Homosexuality is illogical?

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Flying Bison, I think you raise some interesting questions in your original point. As someone who is homosexual, perhaps I can be helpful with discussing the various points and counter-points you mentioned, and I’d like to address them.

But first, I would like to talk about language–much of what comes across as intolerance from the Roman side of the argument has much to do with a confusion over terms. Gay, homosexual, homosexuality, homosexual activity, SSA…each term seems to shift meaning depending on the discussion and who is using it.

For instance, I understand that “Gay”, in a Roman context, has a nuance of “a person actively and or politically committed to the practice and/or promotion of homosexual activity.” Therefore, it’s a very politically charged word and used with a certain amount of distaste. To most other people, however, the term simply refers to a homosexual person.

SSA seems to be a proprietary term used by Romans to denote a homosexual–but the term connotes a sense of pity for the homosexual who is understood to struggle against his or her homosexual inclinations in order to avoid homosexual activity. Because it assumes a certain attitude or mindset, however, it is no less political than “gay” is understood to be.

Homosexual is a more clinical term. I (and many others) understand it to mean someone who has predominantly homosexual erotic desire. Acting or not acting on that desire does not enter into picture. However, I have seen the term used on these forums as a mere replacement for the word “gay” without any subsequent change of the associations most Romans on these forums seem to have with the word “gay”. Which is very confusing.

A similar situation pertains to the word “homosexuality” which I and others believe refers to the condition of homosexual erotic desire. But here on the forums, it just as often describes the culture which has arisen around and celebrates homosexual activity and behaviors which are looked down upon.

My point in mentioning all of this is to say that it can be confusing to hear something like this (which is not a direct quote but which often captures the spirit of the dialogue):

“Homosexuality is sinful, but the person who suffers from Same Sex Attraction is not. Gays need to repent. Homosexuals are doing something that will destroy them and lead them to hell. It is wicked and vile.”

The Roman seems to understand the above as saying this:
“Homosexual activity and the culture which promotes and/or celebrates it is sinful, but those who simply have homosexual inclinations but do not act upon them are not sinful. Those who do act upon those inclinations are doing something wicked and vile.”
All very simple and straightforward!

However, many homosexual people hear the above as:
“Being a homosexual is sinful, but being a homosexual is not sinful. Being a homosexual means you need to repent for being a homosexual. Homosexuals are all damned.”
This doesn’t even go into a discussion of how words like “disordered” or “unnatural” are received. But I think this is why so many homosexual people are confused or turned off by the Roman church’s rhetoric around the issue.

I’ll try to address your various arguments and counter arguments later.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Sheeniac]

“Homosexuality is sinful, but the person who suffers from Same Sex Attraction is not. Gays need to repent. Homosexuals are doing something that will destroy them and lead them to hell. It is wicked and vile.”

The Roman seems to understand the above as saying this:
“Homosexual activity and the culture which promotes and/or celebrates it is sinful, but those who simply have homosexual inclinations but do not act upon them are not sinful. Those who do act upon those inclinations are doing something wicked and vile.”
All very simple and straightforward!

However, many homosexual people hear the above as:
“Being a homosexual is sinful, but being a homosexual is not sinful. Being a homosexual means you need to repent for being a homosexual. Homosexuals are all damned.”
This doesn’t even go into a discussion of how words like “disordered” or “unnatural” are received. But I think this is why so many homosexual people are confused or turned off by the Roman church’s rhetoric around the issue.

Mark,

Very interesting perspectives. I had just copied this quote of CS Lewis yesterday, and feel that we can both appreciate it:

“When . . . you have killed a word you have also, as far as in you lay, blotted from the human mind the thing that word originally stood for. Men do not long continue to think what they have forgotten how to say.”

I think that the nuances you’ve described above are not nearly as universal as implied, for good or bad. But agreeing on trying to use words to mean the same thing in a discussion if the first step in understanding each other. Your final version of what a homosexual hears is quite interesting, and IMO goes a long way to help me understand why the debate gets so heated.

Anyway - I would like to take issue with one point. Sin is wicked and vile, I agree. Yet to an Catholic like myself, that sounds…almost ‘fundamentalist’. We all sin. We are ALL in danger of going to hell.

