Homosexuality And Original Sin

[Thorolfr]

I think there be good reason that for humans, sex means much more than survival and continuation of the species (“procreation”) only.

The notion that body parts have only one nature or purpose is false. Rau brings up the argument that we know that sex is only for procreation because there is sperm in the man’s semen. But if we use that reasoning, we would know that the only use of our mouth is for eating since the enzyme in our saliva called amylase “begins the chemical process of digestion.” But in fact, we use our mouths to talk with and we use our saliva to lick stamps with and to kiss with. But just because I lick a stamp doesn’t mean I want to eat the stamp or just because I kiss someone and get some of the amylase in my saliva on them doesn’t mean that I want to digest them. The amylase in my saliva does not mean that kissing someone is inappropriate and is misusing my mouth because its only purpose is for eating.

I also have hands with fingers whose purpose and nature would seem to be for grasping. But does that mean that it is inappropriate to use my fingers to type on my computer’s keyboard or play the flute? Is it inappropriate for a circus performer to walk with his hands?

 

[clem456]

The notion that body parts have only one nature or purpose is false.

Whhooooaaaaaa. That’s a large straw man you’ve constructed there.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I simply don’t see sex’s only legit and right and good purpose to be for procreation. I think it is obvious that biology show that sexual intercourse is primarily for the creation of new life. Biologically, that is true. But to make a moral statement from that is a separate issue.

I make no moral statements. I do not comment on legitimacy, right or wrong, good or bad.

The natural purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation. PERIOD.

Leaving morality and religion out of the picture…any form of sexual activity that defeats the natural purpose of sexual intercourse is deviant behavior, or behavior that deviates from the normal design-based function of the human being.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The notion that body parts have only one nature or purpose is false. Rau brings up the argument that we know that sex is only for procreation because there is sperm in the man’s semen. But if we use that reasoning, we would know that the only use of our mouth is for eating since the enzyme in our saliva called amylase “begins the chemical process of digestion.” But in fact, we use our mouths to talk with and we use our saliva to lick stamps with and to kiss with. But just because I lick a stamp doesn’t mean I want to eat the stamp or just because I kiss someone and get some of the amylase in my saliva on them doesn’t mean that I want to digest them. The amylase in my saliva does not mean that kissing someone is inappropriate and is misusing my mouth because its only purpose is for eating.

I also have hands with fingers whose purpose and nature would seem to be for grasping. But does that mean that it is inappropriate to use my fingers to type on my computer’s keyboard or play the flute? Is it inappropriate for a circus performer to walk with his hands?

Yes, Thorolfr, you have all sorts of appendages that can do wonderful things…You also have a heterosexual reproductive system. What else does that do?
Lick stamps…?

 

[Rau]

I simply don’t see sex’s only legit and right and good purpose to be for procreation.

Agreed - the goal need not be conception.

I think it is obvious that biology show that sexual intercourse is primarily for the creation of new life. Biologically, that is true.

Agreed.

Sex for humans* …is more than just about reproduction.

Agreed - same as your first statement.

There is no doubt in my mind that sexual intimacy is a means of a homosexual couple’s being able express and share love with each other.

You hold this view no doubt, but the only foundation for it is your feelings.

Their acts may not allow for the conception of babies, but they are expressing something else that we can observe: their homosexual orientations.

That is circular. Doing an act is not justified by virtue of one’s inclination to do it.

It is more apparent to us that sex is for babies because most people are heterosexual and the consequences of that sex leads to babies.

The proper partner for a sexual relationship is apparent to me on the basis of the design of our bodies and the nature of the sexual act - as being inherently generative.

I note you reduce sex to its “relational” quality to support your argument and to its procreative potential to misrepresent our argument. Can you not see its qualities are bound together? - it is designed to serve a relational purpose in conjunction with a procreative purpose - this demands opposite sex partners. I explained the flawed idea of seeking to argue on the basis of separable purposes in an earlier post.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

So…

A space alien lands his ship on a college campus and meets a professor. The alien says: “Greetings we come in peace and just want to learn about Earth people.”

