Homosexual Relationships

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

But, correct me if I’m wrong, natural law, understood in the scholastic tradition, has nothing to do with gut feeling or subjective perceptions, which certainly would be molded by cultural and historical experiences.

I would love for someone to speak to this. My understanding of natural law is that it is “law” which does not require supernatural revelation in order to be grasped–that is, it is universally recognized among human cultures due to the common human condition. If it could not be recognized without inspiration, it would seem to me that it would not be natural law, but supernatural.

However, it seems that all this does is objectify subjective human cultural experience. And the particular culture which is being made into an objective force of natural morality is Western culture. On these forums, no one has been able to convince me that natural law is not a reflection of prevailing cultural norms which may or may not be in force in other cultures. And the variability of these norms (both within and without specific cultures), a variability which would seem to argue against their universal objectivity, is explained away in moral terms which cast cultures and peoples which do not measure up to our own cultural norms as having implicitly rejected natural law. This seems like a vicious feedback loop which only serves a version of cultural imperialism.
East and West:

We can see by observation that homosexuality is not proper to the human person by observing the debauchery and decadence that it creates in the homosexual population, a disorder on a scale that far surpasses that of the heterosexual community.

East and West, honestly I think you are putting the cart before the horse–you say that we know that homosexuality is wrong based on the debauchery and decadence we can observe in “the homosexual population”. Is being an African-American teenage girl wrong because it is observed that statistically half of them are infected with an STD (see nytimes.com/2008/03/12/science/12std.html?hp)? Is being an African-American teenage girl not proper to the human person, therefore? It’s an absolutely ludicrous question. But when it comes to homosexuality, why are you so eager to conflate the foibles of some into the de facto debauchery of many? I understand that your experience may have led you to these conclusions of yours, but the general association you make is illogical and speaks more to conclusions fashioned in the fire of of an extremity of emotion than a reasoned position. What you are saying is: People characterized by original sin and condition A exhibit distasteful behaviors B and C–therefore A is the source of B and C. I don’t buy it, particularly not with a theology which explains behaviors B and C so nicely under the general rubric of Original Sin.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[East_and_West]

East and West, honestly I think you are putting the cart before the horse–you say that we know that homosexuality is wrong based on the debauchery and decadence we can observe in “the homosexual population”. Is being an African-American teenage girl wrong because it is observed that statistically half of them are infected with an STD (see nytimes.com/2008/03/12/science/12std.html?hp)? Is being an African-American teenage girl not proper to the human person, therefore? It’s an absolutely ludicrous question. But when it comes to homosexuality, why are you so eager to conflate the foibles of some into the de facto debauchery of many? I understand that your experience may have led you to these conclusions of yours, but the general association you make is illogical and speaks more to conclusions fashioned in the fire of of an extremity of emotion than a reasoned position. What you are saying is: People characterized by original sin and condition A exhibit distasteful behaviors B and C–therefore A is the source of B and C. I don’t buy it, particularly not with a theology which explains behaviors B and C so nicely under the general rubric of Original Sin.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Mark, I find your comparison between homosexuals and african americans to be a bit silly. Race is not a choice. It is built into one’s gentic structe, and thus is a God given gift. Homosexual activity (no homosexual inclinations) are a choice. People choose to have sex with members of the same genders. Because homosexual sex involves choice of actions it is a moral issue. Natural law states that you must treat things in accord with their nature or there will be negative consequences. It is clear that men do not even have compatible anatomy when it comes to sexuality, so in this simple way, we can see that homosexuality is not in accord with human nature. Further, we can see that God, through evolution, designed sex for procreation and for bonding of man and woman so that they will raise a family in a safe and healthy environment. Again, homosexual sex does not conrform to this. Thus, it is clear that homosexuality does not treat sex in accord with its nature. In the end it is no surprise that we see so much more promiscuity, sexual disease, drug use, pedophelia, etc, amongst the homosexual community. Homosexuals are broken and wounded, seeking to find something they think they are lacking in some one else of the same gender. That’s why it never works. Realizing this has caused me to take great leaps in overcoming my need for affection from and sex with males.

