Homosexuality, Logic, and the Bible.

  • Thread starter Thread starter East_and_West
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

East_and_West

Guest
Ok let’s do this. I am a person who struggles with SSA and I have chosen to remove myself from the homosexual community because I believe that homosexual actions (i.e. sex and relationships) are disordered, not in line with reason or the scriptures, contrary to evolution, and down right unhealthy. So, those who believe contrary to what I believe, I would love to see you build a rational case. I have yet to see a rational arguement provided in favor of homosexuality.
 
“contrary to evolution”? I’m not sure that statement makes sense. ARe you saying that the existence of homosexuals helps disprove the theory of evolution?

Reason would lead me to conclude that, absent scriptual prohibition, there is nothing inherently evil or wrong about a homosexual relationship or act when it is used to celebrate the love two people have for each other.

That leaves scripture.
 
Reason would not lead you to conclude that, emotion would.

We all love many people, our grandmothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, our nieces and nephews, our dogs, yet we would not CELEBRATE our love for them by an act that defies God’s will.

CCC 2361 “Sexuality, by means which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such.”

No one is singling out people with SSA, heterosexuals are also required to follow this truth.
 
East is West. These are not accusations but some genuine questions I have:
  1. Before you came to the particular conclusion you have about homosexuality, were you Catholic? (What I’m trying to establish is whether your faith inspired your currently held viewpoints about homosexuality)
  2. What would you say to those who could easily argue that you are suffering from some form of self hate born out of the ideologies that religion promotes?
  3. What is it in particular about homosexual relations that illicits such intense feelings of repulsion inside you?
  4. Are you getting guidance from some type of a councillor (Courage)?
  5. What are the greatest obstacles that make it harder for you to not act on your same sex attractions
  6. You have implied (in previous posts) that you can trace the root of your SSA to your upbringing. Are you annoyed that the environment you were born into (which you had no control over, being just a child) has made you carry a cross you didn’t ask for?
Thanks

Ave Maria
 
Reason would not lead you to conclude that, emotion would.
No, it would be reason. People who engage in homosexual acts are no more likely to commit acts of evil than people who don’t. Your “reasonable” argument against this is that scripture and your church say it is wrong. But my original post said that “except for scripture…” So, if you remove theology from the equation, there is nothing inherently evil or wrong about a homosexual act. All evidence to the contrary is, more or less, based on scripture.
 
Of course homosexuality is contrary to logic. Sexuality is not just about pleasure but also about reproduction; it’s why humans, and animals in general, have different sexes. So, gven this logic, let’s look at human homosexuality:
  • Humans are male and female
  • Male and female reproduce
  • Male and male or female and female cannot reproduce
  • Therefore, homosexuality is contrary to logic
 
I think that the claim that it is against evolution is based on an inability of a homosexual union to pass on the genetic code.
 
I think that the claim that it is against evolution is based on an inability of a homosexual union to pass on the genetic code.
That isn’t necessarily against evolution. There may be reasons why certain people should not be passing on their genetic code and this would benefit the evolutionary process.

But even if it were against evolution, is the theory of evolution the new yardstick that we want to use to measure moral behavior?
 
Of course homosexuality is contrary to logic. Sexuality is not just about pleasure but also about reproduction; it’s why humans, and animals in general, have different sexes. So, gven this logic, let’s look at human homosexuality:
  • Humans are male and female
  • Male and female reproduce
  • Male and male or female and female cannot reproduce
  • Therefore, homosexuality is contrary to logic
No. It would be accurate to conclude that uniform homosexuality within a species is illogical. But not the individual homosexual unions.
 
No. It would be accurate to conclude that uniform homosexuality within a species is illogical. But not the individual homosexual unions.
5000 years of scholarly teaching from the Bible tells us that homosexuality is not right.:cool:
 
That isn’t necessarily against evolution. There may be reasons why certain people should not be passing on their genetic code and this would benefit the evolutionary process.

But even if it were against evolution, is the theory of evolution the new yardstick that we want to use to measure moral behavior?
Going backwards, science in generalshould not be the yardstick to measure moral behavior. That can lead to euginics and who knows what else.

Perhaps it is true that not all codes should be passed on, from a fitness standpoint. However, if that was the case, would it not make sense that disabled people should be born homosexual?

I am not a big fan of the “against the genetic desire to pass the genes” argument, as that reduces human actions to strictly biological drives.
 