The professor is glad to help and says: “what would you like to know?”

The alien pauses then says: “Well for starters, how do you reproduce?”

The professor proceeds to explain romance, human sexuality, and essentially “the birds & bees”.

When he is finished, the alien has a blank look and then breaks into gales of laughter.

“What’s so funny?” asks the professor.

“That’s incredible” says the alien…“that’s the way we make our automobiles.”:tiphat:

 

[Rau]

The notion that body parts have only one nature or purpose is false. Rau brings up the argument that we know that sex is only for procreation because there is sperm in the man’s semen. But if we use that reasoning, we would know that the only use of our mouth is for eating since the enzyme in our saliva called amylase “begins the chemical process of digestion.” But in fact, we use our mouths to talk with and we use our saliva to lick stamps with and to kiss with. But just because I lick a stamp doesn’t mean I want to eat the stamp or just because I kiss someone and get some of the amylase in my saliva on them doesn’t mean that I want to digest them. The amylase in my saliva does not mean that kissing someone is inappropriate and is misusing my mouth because its only purpose is for eating.

I also have hands with fingers whose purpose and nature would seem to be for grasping. But does that mean that it is inappropriate to use my fingers to type on my computer’s keyboard or play the flute? Is it inappropriate for a circus performer to walk with his hands?

The mouth, like hands is multi- functional. It’s design is what it is. Acts of nil moral character are what they are. A cough may waste some of your favourite enzyme though you don’t choose that result. Gripping a club and tapping a keyboard, playing piano and flute seem pretty natural uses of fingers individually controllable,and none of these actions necessarily have a moral character. [NB. masturbation to wet a stamp would be wrong.]

 

[Thorolfr]

The mouth, like hands is multi- functional. It’s design is what it is. Acts of nil moral character are what they are. A cough may waste some of your favourite enzyme though you don’t choose that result. Gripping a club and tapping a keyboard, playing piano and flute seem pretty natural uses of fingers individually controllable,and none of these actions necessarily have a moral character. [NB. masturbation to wet a stamp would be wrong.]

But what makes something immoral in your interpretation is not because it violates the nature or purpose of a body part, but because it violates your interpretation of a sacred text. If the Bible said some place that walking on your hands is a sin, you would say that a circus performer who did that was being immoral because its obvious that the nature and purpose of hands is for grasping, not for walking. If how we use saliva (to wet a stamp, for example) has no moral character in your opinion but how we use semen (for a non-procreative sex act or to wet a stamp) does, this is a distinction based on Scripture, not on whether a body parts or a body fluid is being used according to its nature or purpose.

 

[Rau]

But what makes something immoral in your interpretation is not because it violates the nature or purpose of a body part, but because it violates your interpretation of a sacred text. If the Bible said some place that walking on your hands is a sin, you would say that a circus performer who did that was being immoral because its obvious that the nature and purpose of hands is for grasping, not for walking. If how we use saliva (to wet a stamp, for example) has no moral character in your opinion but how we use semen (for a non-procreative sex act or to wet a stamp) does, this is a distinction based on Scripture, not on whether a body parts or a body fluid is being used according to its nature or purpose.

The design of our body is a common sense indicator of what that design intends - starkly so in the case of our sexual capacity. Your position Thor requires:

• rejecting the evident nature of our sexual capacity;
• overlooking the exclusively negative Scriptural references to homosexual acts;
• waving away the absence of a single positive Scriptursl reference to same sex sexual relationships;

And it requires you to believe our sharing with God in his ongoing creation carties no moral character or obligation.

 

[clem456]

But what makes something immoral in your interpretation is not because it violates the nature or purpose of a body part, but because it violates your interpretation of a sacred text. If the Bible said some place that walking on your hands is a sin, you would say that a circus performer who did that was being immoral because its obvious that the nature and purpose of hands is for grasping, not for walking. If how we use saliva (to wet a stamp, for example) has no moral character in your opinion but how we use semen (for a non-procreative sex act or to wet a stamp) does, this is a distinction based on Scripture, not on whether a body parts or a body fluid is being used according to its nature or purpose.