Repent? Yes, we do that. We use the sacrament of Reconciliation to help us repent. But we know that this is a process, and will continue most of our lives. The use of the word repent brings to mind the Once Saved, Always Saved. So here again, one’s use of language has definite connotative implications!

Admonishing the sinner is something we do out of love and concern. (Spiritual Work of Mercy) And I am sure we don’t all do it well.

 

[truagape]

While it is possible that God made some people with a predisposed attraction to the same sex, it doesn’t follow that he made them to commit sexual sin.

As oppose to hetrosexuals who have the option to marry those to whom they’re attracted to right?.
Your statement proves that you just don’t get it! Did God make you straight and then tell you not to act on it even within the confines of a monogamous marriage? Of course not! The desire for companionship and love is such a fundamental human trait, that to deny anyone that is cruel, un Christian , and un Godly. Hence, nowhere in scripture is celebacy or singleness mandated. And yet, with your above quote, you do just that, all without the penalty of having to experience it yourself. How nice that must be!
I don’t think you realize this, but I’m just like you. I love just as much as you. I can feel just as capably as you can. And I too can hurt just as much as you, if not more. Would you be willing to treat yourself with the same restrictions you ask me to abide by? Are you willing to be single for life, unless you can somehow become gay? Are you willing to “bear the cross” of being attracted to women, only to know that to have one as your cherished wife is a sin? That’s the same position you put people such as myself in. And the more compassionate you may try to be in communicating this, the more hate reveals itself in an inflected form. And I don’t think you realize just how much it hurts.
For someone who wasn’t discouraged to the point of disowning God, I can tell you that Him and His word is the only saving grace I know I can depend on. He understands it all: my pain, my hurt, and me whom he created. I know that he will not continue to allow ignorance to flourish at the expense of having his children cry out to him in despair. Hence, the very last word you use “sin” brings to mind many unbiblical conclusions when this word is applied to someone with SSA. There is no question that the topic of homosexuality and scripture deserves attention. You may not be in a position to think so. But if the tables were turned, I know, without a doubt, you suddenly would.

 

[rlg94086]

As oppose to hetrosexuals who have the option to marry those to whom they’re attracted to right?.

Your statement proves that you just don’t get it! Did God make you straight and then tell you not to act on it even within the confines of a monogamous marriage? Of course not! The desire for companionship and love is such a fundamental human trait, that to deny anyone that is cruel, un Christian , and un Godly. Hence, nowhere in scripture is celebacy or singleness mandated. And yet, with your above quote, you do just that, all without the penalty of having to experience it yourself. How nice that must be!

I don’t think you realize this, but I’m just like you. I love just as much as you. I can feel just as capably as you can. And I too can hurt just as much as you, if not more. Would you be willing to treat yourself with the same restrictions you ask me to abide by? Are you willing to be single for life, unless you can somehow become gay? Are you willing to “bear the cross” of being attracted to women, only to know that to have one as your cherished wife is a sin? That’s the same position you put people such as myself in. And the more compassionate you may try to be in communicating this, the more hate reveals itself in an inflected form. And I don’t think you realize just how much it hurts.

For someone who wasn’t discouraged to the point of disowning God, I can tell you that Him and His word is the only saving grace I know I can depend on. He understands it all: my pain, my hurt, and me whom he created. I know that he will not continue to allow ignorance to flourish at the expense of having his children cry out to him in despair. Hence, the very last word you use “sin” brings to mind many unbiblical conclusions when this word is applied to someone with SSA. There is no question that the topic of homosexuality and scripture deserves attention. You may not be in a position to think so. But if the tables were turned, I know, without a doubt, you suddenly would.

I honestly don’t know what I would do if I had desire for those of the same sex, but I know of other Catholics on CAF who do have desire for the same sex and live a chaste life as taught by the Church. I’ve sacrificed other strong desires, in order to be as faithful a Catholic as I can. I fall short of the mark, but I do my best.

It is incredibly uncharitable of you to accuse me of being “cruel, ungodly, and unchristian” for following the teachings of the Catholic Church. You also described me, and other Catholics who follow Church teaching as “hateful.” I’m sorry, but you are just plain wrong. You really, really should change your name from “truagape” if you are going to spew such hatred toward fellow Christians. It is sad.

