Homosexuality And Original Sin

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

How did you know?

It certainly could not have been based on a faulty argument.

It was not a faulty argument. Others brought the subject of morality into question.

Simple question: Is gay sex immoral? Yes or no…

 

[Rau]

Rau, old friend, you sound like the Algebra teacher who tells the student that he got the right answer but used the wrong equation.

To arrive at the right answer using a flawed argument is pretty remarkable…don’t you think?

Not when the answer is know before you start!

 

[Rau]

Like what? There are three or so NT passages that directly refer to homosexual behavior (at least thanks to today’s translation; the “kingdom of God” passage for example uses two terms that are often combined for “homosexual,” even though that word didn’t even exist in Paul’s day).

Then there is a Levitical Law and the story of Sodom, which may not even have to do with gay behavior.

EDIT: But a better question would be: Where in Scripture are homosexual relationships in themselves condemned – and not just a certain kind of homosexual behavior>

Of some concern must be that there is not s single positive reference to same sex sexual relationships in Scripture, but numerous references to married couples.

Same sex relationships are not condemned. My best friend and I have one, but it is not a sexual relationship.

 

[JimG]

Scripture views friendships as a good thing. It views sexual sin as a bad thing.

 

[Rau]

I do not think there is good reason to say that Sacred Scripture and Tradition are against homosexual relationships in themselves simply because these sources at different times assume different understandings of homosexual behavior. Paul simply did not regard homosexuality as a distinct sexual orientation, as the other ancients did not. What he said was not wrong; it is true today as it was then. Homosexual behavior was a very good indicator to him and others of sexual excess that anyone could fall into. There simply was no classification of gay or straight. That gay behavior condemned in ancient Christian texts cannot simply be applied to committed, monogamous homosexual relationships is indicated by the fact of what homosexual activity looked like then: often pederasty and often promiscuous activity sought after by married men (married to women).

Rather, I think it is better to say that the Church has assumed traditional notions of gay behavior as wrong, has applied a specific interpretation of natural moral law to this homosexuality and all of its sexual ethics, and then applied all of this to more modern concepts of committed homosexual relationships. There has never been just one single “natural moral law” theory in the Church. The idea of a universal, objective moral law is very Christian. But what is contained in this law and the methods of figuring that out have not always been clear.

The Church of course would have to understand its sexual morality differently. Often traditional sexual morality has been criticized as very physicalist. Something is immoral in the sexual act when the parts don’t go together as they should. But in other cases of Catholic morality, we do not simply look at the physical act alone. For example, killing is not in itself wrong. You have to take into account intention and circumstances. I think a good argument could be made that opening up to homosexual relationships could in fact bring many people closer to Christ and could be good for the person. Saying that what people intensely feel – their desires to be happy and intimate – are disordered can lead people away from the Church in order for them to find this kind of expression elsewhere. I don’t think the one-size-fits-all approach to sexual morality that we have today in the Church works well.

While I don’t doubt that the Church’s sexual morality teaching causes some to walk away, I submit it is an overreach to contend that God intended 2 men to have a sexual relationship, so long as it is monogamous. I have mentioned already the complete absence of Scriptural examples. Those Scriptural references that exist are universally condemnatory.

The sexual act binds the fruits of such an act together - the unity, the joy, the pleasure, the procreative potential… Do we just ignore that, or do we recognize something is wrong when 2 men are involved in such a way?

 

[Thorolfr]

The sexual act binds the fruits of such an act together - the unity, the joy, the pleasure, the procreative potential… Do we just ignore that, or do we recognize something is wrong when 2 men are involved in such a way?

What makes you think that there is no unity, joy or pleasure when gay men have sex? As for procreative potential, most of the time, nothing comes of that potential and no procreation takes place even when opposite sex couples have sex.

 

[clem456]

…
As for procreative potential, most of the time, nothing comes of that potential and no procreation takes place even when opposite sex couples have sex.

So then it is ok for me to use a hammer to hit my neighbor in the head?
A hammer is designed to hit things, right? And I would take enormous pleasure in the act.

 

[Thorolfr]

So then it is ok for me to use a hammer to hit my neighbor in the head?
A hammer is designed to hit things, right? And I would take enormous pleasure in the act.

I would think that anyone who takes enormous pleasure from hitting someone else in the head with a hammer has a serious problem.

 

[Rau]

What makes you think that there is no unity, joy or pleasure when gay men have sex?

I did not assert that there was not.

As for procreative potential, most of the time, nothing comes of that potential and no procreation takes place even when opposite sex couples have sex.

But the potential is there, bound to the other aspects. This tells us something about what the intended circumstances of the act, surely?

 

[clem456]

I would think that anyone who takes enormous pleasure from hitting someone else in the head with a hammer has a serious problem.

Ok, problem noted.
The more serious problem might be denial of the natural order.
The point is, a hammer is ordered to a certain purpose, even if it is misused. It is ordered to a certain purpose, even if the wielder is too weak to drive the nail all the way in.

The sexual design of human beings is ordered to a certain purpose, even when conception does not in fact take place.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I would think that anyone who takes enormous pleasure from hitting someone else in the head with a hammer has a serious problem.

