- Status
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Being left handed, blue-eyed, or choosing to live in Iceland have practical effect but no moral impact on the action of individuals, having no repercussion on society that can be considered negative. They are neutral.
Homosexual desire is disordered desire. Homosexual acts are disordered acts. Regardless that the State sanctions legalized homosexual unions or “marriages.”
,
M
Monkey1976
Guest
Can you point to the orifice in a male-male couple specifically designed with the primary purpose of accepting the male sex organ and its associated sperm?
S
SamH
Guest
Bestiality also exists in nature.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
A heterosexual union normally produces babies. That’s why the left is fighting so hard for contraception and abortion which are extreme attempts to counteract what is the normal result of the sexual union of a man and a woman. Most people agree that children, which are always the biological product of one man and one woman, are a beautiful thing. And even every homosexual is the product of such a union. A baby is normally the fruit of traditional marriage. So here’s a question. Besides AIDS and other STDs, what fruit comes as a direct result of the homosexual act?
D
donna369
Guest
my statement on this in nature is that aimals are opportunistic they will have sex with any other of their kind for the most part. it is a homosexual act but the animal is not homosexual. it is just acting out sexually for its own pleasure without the use of reason.
even so, homosexuality is not natural because sex is the means of reproduction. this cannot occur in a homosexual act.
and there is only one creator. original sin was committed by people.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Right. Animals basically rape each other. So the argument that we should act as animals makes no sense. And I wonder if they realize that they are degrading the human dignity of homosexuals as people by comparing them to animals? They degrade the human dignity of homosexuals in this way by suggesting that, like the animals, they can’t control their impulses. It’s a denial of our free will. And it’s ironic that the same ones who say they are “Pro-Choice” say that homosexuals have no choice but to act on their most base impulses.
D
donna369
Guest
no. that would be an animal having sex with an animal not of its kind. like a dog with a cat.
beastiality is actually defined as a human having sex with an animal; another disordered act.
its where we get mermaids and unicorns from!
R
rossum
Guest
And in some non-Catholic moral systems homosexual acts are also morally neutral. Hence they should be treated the same as being left handed or being Icelandic.
You are entitled to your morals in your Church. Outside your Church, there is a different set of laws used in the general law of the country. In Catholic morality it is a sin (?a mortal sin?) to miss Sunday Mass without a valid excuse. The laws of both the USA and the UK ignore attendance at Sunday Mass.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
So, I take it you have no objection to female homosexuality, where no sperm is involved?
I reject your use of “designed”; I prefer “evolved”. I also have doubts about “primary” purpose. From the point of view of the organism, the primary purpose is pleasure. A dog does not think, “I will make puppies,” it thinks more along the lines of, “this gives me pleasure.” Any puppies are a side-effect of the dog’s pleasure-seeking actions.
Many things have more than one “purpose”. Trying to impose your purpose on someone who does not agree with it is a losing game. There are many people who think that man was designed for the primary purpose of worshipping Allah. Does that belief give them the right to impose their purpose on you?
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Which is a point I made earlier. We cannot make moral judgements one way or the other from what exists in nature. Cannibalism exists in nature, alongside careful care for the young. Finding X in nature tells us nothing about whether or not X is moral.
rossum
T
tomarin
Guest
I was thinking about how fish and other animals eat their own young. Perfectly natural, but not something we humans should emulate.no. that would be an animal having sex with an animal not of its kind. like a dog with a cat.
beastiality is actually defined as a human having sex with an animal; another disordered act.
its where we get mermaids and unicorns from!
L
livingwordunity
Guest
I think hippos are known to do that. The adult male hippos will kill the baby male hippos to eliminate their future competition.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
God gave Adam and Eve free will. And they exercised it. If I am not mistaken, you were Christian or Catholic before, with a good grasp of the OT (as well as the NT and Catholic teachings). Your intelligence and good mind are evident in your postings so I would not doubt your knowledge on original sin and other topics on the faith which maybe more than most people have as you went shopping for another religion to embrace that would go along best with your philosophy in life.
rossum, it seems you see no problems with the exercise of your own will and your defense of homosexual behavior. It is curious why you keep making the same arguments on the subject each of which have been refuted and debated countless times in the forum in the 9 some years you have been a member and submission of 7,000+ posts. Granted you have participated in some threads on other subjects that provided interesting reading. As for your postings related to homosexuality, perhaps you are not that convinced your exercise of free will is the correct one and/or your arguments are true?
If you are convinced and sure, why are you insisting on your brand of Buddhist belief (the Dalai Lama does not share your view on the naturalness of homosexual acts – don’t bother repeating you belong to the liberal Buddhist sect) and defense of expressed homosexuality in a Catholic forum then?
By your tireless posting in Catholic Answers, are you expecting converts to your belief on morality of homosexual acts, which runs counter to Catholic belief?
Read the the last paragraphs of my post above.
,
R
rossum
Guest
So, why does the Catholic Church allow the rhythm method and other natural contraceptive methods? You are not being very consistent here.