 

[rlg94086]

But first, I would like to talk about language–much of what comes across as intolerance from the Roman side of the argument has much to do with a confusion over terms. Gay, homosexual, homosexuality, homosexual activity, SSA…each term seems to shift meaning depending on the discussion and who is using it.

For instance, I understand that “Gay”, in a Roman context, has a nuance of “a person actively and or politically committed to the practice and/or promotion of homosexual activity.” Therefore, it’s a very politically charged word and used with a certain amount of distaste. To most other people, however, the term simply refers to a homosexual person.

SSA seems to be a proprietary term used by Romans to denote a homosexual–but the term connotes a sense of pity for the homosexual who is understood to struggle against his or her homosexual inclinations in order to avoid homosexual activity. Because it assumes a certain attitude or mindset, however, it is no less political than “gay” is understood to be.

Homosexual is a more clinical term. I (and many others) understand it to mean someone who has predominantly homosexual erotic desire. Acting or not acting on that desire does not enter into picture. However, I have seen the term used on these forums as a mere replacement for the word “gay” without any subsequent change of the associations most Romans on these forums seem to have with the word “gay”. Which is very confusing.

A similar situation pertains to the word “homosexuality” which I and others believe refers to the condition of homosexual erotic desire. But here on the forums, it just as often describes the culture which has arisen around and celebrates homosexual activity and behaviors which are looked down upon.

Hi Mark,

You are correct, that the terms get in the way sometimes. The catechism uses the word homosexuality, so it seems reasonable for Catholics to use the same term.

CCC:

Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Some use “SSA” because they believe that using the term “homosexual person” assigns homosexuality as part of their nature (i.e. like male or female), and they use the term to denote a fellow human being (equal) who is attracted to the same sex. I used to use this term exclusively, but now I use it interchangably with “homosexual.”

“Gay” is a more difficult term. It is a secular, non-scientific term developed by the active “gay community.” Some use it interchangably with homosexual, but many others consider the word gay to denote an active homosexual who does not believe in living a chaste life. I use it sometimes, but I think for clarity’s sake maybe it is better to use the term “active homosexual.”

It is important to note that the Church does not teach that homosexual acts are any worse a sin than other sexual sin (masturbation, adultery, fornication, impure acts by heterosexuals). What I have been trying to explain regarding my own outlook is that I call sin a sin when engaged in a conversation. Even if I personally struggle with a particular sin, if brought up I will acknowledge that it is a sin, and we are required to confess and repent.

Also, one small note, not all Catholics agree that a chaste homosexual is not in a state of sin. A very small minority have argued on this forum that homosexuality itself is a sin. I don’t agree with them, as that is not how I read the Catechism or the Bible.

 

[truagape]

I honestly don’t know what I would do if I had desire for those of the same sex, but I know of other Catholics on CAF who do have desire for the same sex and live a chaste life as taught by the Church. I’ve sacrificed other strong desires, in order to be as faithful a Catholic as I can. I fall short of the mark, but I do my best.

It is incredibly uncharitable of you to accuse me of being “cruel, ungodly, and unchristian” for following the teachings of the Catholic Church. You also described me, and other Catholics who follow Church teaching as “hateful.” I’m sorry, but you are just plain wrong. You really, really should change your name from “truagape” if you are going to spew such hatred toward fellow Christians. It is sad.

I’m not denying the fact that there are those whom you say you’ve met that comply with church teaching. There are also those who don’t. In any case, scripture dosen’t condemn either, but the church does. That’s a problem. The bottom line in each, however, is the quest for the truth as it’s pertained in scripture. And that is where the discussion begins. When you rely on the experience and the senerio of someone else to determine the outcome of another, you discount the many elements that make each person’s situation unique. Some have chosen to take a vow of celebacy to enter the priesthood. Is that proof that others should remain celebate, just as St. Paul saw fit? Of course not! But with someone who is “gay”, the church oversteps the bounds of scripture and demands what the bible never does. Even going as far as to inject certain biblical references and stories with the false notion that homosexuality was at play.
I’m not recalling a time where I ever refered to you or anyone else as “hateful”. However, the process of turning around scripture to say something it never did is certainly not “loving”. Nor is it right, and nor is it “truth”.
There are many things the scriptures condemn in the realm of sexuality. Loving same-sex relationships are not one of them. And until we can have a detailed discussion on homosexuality and scripture, there will always be the issue of homosexuality and Church Teaching.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m not recalling a time where I ever called you or anyone else as “hateful”.

