Homosexuality Intrinsically Disordered?

[sw85]

First of all I wanted to point out that “sodomizing” is a very rude term. I’m not saying that as an accusation because I am obviously imperfect, I just didn’t know if you were aware that it is offensive. As as the USSCB puts it on marriageuniqueforareason.org "Any lack of respect, lack of compassion, or lack of sensitivity towards persons with a homosexual inclination is unacceptable. "

It is not especially rude; it is even a modern legal term, referring to anal or oral sexual acts between persons of the same sex. It simply easier to type “sodomy” than “sexual acts between persons of the same sex.”

Second, your statement is a logical fallacy. You have placed your conclusion as the premise of the argument.

I am arguing that you can in fact show love in a meaningful Christian sense in a same-sex relationship by willing the good of another. I argue this because gender in no way correlates with the ability to love someone.

The issue isn’t whether gender “correlates with the ability to love someone.” The issue is what love actually is. Again, love means willing the good of another. Willing the good of another means neither sinning against them nor inducing them to sin. Hence, whether or not it is possible to love a person you are sodomizing begins first with the question of whether or not it is a sin to sodomize someone. If it is a sin to sodomize someone then it is impossible to express Christian love through such an act. In other words, I am saying we must determine whether or not sodomy is a sin first, before we can decide whether or not any particular sodomitical couple is acting thereby in accord with Christian love. If sodomy is indeed a sin, then such acts are not consistent with Christian love.

And so where in the Bible did Jesus or an apostle, or infallibly in Church tradition, was it clearly laid out that sex is unitive and procreative and that they must be both and cannot be just unitive? This is another “appeal to authority” logical fallacy, which by the way MANY theologians, Catholic included argue that those so called prohibitions are misinterpretations.

Jesus Christ personally made clear that fornication (that is, sex outside of marriage) defiles a man morally (see Mt. 15:16-20), and that marriage is the union of man and woman (see Mt. 19:4-6 – where he specifically says that it is because God made man male and female that marriage exists). St. Paul personally identified sodomy as a “shameful affection” to which sinners in Rome had been given up (see 1 Rom. 26-27). And the bishops have unanimously taught since the very beginning, without any interruption, that the sexual act belongs to marriage, and that sexual acts outside of marriage (including, necessarily, sodomy) are moral evils. And this is neglecting the abundant Old Testament literature on the topic which is uniformly and unambiguously negative.

A thing is infallible if it is revealed by Jesus Christ, taught by the apostles, recorded in Scriptures, enjoys the unambiguous support of the college of bishops at any particular moment in time, or if it is dogmatically defined so by the Pope or an ecumenical Council. The prohibition on sodomy, as near as I can tell, belongs to at least the first three and there is a good case to be made that sodomy runs afoul of at least one Council’s (Trent) definition of marriage, as well. There are in fact very few of the Church’s moral teachings that enjoy such a record of support.

Which is why I once again point out the argument against homosexuality is not dogma

If by “dogma” you mean “a thing which belongs to the deposit of revelation and which is to be believed with divine and catholic faith” then yes, I’m afraid it is, for the reasons I outlined above.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

It is not especially rude**; it is even a modern legal term, referring to anal or oral sexual acts between persons of the same sex.** It simply easier to type “sodomy” than “sexual acts between persons of the same sex.”

The issue isn’t whether gender “correlates with the ability to love someone.” The issue is what love actually is. Again, love means willing the good of another. Willing the good of another means neither sinning against them nor inducing them to sin. Hence, whether or not it is possible to love a person you are sodomizing begins first with the question of whether or not it is a sin to sodomize someone. If it is a sin to sodomize someone then it is impossible to express Christian love through such an act. In other words, I am saying we must determine whether or not sodomy is a sin first, before we can decide whether or not any particular sodomitical couple is acting thereby in accord with Christian love. If sodomy is indeed a sin, then such acts are not consistent with Christian love.

Jesus Christ personally made clear that fornication (that is, sex outside of marriage) defiles a man morally (see Mt. 15:16-20), and that marriage is the union of man and woman (see Mt. 19:4-6 – where he specifically says that it is because God made man male and female that marriage exists). St. Paul personally identified sodomy as a “shameful affection” to which sinners in Rome had been given up (see 1 Rom. 26-27). And the bishops have unanimously taught since the very beginning, without any interruption, that the sexual act belongs to marriage, and that sexual acts outside of marriage (including, necessarily, sodomy) are moral evils. And this is neglecting the abundant Old Testament literature on the topic which is uniformly and unambiguously negative.