 

[truagape]

Natural law states that you must treat things in accord with their nature or there will be negative consequences. … In the end it is no surprise that we see so much more promiscuity, sexual disease, drug use, pedophelia, etc, amongst the homosexual community. Homosexuals are broken and wounded, …

I completely agree! Here’s the problem: You view the second part of your quote as a reaction to not heeding the first part of your quote. You fail to realize that it’s the reverse that is true! Not heeding the first part of your quote has resulted in the reality of the second part of your quote.

 

[Exalt]

Goodness gracious. You are talking to some one who IS gay so I know all about the ridiculous arguments that we can use to justify it. For example appealing to animal behavior as “natural”. This is absurd. Just because the animals do it does not mean that we should. Animals have sex in the front lawn and poop on the floor. Does that mean we should do it to? NO!!! By natural I mean that which is proper to the human person. We can see by observation that homosexuality is not proper to the human person by observing the debauchery and decadence that it creates in the homosexual population, a disorder on a scale that far surpasses that of the heterosexual community.

Did I say anything about the morality of homosexuality in my entire post?

No, I didn’t.

I’m merely addressing the issue of “is homosexuality natural?” and observing the true fact that “natural” carries as many meanings as other polyvalent (meaning - multifaceted) words, such as “love” or “freedom” - perhaps even more. Just go look the word up in the dictionary. In some ways, homosexuality *is *natural, depending on the defination of the word. In some ways, it isn’t. Those are the facts.

But I never spoke about the morality of “natural” or “unnatural” things.

 

[Hastrman]

-]/-]

I’m sorry, what are your credentials on theology again?

Um, how about…I know nearly everything about Thomistic Christian theology; I know my way around Evangelical theology and Calvinist theology; I know the main currents in Jewish theology, and a few major points in Islamic theology?

Oh, and I also know the Shingon doctrines concerning Mahavairocana Buddha, and the Zen teachings concerning the Void (same thing, different schools of thought); the Navajo, Hopi, Ojibwa, and Aztec religions; Shinto, Korean Shamanism, Taoism, and Confucianism; some basics of Hindu theology; Zoroastrianism; and I’m acquainted with the ancient theological thought of Cicero.

So…what’re *your *credentials, exactly? You’re working toward some degree or other in “religious studies”?

Oh, let me bow to the irrefutable authority of a watered-down degree in an oversimplified subject, that you don’t even have yet.

 

[East_and_West]

I completely agree! Here’s the problem: You view the second part of your quote as a reaction to not heeding the first part of your quote. You fail to realize that it’s the reverse that is true! Not heeding the first part of your quote has resulted in the reality of the second part of your quote.

Oh my. Men do not even have compatible anatomy!!! How are you missing this?

 

[truagape]

Oh my. Men do not even have compatible anatomy!!! How are you missing this?

Trust me, I’m not missing this. In fact this is the one thing I think everyone of us can agree on!

 

[kristie_m]

For me,

This issue contributed to my sabattical from the Church for 30 plus years. I could not understand how the love I feel for a same gendered person could be bad, because it truly feels like it is “good” and “from God”. And I know that God loves me so I thought the Church must be wrong.

After struggling unsuccessfully to “belong” to other Christian churches for a number of years, attending church services and then going home and watching EWTN, I realized that I am Catholic through and through and I needed to return home. I chose to accept the Church’s teachings on homosexuality and masturbation without waiting to understand them. I need the Church far more than I need to participate in either.

I am overjoyed to be home, participating in my church is incredibly wonderful and I am very happy today.

This one stopped me in my tracks! Wow…what an absolutely beautiful post! This is really what it comes down to isn’t it? We need our faith so much more than any physical relationship. May God bless you abundantly for your sacrifice of your own wants and needs for the sake of obedience to Him.

