfriend to other people, etc., etc.

Why should gay people have to conceal this from others? Why the double standard? For years, I lied and told people I was living with a “roommate”, I didn’t put my partner’s picture on my desk, I lied and told people I was single when they asked me if I’m married or have a girlfriend. I don’t want to lie any more or keep secrets. It’s not as if most gay people go around making an announcement about their sexual orientation whenever they meet someone new, but they shouldn’t have to be evasive or lie either.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

Funny story and quite ironic actually, but my response to the post of yours was actually cut short because my wife asked me to go to the store to pick up some olive oil – do you get the irony? I was quite perturbed actually because I had a couple of thoughts going through my head that I just needed to get down, but I acquiesced to my wife’s request.

AND, being the subjugated patriarch that I am, I submitted the post and did my duty.

If you think that subjugation is being denied the priviledge of chatting online because you acquiesced to your wife’s request, then you need a dictionary definition of subjugation as well. The irony is that you would find your situation comparable to that of a woman in a patriarchal society. We ALL sacrifice our little pleasures from time to time.It’s not the same as being denied rights.

What is even more delicious, however, is that as I get to the store, I see a fellow in a wheelchair struggling to move through the snow – obviously in great distress. Again, being the caring patriarch that I am, I get out of my car and go over to help the genetleman. As I get closer, I hear him swearing up a blue streak.

His words (expletives deleted) were something like, “I told her she should have taken the car herself and got the groceries. No, she said I had to do it – in my wheelchair. I can hardly get around in this snow.”

The delicious irony is that my distress at my wife’s inopportune request of me was put into perspective by this man’s predicament and the unreasonableness of his wife’s expectation of him.

Obviously, whatever I had to say about patriarchal societies in reply to your post is simply inconsequential compared to the object lesson regarding the ostensibly matriarchal society this poor fellow in the wheelchair finds himself in.

Again, you seem to think the only alternative to patriarchy is violent, abusive woman running rampant (incidentally, do you think your wife would have smashed your face into the computer if you had refused her request for olive oil, and only your strong manliness keeps her wild rage in check in the face of - apparently - our recklessly matriarchal society?). Again, I do not see why you think the opposite of subjugation is… subjugation.

Lillian Hellman – I think – had an appropriate quote. She said something like, “Arguing about the rights of women is much like arguing about the rights of volcanoes.”

Ok, apparently you DO think that women are crazed and dangerous. I guess I can’t fault you for being so terrified of sharing power with them. I would want God to keep such dangerous creatures underfoot too!

Except, of course, women aren’t volcanoes. Women are human beings, and they DO have rights as such. They are no more or less monstrous then men, and no more or less deserving of dignity.

I do have responsibilities, however, the main two being

1. insuring the well-being of all those around me and
2. knowing the true good and attaining it with all my power.

Those, I think, are everyone’s responsibilities - regardless of their pelvic region or their romantic orientation.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

… Sorry, accidental double post

 

[edwest2]

Peter Plato, you make a good point in your last paragraph. However, Thorolfr also makes a good point in noting the patriarchal culture of ancient times that must have had at least some influence on both Jewish and Christian theology.

In the case of Christian theology, no. Jesus, as God, acted as God, and the prevailing situation at the time did not not influence Him.

Ed

 

[ericc]

Marketing? :ehh: Really?

I also couldn’t compose a better example of queening out. It’s like the anti-gay version of The Handmaid’s Tale.

Haven’t you seen those pride marches? I have yet to see heterosexuals doing the equivalent.

 

[Thorolfr]

Haven’t you seen those pride marches? I have yet to see heterosexuals doing the equivalent.

Maybe heterosexuals don’t have anything to be proud of since being gay is so much better