You have a short memory then, from your last post on this thread:

The desire for companionship and love is such a fundamental human trait, that to deny anyone that is cruel, un Christian , and un Godly.

That would be an indictment of all Catholics who believe Church teaching.

truagape:

And the more compassionate you may try to be in communicating this, the more hate reveals itself in an inflected form.

That would be you, implying that I, and other Catholics are hateful by mentioning to someone in charity that homosexual acts are a sin.

We can disagree on the sinfulness of homosexual acts, but there is no reason for you to describe Catholics as un-Godly or hateful. I don’t consider you unGodly and hateful for disagreeing with the Church. I just understand that we have a different understanding of Christ’s teaching.

truagape:

However, the process of turning around scripture to say something it never did is certainly not “loving”. Nor is it right, and nor is it “truth”.

There are many things the scriptures condemn in the realm of sexuality. Loving same-sex relationships are not one of them. And until we can have a detailed discussion on homosexuality and scripture, there will always be the issue of homosexuality and Church Teaching.

How is it that I can’t proclaim the “truth” as the Church teaches it, but you are allowed to proclaim the “truth” as you see it? Rather hypocritical don’t you think?

The fact that you reject Church teaching is understood. Just because you like to turn scripture around to support homosexual acts, doesn’t mean the Church is wrong. Without exception, the theologians I have read who try to justify homosexual acts as licit are themselves homosexual or have approached Scripture with a desire to show that homosexual acts are not forbidden. That is a case of eisegesis, rather than exegesis.

Jewish tradition held that homosexuality is a sin, and that is the way they understood Scripture. Christian tradition has held that homosexuality is a sin, and that is they way they understood Scripture. The only shift in understanding in the Church is that homosexual acts are a sin, but the inclination is not…it is a trial that must be overcome. This shift came because we now understand better the fact that the inclination is more than just a conscience choice.

To come along almost 2000 years later and try to distort the Bible to fit your personal preferences is not the way to understand Scripture.

 

[truagape]

You have a short memory then, from your last post on this thread:
That would be an indictment of all Catholics who believe Church teaching.

That would be you, implying that I, and other Catholics are hateful by mentioning to someone in charity that homosexual acts are a sin.

We can disagree on the sinfulness of homosexual acts, but there is no reason for you to describe Catholics as un-Godly or hateful. I don’t consider you unGodly and hateful for disagreeing with the Church. I just understand that we have a different understanding of Christ’s teaching.

How is it that I can’t proclaim the “truth” as the Church teaches it, but you are allowed to proclaim the “truth” as you see it? Rather hypocritical don’t you think?

The fact that you reject Church teaching is understood. Just because you like to turn scripture around to support homosexual acts, doesn’t mean the Church is wrong. Without exception, the theologians I have read who try to justify homosexual acts as licit are themselves homosexual or have approached Scripture with a desire to show that homosexual acts are not forbidden. That is a case of eisegesis, rather than exegesis.

Jewish tradition held that homosexuality is a sin, and that is the way they understood Scripture. Christian tradition has held that homosexuality is a sin, and that is they way they understood Scripture. The only shift in understanding in the Church is that homosexual acts are a sin, but the inclination is not…it is a trial that must be overcome. This shift came because we now understand better the fact that the inclination is more than just a conscience choice.

To come along almost 2000 years later and try to distort the Bible to fit your personal preferences is not the way to understand Scripture.

We definately need to talk about this post. But I have to get back to work right now. But when I come back (it’ll be a while), I would really like to pick up where we left off.

 

[BlaineTog]

There are many things the scriptures condemn in the realm of sexuality. Loving same-sex relationships are not one of them.

Um, this doesn’t seem to be the case: catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp.

