Homosexuality And Original Sin

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Then this may be the rub.

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

Then homosexuality would have its own physiology.

Currently there are only two sexes. I don’t pretend to know what the Supreme Court will do next year…but for now there are men and women. Not men, women and homosexuals.

Now to be fair, some of the innately and unchangeable heterosexuals do engage in abnormal sexual activity. But by doing so, none have changed into a third sex. They function as normal human beings. It is by this unnatural sexual desire and behavior that allows them to self identify as homosexual.

I am not judging right or wrong or applying morality. My only point is that homosexuality is neither normal or natural.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Then homosexuality would have its own physiology.

Currently there are only two sexes. I don’t pretend to know what the Supreme Court will do next year…but for now there are men and women. Not men, women and homosexuals.

Now to be fair, some of the innately and unchangeable heterosexuals do engage in abnormal sexual activity. But by doing so, none have changed into a third sex. They function as normal human beings. It is by this unnatural sexual desire and behavior that allows them to self identify as homosexual.

I am not judging right or wrong or applying morality. My only point is that homosexuality is neither normal or natural.

Homosexuality does not refer to the sex/gender of a person.

“Unnatural” in terms of traditional natural moral law understanding proposes by the Catholic Church, for example, yes.

But homosexuality exists in nature; it is not the norm in that most people are not homosexual – but it exists in nature, has been shown to have a biological basis, and is entirely normal.

 

[JimG]

Good, I am glad we agree on that.

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.”

I would put the matter somewhat differently than saying that homosexuals are innately heterosexual. I would rather say that every person is innately either a man or a woman. Sex is fixed. Sexual orientation is a social construct. For centuries from the ancients to the modern era, homosexual actions were recognized and either accepted or not accepted, as were any number of opposite sex practices. No one assigned “orientations” to anyone, and they were correct not to do so.

Getting back to the thread title, “homosexuality and original sin,” original sin brought concupiscence to mankind, disordering all our desires. We need not simply assign an ‘orientation,’ to each disordered desire.

 

[catholic1seeks]

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)

Thank you for your respectful post, which I can honor.

I would only point out that even if a homosexual couple cannot produce the “same incredible good” that consists in procreation, I do not think it follows that a homosexual couple sexual intimacy is therefore immoral or lacking of meaning and purpose. Maybe reproductive-biologically, yes, but not holistically in what it means to be human.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I would put the matter somewhat differently than saying that homosexuals are innately heterosexual. I would rather say that every person is innately either a man or a woman. Sex is fixed. Sexual orientation is a social construct. For centuries from the ancients to the modern era, homosexual actions were recognized and either accepted or not accepted, as were any number of opposite sex practices. No one assigned “orientations” to anyone, and they were correct not to do so.

Getting back to the thread title, “homosexuality and original sin,” original sin brought concupiscence to mankind, disordering all our desires. We need not simply assign an ‘orientation,’ to each disordered desire.

Thanks for the respectful clarifications.

Original Sin is a cop-out. Truly original sin disrupted the integrity of the person and inclines all people to sin, but how original sin affects persons biologically so that someone could end up with a homosexual orientation is in the realm of speculation and superstition.

 

[JimG]

Thanks for the respectful clarifications.

Original Sin is a cop-out. Truly original sin disrupted the integrity of the person and inclines all people to sin, but how original sin affects persons biologically so that someone could end up with a homosexual orientation is in the realm of speculation and superstition.

But original sin gets to the heart of St. Paul’s lament, “I don’t understand what I am doing. For I don’t practice what I want to do, but instead do what I hate.” He is complaining that his actions don’t match his preaching. Original sin did have real effects on the human psyche.

 

[catholic1seeks]

But original sin gets to the heart of St. Paul’s lament, “I don’t understand what I am doing. For I don’t practice what I want to do, but instead do what I hate.” He is complaining that his actions don’t match his preaching. Original sin did have real effects on the human psyche.