The majority of people with AIDS are heterosexual, and became infected through heterosexual acts. AIDS rates among lesbians are lower than in the general heterosexual population. There is no magical protection for heterosexuals. Your argument fails.
The fruits of a homosexual act is pleasure, which is also the fruit of the vast majority of heterosexual acts. Do you really think that a heterosexual couple with three children have only shared a bed three times? Do married couples stop sleeping together when the wife is pregnant and cannot conceive another child?
Homosexuals are effectively doing what heterosexuals are doing for the vast majority of the time.
rossum
S
SamH
Guest
Agreed so what is wrong in the moral judgement that homosexuality is a perversion?
M
Monkey1976
Guest
For a female-female couple, could you indicate the naturally-formed organ specifically designed for the primary purpose of penetrating the vaginal tract?
By “designed”, I’m not indicating any specific designer, be it God, evolution, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I would also argue that pleasure is a side-effect of procreative activity in some animals. What “pleasure” can a salmon be seeking when embarking on its one-way spawning trip? What “pleasure” is there for a male Praying Mantis when he is most often devoured in the act of mating? For animals that do experience pleasure from mating activity, it seems to simply an incentive for the animal to engage in such activity.
What other purpose is there for an erect penis? All of its physical features are geared toward one thing: The deposition of sperm while removing the sperm of any other males present within the vaginal canal. While this does point to promiscuity as a feature in our evolutionary history, that’s where our parenting instincts come into play - men are naturally more attached to their own offspring, so exclusive relationships naturally developed.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
NFP isn’t the rhythm method. And if NFP were the same as contraception why does the contraception “Pro-Choice” lobby strongly reject it in favor of abortion and the pill? The reasons for why the Catholic Church rejects ARTIFICIAL contraception is found in Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae. And the reasons why the Catholic Church accepts NATURAL family planning is in Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. So, I would suggest reading these.
I hear this same flawed argument over and over again. It ignores the most important question which is who is more likely to get AIDS. Even if it were true that fewer homosexuals have AIDS than heterosexuals because there are fewer homosexuals. They are only about 2% of the population. But PROPORTIONATELY, homosexuals are far more likely to get AIDS. The “gay community” has always had a much higher proportion of AIDS compared to the proportion of AIDS among heterosexuals. But much of the reason for AIDS among heterosexuals was because it spilled over from the “gay community” because of closet bisexual men who were having sex with women while secretly having homosexual relations with other homosexual men. Consistent with this is the fact that heterosexual women have a higher rate of getting it than heterosexual men do. Why do you choose to ignore that? I know that you must have seen the stats that I’ve posted on it since I’ve posted the same stats in many threads. But here it is again:
“1 in 5 Gay/Bi Men Have HIV, Nearly Half Don’t Know” - WebMD
AIDS Timeline:
“1981 -CDC reports first cases of rare pneumonia in young gay men – later determined to be AIDS-related – in June 5 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). This marks the official beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.” - CDC
“Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of all new HIV infections” – CDC
“Disparities in HIV infection also exist between gay and bisexual men and heterosexual populations. Recently, the CDC announced that gay and bisexual men in the United States are 44 to 86 times more likely to become infected with HIV than heterosexual men, and 40 to 77 times more likely to become infected than women.” – Obama
“In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls. Suggestions for future research were offered.” - California School of Professional Psychology
Sources:
WebMD
CDC HIV/AIDS Global Epidemic Timeline
CDC - CDC Global HIV/AIDS Milestones - Global HIV/AIDS at CDC - Global HIV/AIDS
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
President Obama’s National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the the the United States 2010 White House Report
California School of Professional Psychology
L
livingwordunity
Guest
rossum,
By the way, why don’t you provide specific stats like how I do? I notice whenever the claim is made that there are more heterosexuals with AIDS there’s never any credible and specific stats to back up this claim. There’s only the vague and generic claim without specific sources, numbers, and proportions. And Africa is a bad example to use since over there it’s hard to know how many of the people with AIDS who claim to be heterosexuals are closet homosexuals because of the social stigma there for being a homosexual. But what we do know for more certain is the stats in the United States which show that AIDS was born in the “gay” community and continues to plague them by far more than any other group of people in America.
By the way, why don’t you provide specific stats like how I do? I notice whenever the claim is made that there are more heterosexuals with AIDS there’s never any credible and specific stats to back up this claim. There’s only the vague and generic claim without specific sources, numbers, and proportions. And Africa is a bad example to use since over there it’s hard to know how many of the people with AIDS who claim to be heterosexuals are closet homosexuals because of the social stigma there for being a homosexual. But what we do know for more certain is the stats in the United States which show that AIDS was born in the “gay” community and continues to plague them by far more than any other group of people in America.
R
rossum
Guest
Nothing. It is when you try to impose your moral judgement on others, who disagree with it, that the problem arises.
There are many different moralities expounded by many different people. Some are generally agreed: “You shall not kill.” Others are not generally agreed: “Eating shellfish is an abomination.”
We appear at the moment to be in the process of changing our agreed morality on homosexual relationships.
rossum
- Status