Specifically, the article mentions Sodom (Gen 19) as well as other Bible verses referring to Sodom (Jude 7, ‘Sodom and Gomorrah “acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust”’; Ezekiel 16:50, 'Sodom committed “abominable things” which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin," though Ezekiel also refers to inhospitality).

The book of Leviticus is pretty clear, though: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them” (Lev. 18:22, 20:13). The article then argues that this is a moral, not a ceremonial, edict, and moral edicts do not very from culture to culture. It certainly wouldn’t make much sense for homosexuality to be ok in the US but not in Guatemala, for example, but wearing skimpy clothing might be less scandalous in one than in the other (I don’t know if it is, I’m just making an example).

Then, the article refers to Romans 1:

Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them” (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).’

Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).

I gotta say, Scripture is pretty clear.

 

[homeloan]

I gotta say, Scripture is pretty clear.

It’s pretty clear. Those who act on their homosexual urges are not welcome in the RC Chruch. I guess not in Heaven either. Victory is therefore declared! Its a victory of smugness! Victory for intolerance! God love the smug & intolerant! Homo’s need not apply… “Depart from me!” Psalm 6:9; Matt 25;41; Luke 13:27

 

[Exalt]

It’s pretty clear. Those who act on their homosexual urges are not welcome in the RC Chruch. I guess not in Heaven either. Victory is therefore declared! Its a victory of smugness! Victory for intolerance! God love the smug & intolerant! Homo’s need not apply… “Depart from me!” Psalm 6:9; Matt 25;41; Luke 13:27

That is exactly the message many gay people recieve from Christianity - and the Catholic Church.

 

[rlg94086]

homeloan:

It’s pretty clear. Those who act on their homosexual urges are not welcome in the RC Chruch. I guess not in Heaven either. Victory is therefore declared! Its a victory of smugness! Victory for intolerance! God love the smug & intolerant! Homo’s need not apply… “Depart from me!” Psalm 6:9; Matt 25;41; Luke 13:27

That is exactly the message many gay people recieve from Christianity - and the Catholic Church.

You are correct, that the message they should receive is that they are very welcome…
Matthew 9:

11 The Pharisees saw this and said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher 8 eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 He heard this and said, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. 9 13 Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ 10 I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.”

On the other hand, Jesus also said…
Luke 17:

He said to his disciples, "Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur. 2 It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. 3 Be on your guard! 1 If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.

…and St. Paul teaches…
Romans 6:

12 2 Therefore, sin must not reign over your mortal bodies so that you obey their desires. 13 And do not present the parts of your bodies to sin as weapons for wickedness, but present yourselves to God as raised from the dead to life and the parts of your bodies to God as weapons for righteousness. 14 For sin is not to have any power over you, since you are not under the law but under grace. 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? Of course not!

And, so we are to embrace each other (we are all sinners), but at the same time we are to “rebuke” each other when we sin and forgive each other when we “repent.” It is not done out of arrogance or smugness, rather out of love. However, being fallen humans, we don’t always do a good job of it. …and when I say “we,” it includes me, homeloan, exalt, etc.

 

[BlaineTog]

It’s pretty clear. Those who act on their homosexual urges are not welcome in the RC Chruch. I guess not in Heaven either. Victory is therefore declared! Its a victory of smugness! Victory for intolerance! God love the smug & intolerant! Homo’s need not apply… “Depart from me!” Psalm 6:9; Matt 25;41; Luke 13:27

Oh, calm down. I’m not trying to claim victory for anything but truth, and it’s nothing but wrong to claim that Scripture is mum on the question of homosexuality. I’m certainly not trying to be smug, and it wasn’t my intention to convey such with my post. As for intolerance, well that’s not true at all. The Catholic church is happy to tolerate sinners (we are all sinners, after all), but what it will not do is give acceptance to their sins. Whether homosexuality is a sin or not is the question at hand, and it’s very unfair, as well as disingenuous, of you to damn the evidence and assume you are correct. If you have any argument as to why homosexuality is ok, please give it, but also be ready to defend your argument, and I can tell you right now that you’re going to need a pretty solid one if you want to try to claim that the Bible is somehow indifferent to homosexuality, taking into account the verses which pretty much straight-up condemn it.