I understand that. But some people go so far as to sat Original Sin is the cause of birth defects, etc. It does not make much sense to say Original Sin causes physical, biological consequences. That makes Original Sin more of an active, positive punishment from God than a natural result of self alienating oneself from God. Most people in the Church allow for a allegorical understanding of the Fall in Genesis, as science shows us that physical “defects” have been in creation all along: animals have always eaten each other, there have always been bushes with thorns, and destructive forces like tornadoes and earthquakes are part of our physical world.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Homosexuality does not refer to the sex/gender of a person.

“Unnatural” in terms of traditional natural moral law understanding proposes by the Catholic Church, for example, yes.

We are not talking about “moral” laws or anything proposed by the Catholic Church.

Unnatural = not natural.

But homosexuality exists in nature; it is not the norm in that most people are not homosexual – but it exists in nature, has been shown to have a biological basis, and is entirely normal.

I don’t believe a biological basis has been discovered…yet.

What exist in nature is animal behavior that should have no bearing on self respecting human homosexuals.

Nature itself has many abnormalities. If homosexuality existed in nature it would be an abnormality.

 

[catholic1seeks]

We are not talking about “moral” laws or anything proposed by the Catholic Church.

Unnatural = not natural.

I don’t believe a biological basis has been discovered…yet.

What exist in nature is animal behavior that should have no bearing on self respecting human homosexuals.

Nature itself has many abnormalities. If homosexuality existed in nature it would be an abnormality.

It would be an abnormality in what sense?

It does not matter what you would call it. The point is its existence in nature.

There has been no singular biological basis for homosexuality yet discovered: For example, there has been no definitive proof of a specific “gay gene.” But research indicates at least some biological basis for homosexuality, as seen in twin studies, studies of brain structure comparisons, and the correlation of birth order and homosexuality (usually oldest son), and there are also correlations between prenatal hormonal development and sexual orientations.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I would put the matter somewhat differently than saying that homosexuals are innately heterosexual. I would rather say that every person is innately either a man or a woman. Sex is fixed. Sexual orientation is a social construct. For centuries from the ancients to the modern era, homosexual actions were recognized and either accepted or not accepted, as were any number of opposite sex practices. No one assigned “orientations” to anyone, and they were correct not to do so.

Getting back to the thread title, “homosexuality and original sin,” original sin brought concupiscence to mankind, disordering all our desires. We need not simply assign an ‘orientation,’ to each disordered desire.

So, Jim…

What are we to think?

Is Original Sin the “cause” of homosexuality? Or should we accept homosexuality because of Original Sin?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It would be an abnormality in what sense?

In the sense that homosexual behavior does not comply with the the design based function of the human body. ( Am I repeating myself again?)_

It does not matter what you would call it. The point is its existence in nature.

Homosexuality does not exist in nature…unless you have a better example than a male dog “humping” another male dog or his owner’s leg for that matter.

There has been no singular biological basis for homosexuality yet discovered:

Very true. It is my fervent hope that a biological basis can be found. Because then we can develop a cure.

 

[catholic1seeks]

In the sense that homosexual behavior does not comply with the the design based function of the human body. ( Am I repeating myself again?)_

Homosexuality does not exist in nature…unless you have a better example than a male dog “humping” another male dog or his owner’s leg for that matter.

Very true. It is my fervent hope that a biological basis can be found. Because then we can develop a cure.

With these words, I now see I need to make better use of my time

 

[JimG]

So, Jim…

What are we to think?

Is Original Sin the “cause” of homosexuality? Or should we accept homosexuality because of Original Sin?

I don’t know the cause of homosexuality any more than I know the cause of adultery or pederasty or fornication. But it is our fallen nature that causes inclinations to sin of all varieties. In a non-fallen state there would be no sin, no disordered desires, and marital relations would all follow the design and teleology emplaced within us by design. We are of course, far from that state. Since original sin does not destroy free will, we can not avoid culpability merely by appealing to it.

 

[Rau]

…
(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.

