Homosexuality as a Perversion

[Prodigal_Son]

This was something I mentioned earlier in the thread, post #9; the difference between the “Law of Nature” and “Natural Law”. The first is what we actually observe in nature, and it can tell us nothing about morality. The second is what some people think we ought to observe in nature and they tend to draw their morality from what they want to see. That is obviously subjective and I reject it as a basis for argument.

This is a straw man. Catholic natural law ethics is not “drawing morality from whatever we want to see”. It is predicated on the idea that the body has a purpose. This is not a subjective idea. Nearly every ancient philosopher agreed, and – contrary to scientist propaganda – moderns have not managed to obliterate teleology. The theory of natural selection is expressed using teleological terms. Biologically, the purpose of the sexual organs would appear to be clear.

The $20,000 question is: if the body has a purpose, is it wrong to use the body in some other way? Is it wrong for me to sell my organs to gain money? Is it wrong for me to get my arm amputated just for the hell of it? I think so. Where exactly is the dividing line? It’s hard to tell. But the negative potential consequences of these actions probably has something to do with their wrongness. (In contrast, surely my ears aren’t made to turn on a light switch, but it’s not a problem if I do turn on a light switch with my ears.)

 

[marymary1975]

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

morality should never be directed by what a certain groups accepts as moral or by what a group considers acceptable behavior. Morality is discerning which behaviors are wrong from an objective point of view and when it comes to homosexuality, actually it is the homosexuals and gay activist who are imposing THEIR changing view of morality on others and shoving homosexuality down through other people’s throats. You say that you shall not kill is generally accepted, well that is not true because the high numbers of murders in the US reflect that there is a Huge number of people who see murder as a perfectly moral. So under your idea of morality, then we should allow murder because it is generally agrees that a huge number of the population commit murder so humans should have the right to kill others who bug them.

 

[marymary1975]

Isn’t it obvious this is just a verbal dispute? By “nature”, fix means “the proper order of things, established by God”. By “nature”, you mean “occurring in nature”. Pedophilia is also natural in this sense, as is rape, as is mate-eating.

 

[rossum]

Catholic natural law ethics is not “drawing morality from whatever we want to see”.

I am not Catholic, and medical decisions on what homosexuality is, and is not, are not Catholic either. I am not arguing about the Catholic definition, I am discussing in a wider context.

It is predicated on the idea that the body has a purpose.

Why, when “purpose” is introduced into the discussion, is it almost always singular. In all but a very few cases, the word used should be “purposes”, plural. Using the singular immediately limits the discussion unnecessarily. You are assuming the singular, you are not presenting any evidence that the singular is correct as opposed to the plural.

The theory of natural selection is expressed using teleological terms. Biologically, the purpose of the sexual organs would appear to be clear.

Natural selection is not teleological, it relates to the number of grandchildren. Again you are using the singular “purpose”.

if the body has a purpose

It does not, it has many purposes.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Morality is discerning which behaviors are wrong from an objective point of view

Which is where many people have difficulty seeing what is objectively wrong with homosexuality.

rossum

 

[marymary1975]

Which is where many people have difficulty seeing what is objectively wrong with homosexuality.

rossum

Exactly, people have been brainwashed by gay activist, by the media, by fake studies that have been manipulated so that they can’t see what is wrong with homosexuality in order to change the moral rules of society.

 

[Monkey1976]

Which is where many people have difficulty seeing what is objectively wrong with homosexuality.

rossum

Look at our anatomy from a purely objective point of view. Males have an organ which - when erect - fits precisely into a corresponding organ in the female. These organs have no other apparent purpose from a detached standpoint. Pleasure in itself can’t be an objective purpose, because that is something that is entirely subjective: I take pleasure from eating ridiculously spicy food that makes several of my friends cry in pain.

 

[Beryllos]

Look at our anatomy …

Must you be so graphic? I think you have beat that one to death. We all get it. It’s time to come up with other lines of reasoning.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I am not Catholic, and medical decisions on what homosexuality is, and is not, are not Catholic either. I am not arguing about the Catholic definition, I am discussing in a wider context.

Well, gee, the Catholic church thinks it’s understanding is true, and argues to that effect. If it’s true, it will exist in whatever context you like.

As for how homosexuality should be defined medically, I have no horse in that race. I think that psychology’s definitions about a lot of things are completely bizarre, as do many psychologists – just check the screaming every time a new DSM comes out. Morally, homosexual actions are not beneficial.

Why, when “purpose” is introduced into the discussion, is it almost always singular. In all but a very few cases, the word used should be “purposes”, plural. Using the singular immediately limits the discussion unnecessarily. You are assuming the singular, you are not presenting any evidence that the singular is correct as opposed to the plural.