The arguments usually given for homosexuality are A) that it is inborn, and B) that it is cruel/unfair/evil/etc to deny someone the right to live with the one they love. Neither of these work:

A) Sin is inborn; that doesn’t make sin ok. More to the point, you can be born with a violent temper, but it doesn’t mean it’s ok to kill people when you’re angry.

B) If it is inappropriate, for whatever reason, to marry the person you are in love with, you cannot marry them, period. It doesn’t matter if they are your mother, a duck, or a 5-year-old: the fact that you love them and they love you isn’t enough to justify marriage (and, concurrently, sex). Marriage is not a right but a supernatural privilege that is appropriate for some and not for others.

As always, these need to be appended with the proviso that I am not saying homosexuality is pedophilia, nor am I saying homosexuality is murder. I am simply citing examples of things which we can all agree are wrong in which there is a relevant similarity, nothing more.

If you have another argument other than those two that not only works well but also takes Scripture and tradition into account, please, I’d be delighted to hear it. If homosexuality isn’t a sin after all, this would be a very good thing since then we could leave it alone and many people’s lives would be much easier. That said, our first interest should always be truth, so don’t take it personally if we poke holes into the argument you produce. I don’t want homosexuality to be a sin, but I also refuse to let that want effect my capacity for logic.

 

[Exalt]

Oh, calm down. I’m not trying to claim victory for anything but truth, and it’s nothing but wrong to claim that Scripture is mum on the question of homosexuality. I’m certainly not trying to be smug, and it wasn’t my intention to convey such with my post. As for intolerance, well that’s not true at all. The Catholic church is happy to tolerate sinners (we are all sinners, after all), but what it will not do is give acceptance to their sins. Whether homosexuality is a sin or not is the question at hand, and it’s very unfair, as well as disingenuous, of you to damn the evidence and assume you are correct. If you have any argument as to why homosexuality is ok, please give it, but also be ready to defend your argument, and I can tell you right now that you’re going to need a pretty solid one if you want to try to claim that the Bible is somehow indifferent to homosexuality, taking into account the verses which pretty much straight-up condemn it.

The arguments usually given for homosexuality are A) that it is inborn, and B) that it is cruel/unfair/evil/etc to deny someone the right to live with the one they love. Neither of these work:

The first one doesn’t work, I agree, but the second, does. And here’s why:

There’s a point you havn’t considered, and that is the fact that homosexuality (in of itself) poses no more risk of harm than one should expect in the normal day-to-day life of a couple. Rampant promiscuity among heterosexuals is just as likely to involve problems as rampant promiscuity among homosexuals. The emotions involved in both are similiar - including depression following a breakup, or positive feelings of kinship and love, or the desire to have sexual relations - or whatever.

And then there’s a fourth argument. Romantic relationships, long term unions, partnerships, marriage - whatever you want to call that sort of love between two people - makes gay people happy. I know a number of gay people my age. Most of them are single and have been single for a while. Two have been in a relationship for years and are very happy. Another has been in a three year relationship, followed by a 6 or 7 month period of being single, and now has been in a relationship for a few months. She seems happy - not about the breakup, of course - but is happy living this sort of life. So for many gay people, living as gay people - out of the closet, looking for relationships - make them happy. It brings joy to their lives.

So if a lifestyle poses no great risk of harm to anyone and it makes them happy, is it moral or not? I can’t really think of a situation where something fits those two criteria and *isn’t *okay.

The *real *reason you guys don’t like homosexuality is two fold. It is condemned by scripture and you feel it is unnatural. Regarding the first - having read the Bible and taken a great number of classes on it - I can tell you that the Bible is filled with all sorts of laws and disturbing details. I can’t tell you how you should interpret it, but I could very well argue a number of things that would be supported indeed by scripture - both the old and new testament.

