Homosexuality as a Perversion

[InSearchofGrace]

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).

Use of the term homosexual act or acts need not be confusing or objectionable. It covers any act in the range of erotic or sexual intimacy between two members of the same sex, e.g., kissing, mutual manual or oral stimulation of the genitals, etc., up to and including anal sex, penile penetration by one male in the you-know-where of the other male. As for a pair of women, there is no need to elaborate what they do to simulate penile insertion.

The qualifying word “homosexual” is key. We are talking about sex acts between two men or two women. Sure, heterosexuals are known to also indulge in anal sex, although I don’t understand how any heterosexual woman would agree to it. It matters not if 30% or more of active male homosexuals do not or never go there, which is the closest sex act to penile-vaginal intercourse. If the still high incidence of AIDS in the U.S. among gay males that are not needle drug abusers is any indication, the practice of anal sex in said population is not insignificant. Anal sex is a high risk activity, not only with faster transmission of disease, but also vigorous or habitual engagement in such practice cause injury. That part of the body is for waste elimination (the “ick” factor is instinctual, a health preserving reflex, if you will). The design of the alimentary canal is like a one way street, from entrance to exit! These facts alone should make any woman avoid or refuse a male partner or husband who is into said practice, IMO. Yes, I’m speaking for myself with that last sentence.
,

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Use of the term homosexual act or acts need not be confusing or objectionable. It covers any act in the range of erotic or sexual intimacy between two members of the same sex, e.g., kissing, mutual manual or oral stimulation of the genitals, etc., up to and including anal sex, penile penetration by one male in the you-know-where of the other male. As for a pair of women, there is no need to elaborate what they do to simulate penile insertion.

As a man with SSA, I can say that if you say “the homosexual act”, I immediately assume you must mean anal sex. Moreover, on your list of consequences of “the act of homosexuality”, you put:

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

This seems targeted at anal sex – although it isn’t completely inapplicable to oral sex. Not really applicable to mutual masturbation. And certainly not true of kissing!

Nor does much in that description appear to apply to lesbians.

I’m only pointing this out because we need to be clear about when we are criticizing a particular type of action (a sex act) and when we are criticizing falling prey to a disposition (same-sex eroticism). If our arguments just aim at the particular actions, then we leave a large realm open for the disposition – and indeed, history is full of people who celebrated same-sex eroticism without engaging in these sex acts (Socrates and Shakespeare, for example).

If the argument were to only prove that anal sex is wrong, that would be a rather small victory.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Homosexuality is the result of evil spirits, and must be treated accordingly. It’s not caused by genetics or directly through environmental factors. Yes, environmental factors may correlate with homosexual behavior, and cause dis-inhibition, but they are not the direct cause.

Evil spirits are also largely responsible for sexual promiscuity, and overactive libidos. Again, environmental factors may correlate with sexual promiscuity, and cause dis-inhibition, but they are not the direct cause.

It’s Satan!!!

 

[rossum]

Are you aware that the sexual revolution has made people less happy?

People in long term socially recognised relationships are happier. With recent changes in civil law, homosexuals no longer have to hide their relationships and pretend to be what they are not. Remember that Rock Hudson had to get married to a woman. Did that generate much happiness for either of them? Would it not have been better if, like now, he could have married a man?

Do you think gays are happier in a country like Uganda, where some Christians are trying to impose the death penalty for homosexuality?

But here’s what I want to insist on: the purposes have an objective property, that of being good, bad, or indifferent. They have this property because they are judged by an objective standard.

I disagree. The purpose of stopping crime is neutral. It can lead to good actions, like rehabilitation, or it can lead to wrong action, like the death penalty.

This means that, whether or not you should say that homosexual orientation is a perversion, you should say that, **if **homosexual actions (by and large) make people unhappy, then these actions are not morally choiceworthy; in other words, they are wrong. And we’re talking long term effects here, not just short term effects. Do you agree to this?

I do not agree that homosexual actions make people unhappy. Look at the faces of the gay couples getting married at last after waiting for 20 or 30 years. Some homosexual actions may lead to unhappiness, just as some heterosexual actions lead to unhappiness. I think we will both agree that promiscuity eventually leads to unhappiness, and that applies whatever the orientation.

rossum

 

[Prodigal_Son]

People in long term socially recognised relationships are happier. With recent changes in civil law, homosexuals no longer have to hide their relationships and pretend to be what they are not. Remember that Rock Hudson had to get married to a woman. Did that generate much happiness for either of them? Would it not have been better if, like now, he could have married a man?