 

[truagape]

This one stopped me in my tracks! Wow…what an absolutely beautiful post! This is really what it comes down to isn’t it? We need our faith so much more than any physical relationship. May God bless you abundantly for your sacrifice of your own wants and needs for the sake of obedience to Him.

I agree with you. But I have a feeling you would not have applied these same words to someone who’s senario was different from his. If that’s true, I find your words eerily disheartning.

 

[kristie_m]

I agree with you. But I have a feeling you would not have applied these same words to someone who’s senario was different from his. If that’s true, I find your words eerily disheartning.

I’m not sure what you mean…can you give me an example?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Mark, I find your comparison between homosexuals and african americans to be a bit silly. Race is not a choice.

I agree with you that race is not a choice. But I wasn’t talking about choices. You’ll notice I was talking about conditions throughout the entire post–and in this example, I was comparing the situation of someone who is a homosexual with the situation of someone who is African-American, female, and young. You implied in your earlier post that observing the debauchery of homosexual persons leads inevitably to the conclusion that being a homosexual is wrong. I used an example which could, given your assumptions, lead one to a similar conclusion: based on observations of the percentage of African-American teenage girls infected with one or more STDs, being an African-American teenage girl is a morally disordered condition and/or not particularly conducive to health. It’s absurd! Of course it’s absurd! Because the logic behind each assertion is absurd.

I notice someone drops a wine glass and it breaks–is it broken because it’s a wine glass, or is it broken because if you drop a glass, it breaks? My cat eats something rancid and gets sick. Does it get sick because it’s a cat, or because it ate something rancid?

Natural law states that you must treat things in accord with their nature or there will be negative consequences. …(etc.)

I don’t share your perspective on the un-naturalness of the homosexual condition (it seems like a perfectly natural condition to me), nor do I share your bias towards procreation when it comes to sex (naturally, two men or two women trying to procreate will be frustrated!), so applying the above idea of Natural Law leads me to very different conclusions than the ones you reach.

Homosexuals are broken and wounded, seeking to find something they think they are lacking in some one else of the same gender. That’s why it never works. Realizing this has caused me to take great leaps in overcoming my need for affection from and sex with males.

That is some generalization! Are they broken and wounded because they’re homosexuals? Or are homosexual people sometimes broken and wounded (much like everyone else)? What do I believe I’m lacking in myself that I’m looking for in my partner? When heterosexual couples smile and say to each other things like, “You complete me,” do you find that such a statement, far from being an expression of endearment, is indicative of brokenness and woundedness? Do you find, generally, that people who are happy in relationships are self-deluded?

I suppose that if I were to view sex as principally (rather than conditionally or conveniently) oriented towards procreation, I might reach similar conclusions. It would also not be difficult to conclude that romantic love–or even romantic attachment!–is a sham (romance is a fairly recent cultural invention, after all), and that any supposed unitive purpose to sex is merely a convenient story we tell ourselves to augment or make more poetic the simple procreative drive to push our genes through to succeeding generations. In this situation, nature law tells me that monogamy is an impediment to biology. What, then, am I to think of monogamous marriage? Would not natural law favor polygamy?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[truagape]

I’m not sure what you mean…can you give me an example?

Would you have said the same thing to post #7?

 

[Exalt]

This one stopped me in my tracks! Wow…what an absolutely beautiful post! This is really what it comes down to isn’t it? We need our faith so much more than any physical relationship. May God bless you abundantly for your sacrifice of your own wants and needs for the sake of obedience to Him.

Wow.

If all you see about homosexuality is sex, you are quite mistaken.

There’s a much bigger picture, and you’re right about one thing - there is so much more to life than a physical relationship. But the Church is rather silent on things *other *than sex in homosexuality. One wonders, if homosexuals didn’t engage in actual sex, but did everything else exactly the same, would there be a problem? I’m quite certian there are threads on the forum about this. But I do have a point - this thread is about homosexual relationships, just just *homosexual sex. *The Church demands far more than just abstaining from homosexual sex. Indeed, the demand for a gay Catholic is to give up not just gay sex, but to give up any expression of a male-to-male “more than friends” relationship whatsoever. What would the Church say to two celibate men, in love, holding hands at Church? What would the Church say to two men exchanging a real kiss at the sign of peace? What would the Church say to two men doing either of those things outside of a church building? They would most certianly condemn it as sin.