Regarding the whole unnatural business - “Natural” is a word used in a variety of contexts, and means a huge number of things. Go look it up in the dictionary and see for yourself. We have a name for words like that - polyvalent. It means “multifaceted”. When people talk about homosexuality as being “unnatural” - they used to think of it in a huge number of ways. Not just the philosophical, Augustinian way, but in the idea that it is an abberation of the world of nature (i.e., animals) and that it “grosses people out” (they *feel *intuitively that it is unnatural, as is argued on this very website). Of course, research has found a positive role for homosexual behavior in animals (i.e., bottlenose dolphins) - so that’s discounted one version of the term “unnatural” in popular opinion. And, as we all have taken note, homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted in societies across the world. People are beginning to feel, more and more, that it doesn’t gross them out.

So the only leg the accusation of “unnatural” has to stand on is the Augustinian, philosophical version. I admit that I have a great deal of trouble understanding it. I know it has something to do with the meaning of body parts and other aspects of the world, but I really don’t know. I read the literature on it and it just doesn’t make sense. I think there are many who feel this way too - and because of that, the last leg of “unnatural” will fall away from public consciousness. Only theologians will talk about it, and it will become even more unpursuasive than it already is.

(Frequently I have found that Catholics will claim they think homosexual is unnatural because of the theological understand of “natural” - but when I press them on the issue, I find that they are just as incapable of coming up with an explaination as I am. And I suspect that they really “feel” homosexual is unnatural, and use the theological defination of the word as a cover, without really understanding it.)

 

[buffalo]

That is exactly the message many gay people recieve from Christianity - and the Catholic Church.

The message is - the Catholic Church will not accept nor embrace the lifestyle or behavior. It is not unique to “gays”. The Church does not accept or embrace other behaviors either.

 

[rlg94086]

Regarding the whole unnatural business - “Natural” is a word used in a variety of contexts, and means a huge number of things. Go look it up in the dictionary and see for yourself. We have a name for words like that - polyvalent. It means “multifaceted”. When people talk about homosexuality as being “unnatural” - they used to think of it in a huge number of ways. Not just the philosophical, Augustinian way, but in the idea that it is an abberation of the world of nature (i.e., animals) and that it “grosses people out” (they *feel *intuitively that it is unnatural, as is argued on this very website). Of course, research has found a positive role for homosexual behavior in animals (i.e., bottlenose dolphins) - so that’s discounted one version of the term “unnatural” in popular opinion. And, as we all have taken note, homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted in societies across the world. People are beginning to feel, more and more, that it doesn’t gross them out.

So the only leg the accusation of “unnatural” has to stand on is the Augustinian, philosophical version. I admit that I have a great deal of trouble understanding it. I know it has something to do with the meaning of body parts and other aspects of the world, but I really don’t know. I read the literature on it and it just doesn’t make sense. I think there are many who feel this way too - and because of that, the last leg of “unnatural” will fall away from public consciousness. Only theologians will talk about it, and it will become even more unpursuasive than it already is.

(Frequently I have found that Catholics will claim they think homosexual is unnatural because of the theological understand of “natural” - but when I press them on the issue, I find that they are just as incapable of coming up with an explaination as I am. And I suspect that they really “feel” homosexual is unnatural, and use the theological defination of the word as a cover, without really understanding it.)

I understand your argument regarding “natural;” however, it seems to ignore basic logic and biology. If an alien scientist (assuming they exist ) were to study the biological functions of the human organs, it would be pretty obvious that homosexual acts are contrary to the purpose of these organs. Now, some of those acts can have one of the same end-results (orgasm), but biologically, it makes sense that the purpose of orgasm is also for procreation. This is why the Church’s argument, based on Natural Law, is that homosexual acts are disordered - they are contrary to the natural purpose of sexual organs.

Anomalies in the animal world do not prove that something is normal or natural. It could very well be that there is something wrong with those animals exhibiting such behavior. Not all animal activity is normal or “natural.” Otherwise, we could say that everything is natural because someone or some creature has done it.

You can use your tongue to lick an oil slick, but I wouldn’t say that is natural or normal. I could give other examples of improper uses of organs, but I wouldn’t want to get too graphic.

 

[East_and_West]

I understand your argument regarding “natural;” however, it seems to ignore basic logic and biology. If an alien scientist (assuming they exist ) were to study the biological functions of the human organs, it would be pretty obvious that homosexual acts are contrary to the purpose of these organs. Now, some of those acts can have one of the same end-results (orgasm), but biologically, it makes sense that the purpose of orgasm is also for procreation. This is why the Church’s argument, based on Natural Law, is that homosexual acts are disordered - they are contrary to the natural purpose of sexual organs.