Are you suggesting that human beings have purposes (subjective goals) but no objective purpose? Or are you suggesting that human beings have more than one objective purpose? This is an important distinction.

Natural selection is not teleological, it relates to the number of grandchildren. Again you are using the singular “purpose”.

See plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/. This is not a Catholic source; it is the leading secular encyclopedia of philosophy.

It does not, it has many purposes.

Lining up with individual humans’ subjective goals? Or real substantial purposes, biological or otherwise?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
I do not accept that you have the right to impose the morality of your religion on me. Buddhist morality has many similarities to Abrahamic morality, but it is not identical.

You have it the other way around. I do not seek gay affirming sites to convince the members thereof that their concept on morality of homosexual acts is erroneous or that active homosexuality is sinful.

On the other hand, you are in this Catholic forum across threads over the years making repeated postings that homosexual acts are moral and natural, even as you well know the teaching and position of Catholics (not CINOs).

Is it not you who is imposing the morality of the secular homosexual culture enveloping the West with which you identify, with your particular brand of Buddhism? Well, I do not accept you have the right to impose your revised moral views on us, sir.

This reminds me of what I posed to you in #34 that you have not addressed

… 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?

…You insist on a singular “purpose”. Is your God incapable of designing things with multiple purposes? Obviously not, since He is omnipotent. Why do you limit His creation to only a singular purpose, and not allow Him to have multiple purposes? Are you limiting your God?

You have actually helped my argument. God is all powerful and capable of designing things with more than one purpose. The sun he created in the universe, for example, provides both light and warmth. The sexual act of a man and woman in the marital bed is both procreative and unitive, not singularly procreative or singularly unitive / for pleasure. Whereas, you pointed to one purpose of the homosexual act:

The fruits of a homosexual act is pleasure,

and then you say this

Do you think that a loving relationship between a homosexual couple is worthless? Wherever same sex marriage is allowed, there are couples getting married who have been together 20, 30 or even 40 years. I think that is a good fruit to have gained.

rossum

So it boils down to what you are defending: homosexual acts in the context of long term and loving relations between two men or two women, that such unions should get a pass on the morality index. No dice, sir. I am not trying to be unkind here. I realize you will simply reject what I am about to say, so the following is more for those following the thread than for you.

To pass moral criteria, there are three factors to consider if a deed or free human choice (unlike any animal instinct or involuntary act like breathing) is good or bad: the act itself (objective), the person’s (subjective) motive or intent, and the situation / circumstances in the action(s) being done (also objective).

Morality and Homosexuality

The situation you defend may pass the second and third criteria, but fails on the first. A homosexual act is an objectively wrong act, even in the context of a long lasting and loving relationship between two men or two women. Dr. Kreeft in his talk discussed this very situation raised in the Q&A portion at 47:04. The talk plus the Q&A takes an hour but it is worth the listen.

No, the friendship and companionship between two men or two women are not worthless. However, that said relations need be sexual and then elevated to “marriage” cross moral and social boundaries, notwithstanding that legislative or judicial decisions in some jurisdictions have legalized gay “marriage.”

I don’t have the illusion that this will change your mind, but you are mistaken if you think you can get Catholics to abandon or disown a position grounded on reason, reliance on natural law and agreement to a core teaching of the faith.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Homosexuality (referring to the act) is a perversion. Why?

I came across this concise summary elsewhere, not necessarily in the order of importance:

It renders what is by nature fertile (the genital faculty) infertile, and so offends against the natural law.

It is inimical to true sexual love, perverting what should be an act of love into an exercise in selfish gratification.

It confuses the means (sexual pleasure) with the end.

It is both unsanitary and unsafe, carrying a high risk of infection and physical trauma.

Being an objective mortal sin, it jeopardizes the eternal felicity of the soul.
,

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Homosexuality (referring to the act) is a perversion. Why?

I came across this concise summary elsewhere, not necessarily in the order of importance:

It renders what is by nature fertile (the genital faculty) infertile, and so offends against the natural law.

It is inimical to true sexual love, perverting what should be an act of love into an exercise in selfish gratification.

It confuses the means (sexual pleasure) with the end.

It is both unsanitary and unsafe, carrying a high risk of infection and physical trauma.

Being an objective mortal sin, it jeopardizes the eternal felicity of the soul.
,

InSearchofGrace,

I agree with most everything you’ve posted, but PLEASE stop referring to “the” act of homosexuality. Anal sex is not the act of homosexuality. Probably about 30-50% of openly homosexual men never have anal sex. Mind you, much of what you said applies to oral sex as well, but then again, I do not think the Church has a hard and fast rule against all things that might pertain to oral sex (within marriage).