A thing is infallible if it is revealed by Jesus Christ, taught by the apostles, recorded in Scriptures, enjoys the unambiguous support of the college of bishops at any particular moment in time, or if it is dogmatically defined so by the Pope or an ecumenical Council. The prohibition on sodomy, as near as I can tell, belongs to at least the first three and there is a good case to be made that sodomy runs afoul of at least one Council’s (Trent) definition of marriage, as well. There are in fact very few of the Church’s moral teachings that enjoy such a record of support.

If by “dogma” you mean “a thing which belongs to the deposit of revelation and which is to be believed with divine and catholic faith” then yes, I’m afraid it is, for the reasons I outlined above.

That’s incorrect, while that is always included in most cases heterosexual sodomy and bestiality were include as well as mutual masturbation (between either heterosexuals or homosexuals).

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Very helpful breakdown. Thanks!

One thing to add: in Plato’s Laws, he also specifically refers to homosexual acts – and there is no question he is lumping together adult-with-adult acts in the same boat as pederasty – as against nature. I haven’t looked it up, but I would guess that “para physis” is used in that case, too.

For the ancients, it was assumed, I think, that sodomy was against nature. But this didn’t end the conversation, for them, since some ancients argued that it was fine to do things against nature – in fact, if I recall correctly, the Cynics specifically lauded doing things against nature.

Yes, in Laws, 636c para physin is used.
And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature kata physin], but contrary to nature para physin] when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.

 

[clintonm]

Too bad heterosexuals have so thoroughly screwed up society.

I would very much like to point out that without heterosexuals there woudl be absolutely no society. The species would have ended after a generation.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I would very much like to point out that without heterosexuals there woudl be absolutely no society. The species would have ended after a generation.

That does not however justify how badly they’ve screwed up society in the recent past and does not justify them scapegoating LGBT people.

Heterosexuals made it so abortions are common.
Heterosexuals made it so children were no longer the central point of marriage.
Heterosexuals made it so that love became the central point of marriage.
Heterosexuals made it so that children were no longer even deemed relevant to marriage.
Heterosexuals made it so that marriage is no longer considered indissoluble.

As a result of what heterosexuals have turned marriage into it is no longer rational to deny same sex marriage because so what if they can’t beget offspring, marriage is no longer about that, it is about love.

Despite the fact that heterosexuals broke marriage LGBT people get blamed, that is unjust.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

That does not however justify how badly they’ve screwed up society in the recent past and does not justify them scapegoating LGBT people.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

That does not however justify how badly they’ve screwed up society in the recent past and does not justify them scapegoating LGBT people.

Heterosexuals made it so abortions are common.
Heterosexuals made it so children were no longer the central point of marriage.
Heterosexuals made it so that love became the central point of marriage.
Heterosexuals made it so that children were no longer even deemed relevant to marriage.
Heterosexuals made it so that marriage is no longer considered indissoluble.

As a result of what heterosexuals have turned marriage into it is no longer rational to deny same sex marriage because so what if they can’t beget offspring, marriage is no longer about that, it is about love.

Despite the fact that heterosexuals broke marriage LGBT people get blamed, that is unjust.

Yes, it is a crying shame what SOCIETY has done to marriage.

But what has homosexuality done for society?

 

[clintonm]

That does not however justify how badly they’ve screwed up society in the recent past and does not justify them scapegoating LGBT people.

Heterosexuals made it so abortions are common.
Heterosexuals made it so children were no longer the central point of marriage.
Heterosexuals made it so that love became the central point of marriage.
Heterosexuals made it so that children were no longer even deemed relevant to marriage.
Heterosexuals made it so that marriage is no longer considered indissoluble.

As a result of what heterosexuals have turned marriage into it is no longer rational to deny same sex marriage because so what if they can’t beget offspring, marriage is no longer about that, it is about love.

Despite the fact that heterosexuals broke marriage LGBT people get blamed, that is unjust.

So your justification to a broken system is to break it further?

 

[SMGS127]

So your justification to a broken system is to break it further?

Joie’s point is that SSM does not break society further at all. Society is already so broken that it’s already well past the point where SSM lies. SSM is completely, 100% rational based on the American view of marriage, which is why it’s being legalized throughout the United States. But because there wasn’t a big pushback against heterosexual destruction of marriage, we ended up with marriage meaning something willy-nilly-silly that is completely worthless in American society from a Catholic standpoint now. Now that gays are like “hey…we could do a better job than they can at marriage,” and are essentially right, heterosexuals are scapegoating gay people as the ones who are truly “destroying” marriage when, in fact, heterosexuals did exactly that for the last 50 years and gay people had no part in it.