And, to me, the Catholic faith just doesn’t add up. This is coming from someone who lived it, who studied it, and who believed in it. In the end, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that Jesus Christ was executed and then rose from the dead - and is a loving, fatherly, personal God who engages in personal relationships with people - and a God that mystically guides the Church - it is a quite possibly the most audacious claim ever made in the history of mankind. The level of evidence that is needed to believe that nearly-impossible claim is huge, and has not been delivered to my satisfaction, or to billions of others.

And to expect me to give up a very real, personal relationship with an actual human being for a vague, mystical, anything-but-personal relationship with a deity (the evidence for which doesn’t come *close *to matching the claim) is insane. It’s like this one scene in a cartoon show, where one character is given a boat and then asked to exchange that boat for a Mystery Box. He and his wife are just about to take the boat, when he says: “Wait a minute Lois, a boat is a boat, but the mystery box could be anything! Heck, it can even be a boat!”

Personally, I wouldn’t trade in my boat for a mystery box.

 

[kristie_m]

Would you have said the same thing to post #7?

Well, you’re right. I would not have responded to post #7 the same way. I was commenting on the willingness of the poster to put aside his desire for a relationship with someone of the same sex and choose chastity over sexual sin.

I don’t disagree that people who are attracted to members of the same sex are capable of deep levels of love. I’m simply saying that regardless of your feelings, you are called to be chaste. In the case of someone who does not desire a man/woman relationship, that means a call to celibacy. No one ever said that friends can’t love deeply…but it’s pretty clear that acting on our sexual desires with anyone other than our spouse is a sin.

I will add that my feelings on this were once much more liberal. I thought for a long time that if a couple–any couple–really loved each other, God must be okay with it. This was an excuse that later led to a cohabitation arrangement with someone I thought was “Mr. Right” only to discover that he was “Mr. Right Now.”

It’s a mentality that leads to a rather slippery slope of morality.

 

[Kitteh]

I have another question. Is trying to ban homosexual marriage forcing your religious beliefs on other people? For instance, the Church is trying to ban homosexual marriage because it is a sin in God’s eyes (correct me if I’m wrong). Is there any reason to prohibit homosexual marriage that is NOT religion or spiritually related? Is this not forcing your religious beliefs down other people’s throats?

 

[kristie_m]

I have another question. Is trying to ban homosexual marriage forcing your religious beliefs on other people? For instance, the Church is trying to ban homosexual marriage because it is a sin in God’s eyes (correct me if I’m wrong). Is there any reason to prohibit homosexual marriage that is NOT religion or spiritually related? Is this not forcing your religious beliefs down other people’s throats?

I know I’m going to get into trouble for this, but to a certain degree, yes. You have to remember though, our laws are based on the commandments, are they not? Do not kill, do not steal, and I have yet to find a court that will find in favor of the adulterous spouse.

If you start down this road…where will it lead? There is an organization called the “man/boy love association” (or words to that effect) who see nothing wrong with adult men having relationships with young boys. And before I start getting hate mail, I’m not suggesting that all homosexuals are pedophiles, okay? I’m just suggesting that there are segments of society that believe certain things that the law says are wrong. We might change the law to allow a man to have sex with an 8 year old just as easily as we would allow for gay marriage. Doesn’t make it right.

The other thing too, to consider is no matter how much the Catholic Church, and other Christian churches might rise up against gay marriage, it is up to the voters to decide, right? And if the voters were to decide that gay marriage is okay, the Church still has the right to refuse to acknowledge that marriage because it is contrary to Church teachings. Catholicism is not a democracy.