It’s an easy dodge to cast this issue into a purely biblical issue. If one can cast this into a purely biblical issue then it’s easy to say “your interpretation is faulty”. But, we are not sola scriptura.

Once again:
No statement of Christian morality is required
No biblical passages are required
No Church teaching is required

to see and observe how human nature is.

The Catholic Church simply accepts what is revealed and respects what God has made. The Church does not invent an arbitrary law, or invent morality out of thin air.

Biblical revelation and Church guidance upholds and acts in unity with what God has revealed in nature.

For example:
God has revealed in nature that human beings need food to live. We are created with stomachs. The scriptures therefore exhort us to “share our bread with the hungry”, and the Catholic Church proclaims the moral precepts that reinforce these realities.

Before scripture was, and before the Catholic Church was, this was how God created human beings.

Your argument is not with the bible or the Church, but with your own “common sense”. You’re talking to the mirror, and you can talk to the mirror all you want, human nature will not change because of your opinion or because of man-made laws.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I make no moral statements. I do not comment on legitimacy, right or wrong, good or bad.

The natural purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation. PERIOD.

Leaving morality and religion out of the picture…any form of sexual activity that defeats the natural purpose of sexual intercourse is deviant behavior, or behavior that deviates from the normal design-based function of the human being.

(1) I agree: the natural (biological*) purpose of sexual intercourse (which by definition is heterosexual) is procreation. That is observable, and that is fact; I have admitted that.

(2) Calling other forms of sexual expression deviant is a *religious and moral claim * because the idea here is that sex is only appropriately in accord with reality when it is used for the biological purpose of procreation. This view limits sex to the biological and restricts it there; and calling other sexual expression “deviant” ignores that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon.

 

[catholic1seeks]

That is circular. Doing an act is not justified by virtue of one’s inclination to do it.

The point is that the homosexual orientation is a naturally observable condition, just as much part of nature as is the fact that heterosexual sex is the means for procreation.

The whole argument here from your view is that we can know how to act based on the nature of things: It is observed that sex leads to babies, so sex is for babies. But it is just as much the nature of things that people are attracted to members of the same sex, and this has to be taken into account when are trying to define the “natural” (in accordance with nature) way to have sex.

The proper partner for a sexual relationship is apparent to me on the basis of the design of our bodies and the nature of the sexual act - as being inherently generative.

Why is it restricted to the external manifestations of biology alone? Why is not the appropriate partner not also determined based on other biological factors, such as those factors those that cause persons to be attracted to people of the same sex? After all, in specific cases of heterosexual partners, it is not external plumbing that determines who falls in love with whom but a variety of other factors such as personality compatibility.

I note you reduce sex to its “relational” quality to support your argument and to its procreative potential to misrepresent our argument. Can you not see its qualities are bound together? - it is designed to serve a relational purpose in conjunction with a procreative purpose - this demands opposite sex partners. I explained the flawed idea of seeking to argue on the basis of separable purposes in an earlier post.

I think it is obvious that procreation and sexual intimacy are bound together for biological and evolutionary purposes – so that our human family can continue. But humans are more than mere animals with instincts.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The design of our body is a common sense indicator of what that design intends - starkly so in the case of our sexual capacity. Your position Thor requires:

• rejecting the evident nature of our sexual capacity;
• overlooking the exclusively negative Scriptural references to homosexual acts;
• waving away the absence of a single positive Scriptursl reference to same sex sexual relationships;

And it requires you to believe our sharing with God in his ongoing creation carties no moral character or obligation.

There are two issues, still, which have already been touched on.
(1) The obvious design of something does not necessitate that only the obvious design is the legitimate use of purpose. For example, the mouth with eating, breathing – and then kissing.
(2) The (what I believe to be) an error on the focus on what is the external design in biology over and above other aspects of what is natural and biological. We can speak of the “design” of the external reproductive parts, but I think we also have to speak of the “design” of one’s inner biology – those natural factors that result in sexual orientation.