Your assertion that sex is proper in a venue other than marriage is mere assertion. You provide no foundation for that assertion, beyond the presence of the desire. Your only arguments have been to oppose those arguments which go against your position…hence you:

• reject the idea that the Church has a teaching authority;
• declare that St Paul did not intend to condemn homosexual acts between "committed pesons;
• declare that nowadays we have this understanding of homosexual acts that entirely escaped the people of Biblical times (and for most of history up to recent times);

Consider this - There are people that experience desires for sexual behaviours that I am sure you too would agree are deviant and without merit. The acts concerned may or may not be illegal. Now, I accept that these might be people who want to do what is right and avoid what is wrong - they know what they desire is not right, and they fight to reject it. Yet you and I would both describe these inclinations as disordered, and would agree that the mere presence of such inclinations (whatever the source) is not a foundation for the acts to be deemed proper. The single difference is the inclination to “homosexual acts in a committed relationships”. The presence of that inclination you conclude justifies those acts.

 

[Rau]

The point is that the homosexual orientation is a naturally observable condition…

As far as we know, it occurs without any action by man to cause it - though even this statement is made cautiously given the cause is unknown. But how from this do you leap to the idea that the acts to which one feels inclined must therefore be good? Can you truly think of no other “condition” that a person may experience that leads them to desire or pursue “wrong” acts?

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.

It is observed that the fruits of sexual intercourse are bound together - it is designed to serve a relational purpose in conjunction with a procreative purpose. People have reason and can see that the desire for and performance of homosexual acts are an anomaly, they are dissonant, they are incongruent with the bodies of the persons drawn to them. Reason declares something is “wrong” here. No such dissonance is in evidence in the marital union of man and woman.

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?

The appropriate “partner” is one thing…the appropriate SEXUAL partner is quite another, because sex is substantially about the body. Perhaps if there were a 3rd sex (I can’t begin to imagine the details…) - one might see sense in your proposition.

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.

Agreed. And sexual relationships do not need to be pursued in inappropriate circumstances.

 

[Rau]

…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…

Sexual acts are acts of the body. They have a place. That place is not justified by inclination alone.

 

[Thorolfr]

Your assertion that sex is proper in a venue other than marriage is mere assertion. You provide no foundation for that assertion, beyond the presence of the desire. Your only arguments have been to oppose those arguments which go against your position…hence you:

• reject the idea that the Church has a teaching authority;
• declare that St Paul did not intend to condemn homosexual acts between "committed pesons;
• declare that nowadays we have this understanding of homosexual acts that entirely escaped the people of Biblical times (and for most of history up to recent times);

There are plenty of valid reasons to reject the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Millions of Christians do. There are also plenty of bible scholars who have different interpretations of Paul’s writings and plenty about the historical and social context, meaning, and vocabulary of what he wrote that we do not fully understand. And there are also many areas of knowledge that undoubtedly did escape people of Biblical times. Scientific knowledge, medical knowledge, historical knowledge, etc. has advanced over the last few thousand years.

 

[Rau]

…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 asked you previously - if the teaching is indeed the Truth - what is the proper response to the struggles of homosexual persons? Is it for the Church to abandon the Truth, or is it to strive to do a better job in evangelisation and pastoral care. And while persons such as yourself are so implacably convinced that homosexual acts are good and proper, would the latter efforts by the Church be welcomed at all, or be condemned as “lip service”? Actually, it was you who already said something like that in response to the suggestion that the language be changed to be less sharp?

catholic1seeks:

[post #285]This need to change the language seems like empty lip service or something, whereby there is recognition that the teaching is doing harm to people. But ultimately, it is the teaching itself at the end of the day, and not the words used, that is causing the confusion and harm.

 

[Rau]

…It is my fervent hope that a biological basis [for homosexual inclination] can be found. Because then we can develop a cure.

It is not irrational (IMHO) nor is it hateful to view SSA as some kind of “problem” afflicting the person. I have no idea of the cause(s), or the question of “nature vs. nurture”, but it is objectively evident that it takes a person in a direction that is inconsistent with the body he possesses.

 

[Thorolfr]

Part of the problem with this whole issue is that the lived reality of millions of gay people tells them that their sexual orientation is natural and normal for them. It feels as natural and normal to them as breathing whereas sexual relations with the opposite sex feel totally unnatural to them. Many of the claims about homosexuality by straight people will not be totally convincing to gay people because these straight people have no real idea of what gay people have experienced growing up, the lives they live and the feelings they feel. It’s like a man telling women that they should act and feel more like men. It’s like a white person claiming to know what’s best for black people.