 

[Slavonic]

**

Exactly, people have been brainwashed by gay activist, by the media, by fake studies that have been manipulated so that they can’t see what is wrong with homosexuality in order to change the moral rules of society.

The alternative is that they are simply right. And their support is their own personal experiences of knowing LGBT individuals. Your need for studies on the issue is a bit desperate. What can we say about straight people through a study? Nothing, really.

With respect to media ‘brainwashing,’ it cuts both ways there were plenty of negative portrayals too.

 

[donna369]

I am not Catholic, and medical decisions on what homosexuality is, and is not, are not Catholic either. I am not arguing about the Catholic definition, I am discussing in a wider context.

Why, when “purpose” is introduced into the discussion, is it almost always singular. In all but a very few cases, the word used should be “purposes”, plural. Using the singular immediately limits the discussion unnecessarily. You are assuming the singular, you are not presenting any evidence that the singular is correct as opposed to the plural.

the singular was used because we are discussing a single aspect of the many purposes the body has. you are not furthering any argument with your nitpicking.

Natural selection is not teleological, it relates to the number of grandchildren. Again you are using the singular “purpose”.

It does not, it has many purposes.

rossum

teleological
tel·e·o·log·i·cal
[tel-ee-uh-loj-i-kuhl, tee-lee-] Show IPA
adjective Philosophy .
of or pertaining to teleology, the philosopical doctrine that final causes, design, and purpose exist in nature.

 

[Slavonic]

the singular was used because we are discussing a single aspect of the many purposes the body has. you are not furthering any argument with your nitpicking.

So it is singular because it is singular. You are not furthering your argument with circular reasoning.

 

[rossum]

Look at our anatomy from a purely objective point of view. Males have an organ which - when erect - fits precisely into a corresponding organ in the female. These organs have no other apparent purpose from a detached standpoint.

Bwahahaha! What does a male also use his penis for? Hint: he can do it standing up, while most women do not. “[N]o other apparent purpose” Thanks for a good laugh.

If this is the level of your argumentation against homosexuality then it is not wonder that gay marriage is becoming more common.

Pleasure in itself can’t be an objective purpose, because that is something that is entirely subjective: I take pleasure from eating ridiculously spicy food that makes several of my friends cry in pain.

Why is subjective pleasure outlawed. Torturing someone causes subjective pain to them. Does that mean we can ignore the subjective sensations of both pain and pleasure?

Again, your argument is very weak and easily countered.

rossum

 

[rossum]

the singular was used because we are discussing a single aspect of the many purposes the body has. you are not furthering any argument with your nitpicking.

On the contrary, one poster here was drawn into a ludicrously bad error due to using singular “purpose” for the penis, when it has more than one purpose. My point is valid, because it can lead to underthinking the problem by stopping after one purpose, and not considering if there is also a second, third etc. purpose to be dealt with.

teleological

I repeat, natural selection is not teleological. It has no foresight, but deals only with the immediate situation.

rossum

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Which is where many people have difficulty seeing what is objectively wrong with homosexuality.

rossum

It’s so obviously wrong in so many ways. I feel sorry for people who are afflicted with such perverse desires. No need to persecute them, but no need to celebrate them either. They definitely don’t have normal desires, and everyone knows it including themselves. However, just because a person has abnormal sexuality, doesn’t define their worth as a human being. I still say celibacy is the best way to deal with it.

 

[Monkey1976]

Bwahahaha! What does a male also use his penis for? Hint: he can do it standing up, while most women do not. “[N]o other apparent purpose” Thanks for a good laugh.

Note the clause “when erect”. At that point, the urinary ducts are closed. So, what other objective purpose is filled by the combined features of an erect phallus?

Why is subjective pleasure outlawed. Torturing someone causes subjective pain to them. Does that mean we can ignore the subjective sensations of both pain and pleasure?

I said nothing as to the “legality” of pleasure. I noted that it is an entirely subjective phenomenon, and thus has no place when discussing the objective purpose(s) of (a) particular body part(s), which you seem to be reluctant to do.

 

[rossum]

God is all powerful and capable of designing things with more than one purpose.

Precisely, which is why it is an error to automatically use the singular “purpose”. It may be correct in some cases, but the possibility of multiple purposes has to be considered rather than just assumed away.

I don’t have the illusion that this will change your mind, but you are mistaken if you think you can get Catholics to abandon or disown a position grounded on reason, reliance on natural law and agreement to a core teaching of the faith.

I do not expect Catholics to change their mind. The OP of this thread seemed to be more interested in the medical aspects of homosexuality, with its reference to the APA. I very much doubt is Catholic doctrinal arguments will sway many members of the APA on medical matters. The Church claims authority on matters of faith and doctrine. It does not claim authority on matters of medical science.

rossum