The Scriptural texts have already been discussed: Each one has to be dealt with separately. And perhaps the most important text in Romans is so short that we have to squeeze a whole modern conception of moral theology out of it. I maintain that there are two facts we have to keep in mind when reading Paul and the other passages: the lack of understanding of homosexual orientation and the absence of committed homosexual relationships at that time.

 

[catholic1seeks]

It’s an easy dodge to cast this issue into a purely biblical issue. If one can cast this into a purely biblical issue then it’s easy to say “your interpretation is faulty”. But, we are not sola scriptura.

Once again:
No statement of Christian morality is required
No biblical passages are required
No Church teaching is required

to see and observe how human nature is.

The Catholic Church simply accepts what is revealed and respects what God has made. The Church does not invent an arbitrary law, or invent morality out of thin air.

Biblical revelation and Church guidance upholds and acts in unity with what God has revealed in nature.

For example:
God has revealed in nature that human beings need food to live. We are created with stomachs. The scriptures therefore exhort us to “share our bread with the hungry”, and the Catholic Church proclaims the moral precepts that reinforce these realities.

Before scripture was, and before the Catholic Church was, this was how God created human beings.

Your argument is not with the bible or the Church, but with your own “common sense”. You’re talking to the mirror, and you can talk to the mirror all you want, human nature will not change because of your opinion or because of man-made laws.

The views on sex are predominantly dependent on how we understand Revelation, the Bible, and church teaching. How we discuss what is natural often proceeds from these religious views. Notice that most people who are against homosexuality are against it for religious reasons; their faith is against it.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

(1) I agree: the natural (biological*) purpose of sexual intercourse (which by definition is heterosexual) is procreation. That is observable, and that is fact; I have admitted that.

Good, I am glad we agree on that.

(2) Calling other forms of sexual expression deviant is a *religious and moral claim * because the idea here is that sex is only appropriately in accord with reality when it is used for the biological purpose of procreation. This view limits sex to the biological and restricts it there; and calling other sexual expression “deviant” ignores that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon.

I realize the term “deviant” can be offensive to some. That is why I explained:
“…behavior that deviates from the normal design-based function of the human being.”

This has nothing to do with religion or morals it is simple a FACT of nature.

It is my contention that an intelligent person does not need an organized religion or a moral code to tell him that homosexuality is disordered. It is obviously abnormal.

Other than a tiny percentage of people with certain birth defects; we are all born with a heterosexual reproductive system. Homosexuality is really nothing more than same sex conduct among people who are innately and unchangeably heterosexual. Logic and reason dictate that homosexual behavior is, therefore, an UNnatural phenomenon.

“…because it deviates from the normal design-based function of the human being.”

 

[clem456]

The views on sex are predominantly dependent on how we understand Revelation, the Bible, and church teaching.

Your views on sex are informed by the bible, revelation, and the Catholic Church teaching??? I am confused. I thought you were debating all those things as erroneous.

How we discuss what is natural often proceeds from these religious views. Notice that most people who are against homosexuality are against it for religious reasons; their faith is against it.

First of all, the Church is not an institution that is against.
The Church accepts the sources of revelation, and proposes what is good, beautiful, and true for humanity, as revealed by God. If something is good, beautiful and true, as designed by God, things that distort that good necessarily detract from human flourishing.

For instance, the hoarding and wasting of food when stomachs are bloated with hunger distorts the good that is revealed by God, namely that human beings need and desire sustenance to exist.

So I ask you, is the Church concerned primarily with punishing those who ignore the hungry, or does the Church proclaim the very good right of all people to fill their stomachs with food? Has the Church set up prisons to incarcerate the rich, or has it set up hospitals and food kitchens and missions to feed people???

The Church is not, as a primary mission, against homosexuality, it simply observes that for human beings to be Imago Dei (the image of God), we must exist. It is good, beautiful, and true that we exist. We cannot be created in the image of God if we are not created.

Can you agree with that?

The union of a man and woman is the only way that human beings exist.

Do you deny this on the grounds that it is merely a religious construct which you do not agree with???

Is there any other way that human beings can come into existence, and know, love, and serve their creator??

How can you say that a Body that proclaims this good is against something so completely human?