There is a reason gay people feel [justifiably] discriminated against in our current marriage system. Our current marriage system is so foreign to the Catholic idea of marriage I’m surprised the Church hasn’t barred us from entering into it.

 

[clintonm]

If somebody is able to recognize that it is broken they should push to fix it, not what it with a hammer.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Joie’s point is that SSM does not break society further at all. Society is already so broken that it’s already well past the point where SSM lies. SSM is completely, 100% rational based on the American view of marriage, which is why it’s being legalized throughout the United States. But because there wasn’t a big pushback against heterosexual destruction of marriage, we ended up with marriage meaning something willy-nilly-silly that is completely worthless in American society from a Catholic standpoint now. Now that gays are like “hey…we could do a better job than they can at marriage,” and are essentially right, heterosexuals are scapegoating gay people as the ones who are truly “destroying” marriage when, in fact, heterosexuals did exactly that for the last 50 years and gay people had no part in it.

There is a reason gay people feel [justifiably] discriminated against in our current marriage system. Our current marriage system is so foreign to the Catholic idea of marriage I’m surprised the Church hasn’t barred us from entering into it.

Speaking of scapegoating, there seems to be quite a bit of it going on in your post.

Before you fly off the handle, let me explain.

While it may be true that SOME heterosexuals are opposed to gay marriage, it may not be true to say those SAME heterosexuals are the ones that didn’t “push back” when marriage was gradually being dismantled.

It is not as if “heterosexuals” are a homologous group that think the same, act the same and respond identically to every “common” enemy. In fact, the “heterosexuals” who did not “push back” against the erosion of marriage may be the same “heterosexuals” who accept that marriage is a right to be extended to whoever for whatever reason.

On the other hand, there may have always been a cohort of "heterosexuals, perhaps a minority then as now, who did push back but were drowned out by the larger more vocal group of “heterosexuals” who never did share the more orthodox view of conjugal marriage. Perhaps you should be blaming today’s advocates of SSM for advocating the dissolution of marriage then. Perhaps “they” are the same group of heterosexuals to whom you (and Joie) should be addressing your rants.

Furthermore, you can’t blame one generation for another generation’s actions, so you can’t say that all “heterosexuals” alive today should be responsible for the apathy of some/many heterosexuals from several generations past when the “pushback” should have occurred.

What it does show, however, is that immoral behaviour and a decrease of - for lack of a better word - “moral fibre” can occur, if every generation is not vigilant, almost imperceptibly in time. The frog in the pot analogy may be quite fitting here.

One day we’ll all wake up and wonder how things could have gotten so bad and try to blame someone else from the past for “letting things slip by” when they should have been on better guard. So what are we letting “slip by” today that will become the issue that we’ll all be hammered on by some future Joie?

Perhaps those who are trying to stop bestiality, selective euthanasia, forced sterilization, or some other social ill, will harp back on those who accepted “same sex marriage” as the turning point issue that could have won the battle. It just seems silly to claim, “Let’s allow things to get determinably worse because someone should have done something in the past but didn’t, so ‘they’ should be blamed and NOT those who are determined to make things move even more in the same direction - because ‘these’ people are innocents in the whole affair.” At best that would be an abdication of responsibility, at worse it simply is rationalizing a propensity to engage in or approve of precisely the behaviour being decried.

 

[WilT]

There is nothing stronger than scriptures or teachings of the church. They are the word of God.
God also made people lazy, or faithless, or prone to addiction, or particularly violent, or any number of personality flaws that lead to sin. But there is nothing you can be born with that gives you a free pass to sin. We ALL must pick up our cross.
God expects us to try. He also knows what a struggle it is and has compassion; remember the saying “God will never tempt you more than you can handle”. We all have different levels of strength in faith, and we are given the burden to lift accordingly. If you have been given a particularly heavy burden, you will be gifted with the strength you need to carry it.
I say all this speaking as someone who has also has same sex attractions… I know what it means to care so deeply for someone you cannot pursue intimacy with. But they are all merely the struggles of the earthly life, and I know that God will always grant the strength it takes for me to push on and keep following His will.

couldn’t have said it better myself. And thank you for your frankness

 

[WilT]

To be born with a predisposition towards same-sex attraction is a possibility I do not deny, but the church teaches that having such a disposition is indeed a cross to bear and people who have same-sex attraction should be treated with compassion, love, and understanding.

However, to act on the same-sex attraction, is indeed contrary to God Will and it is a sin. Divine Revelation reveals this truth to us, and this is what the church holds as Truth and will always hold it to be the truth.

“Love is to desire and will in a consitent manner the highest and best thing for the sake of the beloved.”