Rossum my friend,

Perhaps I haven’t mentioned in a previous post, but a few details about myself may be an order. I have SSA, and I’m married – to a woman. OK, culturally, I would call myself “bisexual”, but I readily admit that my attraction to men is more raw and compelling than my attraction to women. If I were not Christian, I would be openly gay.

My wife knows all this, and she is totally fine with it. She knows that I adore her, and she delights in me.

But going back – if I were openly gay, my sense is that I would regularly seek out hook-ups with other men; I would be promiscuous. Sure, I’d love to have a life partner, but it would be under the condition that we could both fool around (and I would be jealous of the men he fooled around with). Hence what Dan Savage calls “monogamish” gay marriages.

So again, the sexual relationship has made people less happy. Because it cements our relationships at a sort of high school level of lust, envy, jealousy, and drama. (Watch any reality show). Sure, some gay men get beyond this. But, given current evidence, it would seem that promiscuity is native to homosexuality, and monogamy is the exception. And promiscuity ain’t no recipe for happiness.

Do you think gays are happier in a country like Uganda, where some Christians are trying to impose the death penalty for homosexuality?

Straw man. No one’s arguing that we impose the death penalty, or even make homosexual actions illegal.

I disagree. The purpose of stopping crime is neutral. It can lead to good actions, like rehabilitation, or it can lead to wrong action, like the death penalty.

But we were talking about whether there is, in every *specific *situation, a good and bad action. Moreover, I admitted that some actions could be indifferent. Being indifferent is an objective quality.

I do not agree that homosexual actions make people unhappy. Look at the faces of the gay couples getting married at last after waiting for 20 or 30 years.

And I’m sure Rock Hudson’s face was droopy and pathetic when he got married.

I was not trying to get you to agree that homosexual actions make people unhappy. I was trying to get you to agree to the following claim: If homosexual actions make people (by and large) unhappy, then these actions are not morally choiceworthy; in other words, they are wrong. Do you agree?

After you agree, we can explore the question of whether homosexual actions make people unhappy.

I think we will both agree that promiscuity eventually leads to unhappiness, and that applies whatever the orientation.

But apparently we disagree about whether homosexuals are more likely to be promiscuous? I would have thought the statistics and anecdotal evidence were clear on this point.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Homosexuality is the result of evil spirits, and must be treated accordingly. It’s not caused by genetics or directly through environmental factors. Yes, environmental factors may correlate with homosexual behavior, and cause dis-inhibition, but they are not the direct cause.

Evil spirits are also largely responsible for sexual promiscuity, and overactive libidos. Again, environmental factors may correlate with sexual promiscuity, and cause dis-inhibition, but they are not the direct cause.

It’s Satan!!!

In some ways I am inclined to agree with you. In any case, Satan must be feeling pretty good about the world today.:sad_yes:

 

[rossum]

But going back – if I were openly gay, my sense is that I would regularly seek out hook-ups with other men; I would be promiscuous.

I am sure you are correct for yourself. You are not correct for all gays. Again, I refer to same sex couples getting married who have been together for decades.

Sure, I’d love to have a life partner, but it would be under the condition that we could both fool around (and I would be jealous of the men he fooled around with). Hence what Dan Savage calls “monogamish” gay marriages.

And such marriages exist among heterosexuals as well. Adultery has been around for a very long time. That is not a reason to block all marriages, just because some do not work out.

But, given current evidence, it would seem that promiscuity is native to homosexuality, and monogamy is the exception. And promiscuity ain’t no recipe for happiness.

I would need to see some research to back this up. Be aware that there is a lot of biased research in this area. Even then, the misbehaviour of some does not justify collective punishment. How long did Britney Spears’ marriage last? What about Newt Gingrich? Are all heterosexuals to be collectively punished for two persons’ mistakes?

Straw man. No one’s arguing that we impose the death penalty, or even make homosexual actions illegal.

It is very far from a straw man in Uganda. There are Christians, some of them American, arguing for exactly that. Or are you saying that the moral status of homosexuality is different in Africa to what it is in America?

I was not trying to get you to agree that homosexual actions make people unhappy. I was trying to get you to agree to the following claim: If homosexual actions make people (by and large) unhappy, then these actions are not morally choiceworthy; in other words, they are wrong. Do you agree?

No I do not agree. We have to look at specific actions by specific people. I do not accept collective punishment of any group.