 

[Thorolfr]

Homosexuality is really nothing more than same sex conduct among people who are innately and unchangeably heterosexual.

This is Zoltan’s usual claim that those who think that they are sexuality attracted to the same sex really aren’t but are instead attracted to the opposite sex and just don’t know it.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Homosexuality is really nothing more than same sex conduct among people who are innately and unchangeably heterosexual. Logic and reason dictate that homosexual behavior is, therefore, an UNnatural phenomenon.

“…because it deviates from the normal design-based function of the human being.”

Then this may be the rub.

Because I do not agree at all that** homosexual **persons are “innately and unchangeably heterosexual.”

 

[catholic1seeks]

Your views on sex are informed by the bible, revelation, and the Catholic Church teaching??? I am confused. I thought you were debating all those things as erroneous.

First of all, the Church is not an institution that is against.
The Church accepts the sources of revelation, and proposes what is good, beautiful, and true for humanity, as revealed by God. If something is good, beautiful and true, as designed by God, things that distort that good necessarily detract from human flourishing.

For instance, the hoarding and wasting of food when stomachs are bloated with hunger distorts the good that is revealed by God, namely that human beings need and desire sustenance to exist.

So I ask you, is the Church concerned primarily with punishing those who ignore the hungry, or does the Church proclaim the very good right of all people to fill their stomachs with food? Has the Church set up prisons to incarcerate the rich, or has it set up hospitals and food kitchens and missions to feed people???

The Church is not, as a primary mission, against homosexuality, it simply observes that for human beings to be Imago Dei (the image of God), we must exist. It is good, beautiful, and true that we exist. We cannot be created in the image of God if we are not created.

Can you agree with that?

The union of a man and woman is the only way that human beings exist.

Do you deny this on the grounds that it is merely a religious construct which you do not agree with???

Is there any other way that human beings can come into existence, and know, love, and serve their creator??

How can you say that a Body that proclaims this good is against something so completely human?

Then you misunderstand me.
Obviously I have affinity for the Catholic Church, or I would not be here trying to sort my thoughts and issues. I have been raised Catholic and love much about this faith.

But I do think this teaching that homosexuality is disordered and homosexual relationships and acts are inherently sinful is extremely hurtful to the well being of homosexual persons. We can say all we want that the Church’s teaching is actually good for homosexual persons; we want this to be so, because the Church’s teaching is supposed to correspond to God’s design and the Truth. But when I speak from experience, including personal experience, I see this teaching much harm and not leading to truth and goodness for a great many people.

 

[clem456]

Then you misunderstand me.
Obviously I have affinity for the Catholic Church, or I would not be here trying to sort my thoughts and issues. I have been raised Catholic and love much about this faith.

But I do think this teaching that homosexuality is disordered and homosexual relationships and acts are inherently sinful is extremely hurtful to the well being of homosexual persons. We can say all we want that the Church’s teaching is actually good for homosexual persons; we want this to be so, because the Church’s teaching is supposed to correspond to God’s design and the Truth. But when I speak from experience, including personal experience, I see this teaching much harm and not leading to truth and goodness for a great many people.

I empathize with your position and I can see where these issues really hurt. I have plenty of struggles in many areas that grind me up in the light of Church teaching. That is my cross.
Just speaking for myself here…on the other side of that pain is God. It’s always worth considering, worth enduring, worth praying over. It’s absolutely unavoidable. But, I can’t tell anyone else they should suffer or how they should suffer. I don’t know your cross, truly I don’t. I wish you weren’t hurt.

Many Christians have made an error in overemphasizing sin when people are beaten down, instead of pointing to the good, the beautiful, and the true which is the foundation of morality. There is nothing appealing about going to hell, especially when we cannot know God’s disposition of souls.

I never try to take a position against. Christ didn’t come to be against people, he came to love all of us, but he is also truth. And there are certain realities that are unavoidably true.
One of those is that same sex union is not the same thing as man/woman, and cannot possible produce the same incredible good, which is human existence.
(notice, I do not have to say anything about anyone’s sinfulness here)