John Paul II
(that is the quote as best I remember it, citation would be need)

 

[WilT]

What shows we are ordered exclusively towards heterosexuality is our objective human nature, centrally, our bodies. If you want a verse you need look no further than Genesis: In his own image, created he man, male and female he created them. He then brings them together and orders them to be fruitfuil and multiply. Exactly what about homosexual affairs is either 1) objectively complementary, male and female or 2) fruitfuil or ordered towards fruitfulness?

Our natures are an objective reality beyond our subjective feelings and desires. Our bodies reveal we are heterosexual by nature. It is why homosexual feelings are disordered. They contradict that clear fact of our nature objectively discernible to any reasonable person.

These feelings they are part of the weakness of the flesh that is caused by original sin. We all, all of us, have these disordered feelings. we call then the flesh. What you have to understand is that humans are not a perfectly “healthy” creature. Since original sin, we are all ailing in one form or another. The worst thing about propagandists of this gay agenda (Yes there is an agenda to force everyone to say homosexuality is not disordered! we are not living in a cave this is a clear fact for everyone who has access to media), the worst thing is that they operate under this false assumption that anything you do not deliberately will (like feelings) is God-designed. .

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Yes, it is a crying shame what SOCIETY has done to marriage.

But what has homosexuality done for society?

Other than contributions to the arts homosexuality has done little for society either positive or negative.

So your justification to a broken system is to break it further?

The system is broken enough that doesn’t break it further; it does not change the principles.

Speaking of scapegoating, there seems to be quite a bit of it going on in your post.

Before you fly off the handle, let me explain.

While it may be true that SOME heterosexuals are opposed to gay marriage, it may not be true to say those SAME heterosexuals are the ones that didn’t “push back” when marriage was gradually being dismantled.

It is not as if “heterosexuals” are a homologous group that think the same, act the same and respond identically to every “common” enemy. In fact, the “heterosexuals” who did not “push back” against the erosion of marriage may be the same “heterosexuals” who accept that marriage is a right to be extended to whoever for whatever reason.

Actually some of the people opposing SSM were supporting the destruction of marriage like those who supported no fault divorces.

On the other hand, there may have always been a cohort of "heterosexuals, perhaps a minority then as now, who did push back but were drowned out by the larger more vocal group of “heterosexuals” who never did share the more orthodox view of conjugal marriage. Perhaps you should be blaming today’s advocates of SSM for advocating the dissolution of marriage then. Perhaps “they” are the same group of heterosexuals to whom you (and Joie) should be addressing your rants.

I never said all heterosexuals were like that, I said the group was like that.

Furthermore, you can’t blame one generation for another generation’s actions, so you can’t say that all “heterosexuals” alive today should be responsible for the apathy of some/many heterosexuals from several generations past when the “pushback” should have occurred.

What it does show, however, is that immoral behaviour and a decrease of - for lack of a better word - “moral fibre” can occur, if every generation is not vigilant, almost imperceptibly in time. The frog in the pot analogy may be quite fitting here.

If heterosexuals want to make a rational argument against SSM they must work to restore the institution of marriage not merely protest SSM.

One day we’ll all wake up and wonder how things could have gotten so bad and try to blame someone else from the past for “letting things slip by” when they should have been on better guard. So what are we letting “slip by” today that will become the issue that we’ll all be hammered on by some future Joie?

Perhaps those who are trying to stop bestiality, selective euthanasia, forced sterilization, or some other social ill, will harp back on those who accepted “same sex marriage” as the turning point issue that could have won the battle. It just seems silly to claim, “Let’s allow things to get determinably worse because someone should have done something in the past but didn’t, so ‘they’ should be blamed and NOT those who are determined to make things move even more in the same direction - because ‘these’ people are innocents in the whole affair.” At best that would be an abdication of responsibility, at worse it simply is rationalizing a propensity to engage in or approve of precisely the behaviour being decried.

There’s no logical way to get to bestiality, euthanasia, forced sterilization, etc. from approving SSM, on the other hand it is extremely easy to get to SSM from making marriage be about love and making children seen as extras.

My point is actually that if y’all are going to make a stand, make a stand and fight back instead of doing it in such a way that not only are you ineffective, but make us look like bigots too.

 

[Setimet]

Fertility is not required.

**procreative ** pro·cre·a·tive (prō’krē-ā’tĭv)
*adj. *

1. 
   *] Capable of reproducing; generative.
   *] Of or directed to procreation.
   
   The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary

1. 
   This makes so much more sense to me! Thanks for the post!

 

[Setimet]

It is not especially rude; it is even a modern legal term, referring to anal or oral sexual acts between persons of the same sex. It simply easier to type “sodomy” than “sexual acts between persons of the same sex.”