I would think that anyone who takes enormous pleasure from rupturing someone’s rectum has a more serious problem.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

What makes you think that there is no unity, joy or pleasure when gay men have sex? As for procreative potential, most of the time, nothing comes of that potential and no procreation takes place even when opposite sex couples have sex.

Come on, Thoro…

People are designed to do three things:

1. Eat
2. Sleep
3. Procreate.

Everything else is incidental. It does not matter if gay men are having fun with each other…they were not designed to do IT that way.

 

[clem456]

Come on, Thoro…

People are designed to do three things:

1. Eat
2. Sleep
3. Procreate.

Everything else is incidental. It does not matter if gay men are having fun with each other…they were not designed to do IT that way.

I would boil that down to a more basic thing like a relationship with God.
People are designed to know, love, and serve God.
Part of coming to know God is to accept the natural order God creates. Not accepting the natural order leads to chaos, tragedy, and misery. Without accepting the natural order it is impossible to make a moral case for feeding people, housing them, giving them medical care. The moral case for these things is rooted in the way God has created human beings…the needs we all have that is expressed in our bodies.

The full recognition of the human body is not incidental to human dignity. If compassion is based in feelings and sentiments alone, we are on quicksand. Likewise, the denial of the natural function of human reproductive organs and the reduction of their use to merely emotions and sentiment can lead to no good end.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The sexual act binds the fruits of such an act together - the unity, the joy, the pleasure, the procreative potential… Do we just ignore that, or do we recognize something is wrong when 2 men are involved in such a way?

How is being open to two men loving each other ignoring the fruits of love between a man and woman?

Male parts do not apparently naturally go together in the way that male and female parts do. They do not complement each other procreatively. But what does that necessarily entail about the moral condition of two members of the same sex utilizing their sexuality to express their love for one another? The mouth is apparently naturally designed for breathing and eating. But that does not make kissing immoral.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Since this is a Roman Catholic forum let’s go with Roman Catholic teaching.

The Church’s teaching on homosexuality is based on Truth. This is expressed in the words of the bishop, St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “The Church is called Catholic or universal because . . . it teaches fully and unfailingly all the doctrines which ought to be brought to men’s knowledge, whether concerned with visible or invisible things, with the realities of heaven or the things of earth.” In other words, the conclusion that homosexuality is disordered is based on the Truth, not just on Catholic teaching. Yet, saying that makes this conclusion all the more controversial.

If it were based simply on Catholic teaching, opponents could say: “You Catholics are entitled to your opinion, but that is not binding on others.” Instead, saying that Truth is the reason that homosexuality is disordered… is offensive to those who deny the existence of Truth, who prefer to live in a world dominated by what Pope Benedict XVI termed a “dictatorship of relativism.”

If you acknowledge that Truth exists, then we can discuss and even argue about whether or not I or the Catholic Church correctly understands the Truth of this matter. But if you deny that there is such a thing as Truth, that is, the Truth, not just my truth and your truth, then the matter becomes merely an exercise of raw political power in terms of who has more votes to impose an agenda, and that is what makes it ultimately tyrannical.

Functioning according to nature or design. Not defined by popular opinion.

Obviously, people who disagree with the church’s teaching are not simply rejecting what is alleged truth. They don’t agree that it is Truth in the first place. Or else they would believe it.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Of some concern must be that there is not s single positive reference to same sex sexual relationships in Scripture, but numerous references to married couples.

Same sex relationships are not condemned. My best friend and I have one, but it is not a sexual relationship.

Negative references to same sex behavior but not to the type of relationships that we are talking about today.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Ok, problem noted.
The more serious problem might be denial of the natural order.
The point is, a hammer is ordered to a certain purpose, even if it is misused. It is ordered to a certain purpose, even if the wielder is too weak to drive the nail all the way in.

The sexual design of human beings is ordered to a certain purpose, even when conception does not in fact take place.

And the purpose of something when “misused” of its apparent natural design does not necessarily entail immorality. The mouth is designed for eating and breathing. Yet one can also use the mouth for kissing.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Come on, Thoro…

People are designed to do three things:

Everything else is incidental. It does not matter if gay men are having fun with each other…they were not designed to do IT that way.

Their brains sure seem designed that way

Else they wouldn’t want to do it in the first place

 

[catholic1seeks]

I would boil that down to a more basic thing like a relationship with God.
People are designed to know, love, and serve God.
Part of coming to know God is to accept the natural order God creates. Not accepting the natural order leads to chaos, tragedy, and misery. Without accepting the natural order it is impossible to make a moral case for feeding people, housing them, giving them medical care. The moral case for these things is rooted in the way God has created human beings…the needs we all have that is expressed in our bodies.

The full recognition of the human body is not incidental to human dignity. If compassion is based in feelings and sentiments alone, we are on quicksand. Likewise, the denial of the natural function of human reproductive organs and the reduction of their use to merely emotions and sentiment can lead to no good end.

I would say that current traditional church teaching causes much tragedy and misery for LGBTQ Catholics.

 

[davidv]

I would say that current traditional church teaching causes much tragedy and misery for LGBTQ Catholics.

Not even close to being true. Not only that, it cannot be based on facts or logic. It reeks of innuendo and biased emotionalism.