5000 years of scholarly teaching from the Bible tells us that homosexuality is not right.:cool:
Again, I am not disputing the prohibitions of scripture. There were three arguments posted here in support of the belief that homosexual acts are immoral or wrong. Scriptual, logical, and evolution. I don’t see logic or reason or evolution supporting a belief that homosexual acts are wrong.
 
It is unnatural, contrary to nature and conscience and with the attitudes I see of many “Gay” persons I would conclude that it is an evil that has been thrust upon mankind.
 
Again, I am not disputing the prohibitions of scripture. There were three arguments posted here in support of the belief that homosexual acts are immoral or wrong. Scriptual, logical, and evolution. I don’t see logic or reason or evolution supporting a belief that homosexual acts are wrong.
I’ve not mentioned this here before but when I was in my late teen I had a sexual relationship with another woman. We were both the same age and sort of went into it together so it wasn’t like and older wiser lesbian seduced a young woman. This was in the mid to late 70s and the issue of homosexuality was just starting to be discussed. I have a good friend who asked me if I felt I was doing anything wrong - especially considering scripture. After much soul searching I concluded that I was not. We grew apart as years passed and I’ve never been involved in another same sex relationship but I’m not ashamed of it and am not sorry. The relationship was very supporting and caring. It was a positive thing. It wasn’t wrong.
 
Again, I am not disputing the prohibitions of scripture. There were three arguments posted here in support of the belief that homosexual acts are immoral or wrong. Scriptual, logical, and evolution. I don’t see logic or reason or evolution supporting a belief that homosexual acts are wrong.
Logic, reason, and evolution don’t prove that homosexual acts are wrong. They prove that they are illogical, unnatural, and contrary to reason, but not wrong. The natural law, however, supports that homosexual acts are wrong.
 
Logic, reason, and evolution don’t prove that homosexual acts are wrong. They prove that they are illogical, unnatural, and contrary to reason, but not wrong. The natural law, however, supports that homosexual acts are wrong.
I have no idea how you support this conclusion. There is nothing inherently reasonalbe to support a belief that the sexual act must be only through marriage and only between men and women. In fact, a resonable argument could be made that the increase from 3 to 6 billion people over the last 25 years requires us to conclude that procreation is not necessarily the best or even desired prupose of sexual intercourse.
 
I don’t think homosexuality has much to do with logic; if we are talking about homosexuality and the Bible, the title of the threat should be ‘Homosexuality, Interpretation, and the Bible’, since the condemnation of homosexuality by Christians comes down to how they interpret certain Biblical statements on the matter.

Interpretation depends on the sort of assumptions and approaches you take to the text in question. This is the case in any problem of interpreting a text, be it a legal document, a book, a poem, a philosophical argument, and the Bible.

I think prima facie, it is clear the Bible does view homosexuality as wrong. The focus appears to be on homosexual acts rather than orientation, since the writers did not face the modern situation, but rather the situation in their own time, where homosexual acts occured in connection with practices in non-Jewish religion and culture (the Greeks for example). Clearly the writers of the scriptures felt homosexuality is contrary to the divine will, at least where homosexual acts are concerned, but I think St Paul clearly things that both homosexual acts and orientation are perverse (but he connects this to the wider context of sin in general).

As to whether in itself homosexual acts are always intrinsically evil, it depends on what grounds you use to argue ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ Most secular moral philosophers seem to regard the religious condemnation of homosexuality as baffling, at least in the 20th century, but when Christianity was a major influence on philosophy, even philosophers like Kant still argued for the immorality of homosexuality, pre-marital sex and masturbation on pure natural law grounds not connected explicitly to either natural law derived from divine providence or scripture (as Aquinas did).

I think it is clear religious scriptures and traditions, in the monotheistic religions, do not approve of homosexual orientation or relationships. But whether such a position can be supported without appealing to scripture or theological traditions derived from scripture, is another question. I think given most serious arguments for God’s existence have either been demolished or thrown into very considerable doubt, we have to look elsewhere than religion and claimed revelation to answer the question.
 
I have no idea how you support this conclusion. There is nothing inherently reasonalbe to support a belief that the sexual act must be only through marriage and only between men and women. In fact, a resonable argument could be made that the increase from 3 to 6 billion people over the last 25 years requires us to conclude that procreation is not necessarily the best or even desired prupose of sexual intercourse.
Do show us that reasonable argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top