I realize that I’ve failed to answer your original question…I think one arguement that has come up is that allowing for homosexual marriage inhibits the perpetuation of the species. It’s weak, I know, but that’s one arguement that was given from something other than a moral perspective. Honestly, I think the biggest arguement is the sin aspect…which, quite frankly, is reason enough for me.

 

[Kitteh]

I realize that I’ve failed to answer your original question…I think one arguement that has come up is that allowing for homosexual marriage inhibits the perpetuation of the species. It’s weak, I know, but that’s one arguement that was given from something other than a moral perspective. Honestly, I think the biggest arguement is the sin aspect…which, quite frankly, is reason enough for me.

Yeah, you didn’t really answer my question completely, but thanks anyway. I’m still on the fence regarding this issue.

In response to the first post, you are accepting a half-truth, a LIE, purported by the evil one. Do not allow yourself to rationalize something which is inherently evil, and SELFISH of you, if you allow others to be led into believing having “homosexual companions” is good when it is not. Stop trying to ease your conscience and theirs. A lesser good is always an evil.
This will sound mean, but shame on you for not stepping in when fiends are putting their immortal souls in serious jeporady.

It WAS mean of you to say that. Thanks for nothing, you’ve completely failed to convince me with your ridiculous attitude. What am I supposed to do, tell every one of my homosexual friends “repent and confess your sins or you’re all going to hell!” Right. :ehh:

 

[Exalt]

In response to the first post, you are accepting a half-truth, a LIE, purported by the evil one. Do not allow yourself to rationalize something which is inherently evil, and SELFISH of you, if you allow others to be led into believing having “homosexual companions” is good when it is not. Stop trying to ease your conscience and theirs. A lesser good is always an evil.
This will sound mean, but shame on you for not stepping in when fiends are putting their immortal souls in serious jeporady.

When my parents found out that I was gay (and that I had no intention of following the Church’s teaching about it), I lost their financial support - and they told me that it was going to stay like that until I repented. When my religious friends found out, they told me the same thing and they never talked to me again. I found myself with no friends, struggling to find a part time job with no car, while trying to keep my grades up (it was the beginning of my third year of college). Thankfully, my roomate’s family bought me groceries and gave me comfort while I tried to get back on my feet.

Eventually, my family came around and I found new friends. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t have a baseline, conditioned resentment towards the religion that caused my parents and friends to abandon me. Maybe I’ll get banned for admitting that, but it’s true. The policy you advocate will *never *work. If you really believe that I’m going to hell, the strategy of abandonment and rejection basically secures my ticket there.

 

[blessedtoo]

I have another question. Is trying to ban homosexual marriage forcing your religious beliefs on other people? For instance, the Church is trying to ban homosexual marriage because it is a sin in God’s eyes (correct me if I’m wrong). Is there any reason to prohibit homosexual marriage that is NOT religion or spiritually related? Is this not forcing your religious beliefs down other people’s throats?

I will assume you are sincere in your quest to learn the reasons why marriage should be only between a man and a woman. If you are, I highly recommend this book:
amazon.com/Future-Marriage-David-Blankenhorn/dp/1594030812/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205479916&sr=1-1

It is written by a liberal from the perspective of logic and reason, with no religious argument at all. It is an exploration and explanation of the PURPOSE of marriage and why it should continue to be the exclusive domain of one man and one woman.

 

[PetersKeys]

I have another question. Is trying to ban homosexual marriage forcing your religious beliefs on other people? For instance, the Church is trying to ban homosexual marriage because it is a sin in God’s eyes (correct me if I’m wrong). Is there any reason to prohibit homosexual marriage that is NOT religion or spiritually related? Is this not forcing your religious beliefs down other people’s throats?

The way it will effect children who have been adopted by homosexuals. It takes away the right of a child to have both mother and father. It fades away and ruins the sanctity of marriage which in turn will hurt familys because their view on marriage is so drab. Instead of an important covenant is it viewed as just a “union” between whoever and whatever.