I was simply trying to point out that to call someone a sodomite and reducing their relationship to a sexual act is offensive and I might add not particularly endearing.

It would be like called me a “spic” and saying “but it’s just short for Hispanic.” I’m not sure if I explained that well, but my point is, you’re not really going to win souls with the truth by insulting them. ???

…and so I continue my quest.

 

[Setimet]

Joie’s point is that SSM does not break society further at all. Society is already so broken that it’s already well past the point where SSM lies. SSM is completely, 100% rational based on the American view of marriage, which is why it’s being legalized throughout the United States. But because there wasn’t a big pushback against heterosexual destruction of marriage, we ended up with marriage meaning something willy-nilly-silly that is completely worthless in American society from a Catholic standpoint now. Now that gays are like “hey…we could do a better job than they can at marriage,” and are essentially right, heterosexuals are scapegoating gay people as the ones who are truly “destroying” marriage when, in fact, heterosexuals did exactly that for the last 50 years and gay people had no part in it.

There is a reason gay people feel [justifiably] discriminated against in our current marriage system. Our current marriage system is so foreign to the Catholic idea of marriage I’m surprised the Church hasn’t barred us from entering into it.

I thought this whole post was incredibly true. Admittedly a year ago I would’ve been like “this is preposterous! blah blah blah”…but no, it makes alot of sense, and me reevaluate the perspective from which one views things.

Other than contributions to the arts homosexuality has done little for society either positive or negative.

I loled at that–it maybe alarmingly true. Great posts.

 

[Setimet]

The things I noticed then are played out in the statistics on lesbianism and various behaviors. Those who identify as lesbians are more likely to use drugs, experience mental illness, be promiscuous, and – by a startling discrepancy – more likely to commit suicide than other girls.

Do I know why? No, I don’t. I imagine that social ostracization plays some role, but I’m not sure how much. I’m quite sure that parental rejection plays a huge role – there are studies about this. But I’m not sure it’s the sole cause. If the Catholic Church were correct, this would predict that various other sins would be associated with sins like lesbian activity. So unless science can show that sin ISN’T the cause, or unless suicide rates and the like go down with social acceptance, the theory that the sinfulness of the activity explains these statistics is a live option.

First, thank you for being so generous and courageous as to share your personal experience in this forum! Part of my recent absence from the posts has been on research and seeking out insights that it spurred.

On that note, I did find some interesting information which admittedly I haven’t been able to thoroughly read through the methodology of those studies. The APA does how show that suicide rates do go down and that out lesbians who have to support systems have the same levels of mental health as do straight women.

Moreover, lesbians have been shown to be less promiscuous than straight women. (First lesbian joke a lesbian ever told me, “What does a lesbian bring to the first date? A u-haul.”) The same for drug use.

On that note, I do feel like those statistics have played out in the lesbian and gay men I have met. They tend to be older, mid 20’s to early 30’s. And some put a lot on the line to be in relationships ESPECIALLY depending on what industry they are in and their family. I have met some people for whom to bring up that “homosexuality” is an issue–it’s like they totally forgot because of the environment they are in. (Liberal parents, in the arts, living up North.)

Finally, even if I review all of the studies I’ve found turn out to be completely contrived–which I doubt do to sheer volume alone–that say that lesbians are do not suffer from higher rates of mental illness, drug abuse, and promiscuity, correlation does not show causation

Then again, could be a symptom of illness, not the illness itself. BUT I could also say that HETEROSEXUALS are the reason for unwanted and unplanned pregnancies, even infanticide in regions of the world where they prefer boys to girls. They’ve made so many orphans homosexuals are struggling to clean up their mess and give these children good homes. I know it seems “silly” to say those things–but I’m trying to point out correlation does not mean causation. Because after all, a homosexual could never “naturally” be the cause of the those evils.

And that being said, I hope I didn’t come off as a big jerk with that statement.

I hope you recognize that I’m struggling with you, and I’m not trying to give easy answers. But I don’t see sex as a good thing for you and your friend, however much I trust you have a wonderful relationship.

Peace,
Prodigal

Because seriously thank you for your post, I’m going to keep working on looking at the issues it brought up.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I was simply trying to point out that to call someone a sodomite and reducing their relationship to a sexual act is offensive and I might add not particularly endearing.

It would be like called me a “spic” and saying “but it’s just short for Hispanic.” I’m not sure if I explained that well, but my point is, you’re not really going to win souls with the truth by insulting them. ???

…and so I continue my quest.

The other issue is that his explanation is inaccurate. given that more people who engage in sodomy are heterosexual than homosexual. It’s like using the word “thief” as a synonym for black people.