But apparently we disagree about whether homosexuals are more likely to be promiscuous? I would have thought the statistics and anecdotal evidence were clear on this point.

Anecdotes are not evidence. A lot of evidence in this area has been put together with an agenda in mind, on both sides. It is difficult to get at the truth.

rossum

 

[Regular_Atheist]

This is a genuine question here, and not any kind of rebuttal against your arguments. Would going into space be immoral when it comes to Natural Law? I’m just asking because being in the weightless environment for a long time does, I believe, cause physical problems, because the fluids in humans are able to distribute themselves evenly. I know it can cause problems with the heart, and optic nerves (I think) and other body parts. It can also reduce bone mass, for some reason. At any rate, humans clearly aren’t designed to go into space. It’s bad for us. Currently, anyway. So would this make it immoral to go into space? Natural Law confuses me.

 

[CopticChristian]

I am sure you are correct for yourself. You are not correct for all gays. Again, I refer to same sex couples getting married who have been together for decades.

And such marriages exist among heterosexuals as well. Adultery has been around for a very long time. That is not a reason to block all marriages, just because some do not work out.

I would need to see some research to back this up. Be aware that there is a lot of biased research in this area. Even then, the misbehaviour of some does not justify collective punishment. How long did Britney Spears’ marriage last? What about Newt Gingrich? Are all heterosexuals to be collectively punished for two persons’ mistakes?

It is very far from a straw man in Uganda. There are Christians, some of them American, arguing for exactly that. Or are you saying that the moral status of homosexuality is different in Africa to what it is in America?

No I do not agree. We have to look at specific actions by specific people. I do not accept collective punishment of any group.

Anecdotes are not evidence. A lot of evidence in this area has been put together with an agenda in mind, on both sides. It is difficult to get at the truth.

rossum

This will be my only post on this thread. As a Buddhist, you deny God exists and follow certain precepts.

Lay Buddhists (those who live outside the monastery) are expected to adhere to Five Precepts, the third of which is a vow “not to engage in sexual misconduct.” But what is sexual misconduct? Right and wrong behavior in Buddhism is generally determined by considerations such as the following:

• Universalibility principle - “How would I like it if someone did this to me?”
• Consequences - Does the act cause harm and regret (in oneself or others) or benefit and joy?
• Utilitarian principle - Will the act help or harm the attainment of goals (ultimately spiritual liberation)?
• Intention - Is the act motivated by love, generosity and understanding?

With this in mind then you also follow thinking that springs from Reason alone…since you adhere to the following in undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life.

I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given.
I undertake the training to avoid sensual misconduct.
I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech.
I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented drink that causes heedlessness.

It is only you that is responsible as a Buddhist to decide what is and what is not sensual/sexual misconduct.

Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines, but these are not a secure kind of refuge.
The Dhammapada, 188

As a Buddhist your goal is not to ascend beyond Reason. In the context of the CAF, Catholics do ascend to Reason however in the context of Fear, recognize as taught that true freedom from fear is ascent beyond Reason alone and aided by Faith ascent to the Will of God. When that ascent is complete then there is no fear.

A Buddhist understanding of Homosexuality as Perversion, accepting that there is no God and that the only need is to understand fear, with Reason alone, never ascending beyond Reason can argue and discuss and those opinions should be understood as based on Reason alone, that in the context of the CAF is understood as what the mind can do with Reason alone and should be seen as what the dangers of relying on that Created modality can do absent any assent beyond Reason.

Freedom from fear can be found in reading Veritatis Splendor.

 

[livingwordunity]

I’ve noticed that it’s only the fallen away Catholic Buddhists who take the time to argue against Catholicism. I don’t consider them to be real Buddhists. I once worked for someone who was a real Buddhist. He had respect for the disciplinary aspects of Catholic teaching with regard to sexuality such as priestly celibacy. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This is a genuine question here, and not any kind of rebuttal against your arguments. Would going into space be immoral when it comes to Natural Law? I’m just asking because being in the weightless environment for a long time does, I believe, cause physical problems, because the fluids in humans are able to distribute themselves evenly. I know it can cause problems with the heart, and optic nerves (I think) and other body parts. It can also reduce bone mass, for some reason. At any rate, humans clearly aren’t designed to go into space. It’s bad for us. Currently, anyway. So would this make it immoral to go into space? Natural Law confuses me.