Anomalies in the animal world do not prove that something is normal or natural. It could very well be that there is something wrong with those animals exhibiting such behavior. Not all animal activity is normal or “natural.” Otherwise, we could say that everything is natural because someone or some creature has done it.

You can use your tongue to lick an oil slick, but I wouldn’t say that is natural or normal. I could give other examples of improper uses of organs, but I wouldn’t want to get too graphic.

I absolutely agree. And, there are other problems with the use of animals to argue against the Catholic application of natural law. First, it reduces what Catholics mean by “nature” to nothing more than the law of the jungle. By natural, we certainly do not mean that which occurs in the animal kingdom. Rather, we mean what is proper to a being. Homosexuality is clearly not proper to the human person because it runs contrary to the purpose of the sexual organs, which any reasonable person can deduce. Thus by using the term “nature” equivocally, we run into error.
Second, when we apply animal behavior to humans, we run into further moral problems. The person who does this often argues that since animals engage in what appears be to homosexual activity, it is proper to the human preson as well. However, animals expel waste and copulate in our front yards. Should we do the same? Animals kill eachother over what appears to be wrath? Is it proper to engage in such behavior? No! We all know that humans should not behave in such a way. Thus, we see that applying animal behavior to our study of ethics is silly, if not dangerous.
Animals and humans are fundamentally different in that we have an intellect and a will and, in merit of these qualitites, we can reason, create, and worship.

 

[pathia]

Now, some of those acts can have one of the same end-results (orgasm), but biologically, it makes sense that the purpose of orgasm is also for procreation. This is why the Church’s argument, based on Natural Law, is that homosexual acts are disordered - they are contrary to the natural purpose of sexual organs.

I was given sexual organs internally and externally that semi-function in the physical sense as a little of this, and a little of that (I don’t want to get too graphic). Am I natural? I was born this way, God made me this way. With certain reproduction techniques I can even have children, however my organs certainly don’t work like most other people’s, but they are still there and they work as God intended as far as I can tell.

Why give me something that works, and then I have everyone tell me that I have to be utterly chaste forever because it just MIGHT be a ‘little too close to being gay’ because I am ambiguous? I am told that the situations do not compare, yet the ‘solution’ is exactly the same for me as for them, absolute chastity, lack of love, utterly. My family has little to do with me, I had to move across the entire country because they were causing trauma in my life. My fiance is the only person in the world I have, and the church would rip us apart if it had its way. I just don’t think it’s fair for me, and I certainly don’t think it is fair for anyone else.

 

[Dale_M]

The *real *reason you guys don’t like homosexuality is two fold. It is condemned by scripture and you feel it is unnatural. Regarding the first - having read the Bible and taken a great number of classes on it - I can tell you that the Bible is filled with all sorts of laws and disturbing details. I can’t tell you how you should interpret it, but I could very well argue a number of things that would be supported indeed by scripture - both the old and new testament.

Indeed, there is much in the Bible which we either ignore or treat in a symbolic way. But I think the Christian objection (certainly the Catholic objection) to homosexuality is based, not just on Scripture, but on tradition - it is tradition which tells us what in the Bible is important, what is literal, and what is not.

 

[Dale_M]

Why give me something that works, and then I have everyone tell me that I have to be utterly chaste forever because it just MIGHT be a ‘little too close to being gay’ because I am ambiguous? I am told that the situations do not compare, yet the ‘solution’ is exactly the same for me as for them, absolute chastity, lack of love, utterly. My family has little to do with me, I had to move across the entire country because they were causing trauma in my life. My fiance is the only person in the world I have, and the church would rip us apart if it had its way. I just don’t think it’s fair for me, and I certainly don’t think it is fair for anyone else.

Pathia, I think our scientific understanding of intersexuality is limited and the Church is ill-advised to make sweeping and inflexible pronouncements on this matter. I am sorry that you have encountered such difficulties, especially with your family. I truly wish it were otherwise.