Interesting question. First of all, let’s compare apples to apples. Suppose there were a population of humans that had a driving desire to go to space, and felt that they could not live rewarding lives if they did not go to space. I think there would be a problem with that: it would make sense for those who love them to try and persuade them not to do this. I don’t know if it would be worth making laws about this, unless there were some secondhand harm. But I would think that natural law would speak against this sort of action, as an accepted variant of human behavior.

(Similarly, I think natural law would teach that motorcyclists should wear helmets.)

As for individual cases of space travel, it would depend on what was to be gained from an individual case. If some great good were to be gained from some trip to space (say, a potential cure for cancer), I imagine theories of natural law would allow for exceptions. Though these exceptions would be less easy to come by if a person was married, had children, or was particularly susceptible to the dangers of space.

Hope this helps. I’m not really an expert, but I hope to play one on TV someday!

 

[rossum]

As a Buddhist, you deny God exists and follow certain precepts.

Your understanding of Buddhism is faulty. Here is one of the many Buddhist gods describing himself:

“I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of jhana, and father to all that have been and shall be. I have created these other beings.” (emphases added)

– Brahamajala sutta, Digha Nikaya 1

Buddhism does not deny the existence of gods; it does have a very different attitude to those gods than that of the Abrahamic religions.

With this in mind then you also follow thinking that springs from Reason alone…since you adhere to the following in undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life.

The most common phrasing is “to abstain from injury to life.” It extends a lot further than just killing.

It is only you that is responsible as a Buddhist to decide what is and what is not sensual/sexual misconduct.

Just as with Christianity, there are conservative and liberal Buddhists. I am sure it is no surprise to you that I am on the liberal side. As a minor point, this rule includes misuse of any of the senses, such as gluttony which is a misuse of the sense of taste.

As a Buddhist your goal is not to ascend beyond Reason.

Please do not tell me what Buddhism is about. The goal of Buddhism is nirvana, and nirvana’s relationship with reason can roughly be described in terms of Nagarjuna’s four-way logic:

• Is nirvana within reason? No it is not.
• Is nirvana outside reason? No it is not.
• Is nirvana both within reason and outside reason? No it is not.
• Is nirvana neither within reason nor outside reason? No it is not.

All descriptions of nirvana are, inevitably, false.

Perhaps the best (non) description is from Vimalakirti:

Then the Bodhisattva Manjushri said to Vimalakirti, “We have all given our teachings, noble sir. Now, may you elucidate the teaching of the the entrance into the principle of nonduality.”

Thereupon Vimalakirti kept his silence, saying nothing at all.

The Bodhisattva Manjushri applauded Vimalakirti: “Excellent! Excellent, noble sir! This is indeed the entrance into the nonduality of the Bodhisattvas.”

– Vimalakirtinirdesa sutra, Chapter Nine

Freedom from fear can be found in reading Veritatis Splendor.

Buddhists do not seek freedom from fear; we seek freedom from suffering.

rossum

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I would need to see some research to back this up. Be aware that there is a lot of biased research in this area.

Well of course there is! I’m glad that you recognize that the bias comes from both sides.

One nonpartisan study lists the average number of partners over a lifetime for homosexual men to be 17. books.google.com/books?id=bvy9NaEwPnwC&printsec=frontcover

Other studies find the average number of partners for men, straight and gay combined, to be either 7 or 9. www.nbcnews.com 2007 and telegraph.uk 2009.

17 is a lot more than 9. And of course, 9 is a lot more than 1. My only point here is that homosexuality all too often is associated with promiscuity, which I think we would both be concerned about.

Even then, the misbehaviour of some does not justify collective punishment. How long did Britney Spears’ marriage last? What about Newt Gingrich? Are all heterosexuals to be collectively punished for two persons’ mistakes?

Who is talking about punishment? To say something is morally wrong is NOT to punish it. I think gossip is morally wrong, but I’m not tracking down gossips and arresting them!

It is very far from a straw man in Uganda. There are Christians, some of them American, arguing for exactly that. Or are you saying that the moral status of homosexuality is different in Africa to what it is in America?

To say X is wrong is not to say that it should be punished. The people persecuting homosexuals in Uganda should be punished, not the homosexuals themselves.

No I do not agree. We have to look at specific actions by specific people. I do not accept collective punishment of any group.

I wish I had a straw man smiley. Punishment again?

You said before that Buddhists measured morality by consequences. On pain of inconsistency, you must then agree to the following claim: If homosexual actions make people (by and large) unhappy, then these actions are not morally choiceworthy; in other words, they are wrong.

I am not trying to trick you. I know that agreeing to this claim does not imply being against homosexuality. But you cannot claim to hold a principle of ethics, and then drop the principle in individual cases.

Anecdotes are not evidence. A lot of evidence in this area has been put together with an agenda in mind, on both sides. It is difficult to get at the truth.

You’re tellin’ me!

 

[njlisa]

The Bible tells to love our enemies – even people who reject Church teachings, even people who support same-sex unions, even people living in long-term same-sex relationships. The Holy Father has said atheists can do go. Might it be possible to acknowledge that those who strongly oppose the Church can also do good? A priest once said that we should see one good quality in those we regard as enemies. Can we maybe acknowledge that the same-sex union supporter is also a doctor who saves lives, a soldier who defends our country, a cashier who rings up our groceries – even just a neighbor who pays taxes. Can we see basic dignity in those who are in grave sin? The Church pleaded for the life of Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber. And as far as I know, he never showed any public remorse for his crimes. He was given viaticum before his execution. I offer this post by way of promoting healing and understanding. Maybe this is impossible, but I’d like to think we should find compassion even for the most rebellious of sinners.

 

[Robert_Sock]

In some ways I am inclined to agree with you. In any case, Satan must be feeling pretty good about the world today.:sad_yes:

It may be helpful to ask why God allows evil? I’ve seen it written that we would be destined to live in a twilight world if it were not for evil. This is certainly true from a Jewish perspective.
*
Isaiah 45:7 - “I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.” (Douay-Rheims)*

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So, why does the Catholic Church allow the rhythm method and other natural contraceptive methods?

Interesting note: one of the people responsible for the development of the birth control pill (John Rock) thought that it would be an extension of the rhythm method and presented it to the Catholic church for approval. Pius XII approved it for menstrual disorders, but encyclical Humanae Vitae is said to have entrenched the Catholic Church in opposition to it. It’s said after that John Rock stopped attending mass.

From Gladwell’s writing on the issue:
Gladwell:

The rhythm method " ‘prevents’ conception by abstinence, that is, by the non-performance of the conjugal act during the fertile period," the Catholic journal America concluded in a 1964 editorial. “The pill prevents conception by suppressing ovulation and by thus abolishing the fertile period. No amount of word juggling can make abstinence from sexual relations and the suppression of ovulation one and the same thing.” On July 29, 1968, in the “Humanae Vitae” encyclical, the Pope broke his silence, declaring all “artificial” methods of contraception to be against the teachings of the Church.

 

[Deltadeliquent]

Actually, Rosum…

If you have seen most other animal species have sex, such as dogs or cats, there is no way you can think it pleasurable. Only the higher primates and some of the higher whales and dolphins seem to derive pleasure from the act.

 

[rossum]

If you have seen most other animal species have sex, such as dogs or cats, there is no way you can think it pleasurable. Only the higher primates and some of the higher whales and dolphins seem to derive pleasure from the act.

I have said that I do not see it as useful to try to derive morality from what we observe in nature.

rossum

 

[livingwordunity]

Interesting note: one of the people responsible for the development of the birth control pill (John Rock) thought that it would be an extension of the rhythm method and presented it to the Catholic church for approval. Pius XII approved it for menstrual disorders, but encyclical Humanae Vitae is said to have entrenched the Catholic Church in opposition to it. It’s said after that John Rock stopped attending mass.

The difference between NFP (if used in a way that is open to life and accepting of God’s will) and the pill is like the difference between prayer and sorcery. One accepts God’s will while the other tries to manipulate nature and have control over it.

 

[Captain_America]

This is a genuine question here, and not any kind of rebuttal against your arguments. Would going into space be immoral when it comes to Natural Law? I’m just asking because being in the weightless environment for a long time does, I believe, cause physical problems, because the fluids in humans are able to distribute themselves evenly. I know it can cause problems with the heart, and optic nerves (I think) and other body parts. It can also reduce bone mass, for some reason. At any rate, humans clearly aren’t designed to go into space. It’s bad for us. Currently, anyway. So would this make it immoral to go into space? Natural Law confuses me.

Yes it sounds like it does. Your body, note, isn’t built for being in space.

It may be the case that being in space IS immoral (please don’t make the mistake of thinking morality has only to do with sex). Being in space, with our contrivances, may be damaging to our bodies, etc., in a number of ways. So one would possibly be intentionally inflicting pain on one’s self.