Homosexuality (Nature v Natural)

  • Thread starter Thread starter ManuelDiaz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

ManuelDiaz

Guest
I like finding arguments that go contrary to what I believe, in a sense, to know how to answer them if they come up in a conversation. I recently thought of an argument that’s used again homosexuality that could apply to kissing. The argument goes like this: homosexuality (or sodomy, however you want to call it) is immoral because it’s an act that goes against natural law because the . . . male reproductive organ was not made to be put in another man’s bottom. . . . That’s the jist of the argument and it isn’t perfectly put but the point stands. That being said couldn’t this same argument apply to kissing? Mouths by their nature weren’t made to kiss other mouths. It’s rather an entrance for food etc. Therefore it’s an immoral act. Obviously I have no problem with kissing but I’m trying to reconcile these 2 arguments because I genuinely believe the logically follow if one is being consistent. Is kissing therefore sinful?
 
Last edited:
Firstly, homosexuality and sodomy are not the same thing. Homosexuality is same sex attraction. Sodomy is the act of sodomy and can involve heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.

Hands are to pick up things, to work–why do we shake hands or hold hands?

Mouths take in food and drink. But, at least for me, it is innate for me to kiss my children and husband. I ‘hunger’ for my husband’s kiss more than food ‘naturally’.

I don’t think sodomy and kissing have anything to do with the other.
 
Fair enough of the sodomy and homosexuality difference although I would say that homosexuality describes 2 members of the same sex engaging in “sex”. That’s different than have an attraction towards the same sex.

I appreciate the response. However I don’t think you responded to the argument from a philosophical perspective that I was looking for. Obviously kissing and sodomy have nothing do with each other. I wasn’t equating them or even comparing them. My focus was on the argument about why sodomy is immoral and how that same argument could be used against kissing. Also your hand example could be used in favor of sodomy, in that some properties of our body can be used for different purposes than what they are intended for. This might seem idiotic and naive at first glance but philosophically speaking there’s more to it. I appreciate your time but It didn’t tackle my question.
 
Well, for one, God condemned sodomy but encouraged the kiss (via the epistles).

And homosexuality and homosexual activity are vastly different.
 
you’re over thinking it. Homosexual sex is an abomination.
 
It is the gig saw argument that all parts are made for purpose. Consider the feeding of babies as a woman is made to feed 2 at a time, but why then are triplets or quartets born? It seems to be in contradiction with nature & yet it happens.

The mechanics of the body are not just items for a specific function, such as the mouth is not only for eating, its also tastes, enhances smell, breathes & communicates. I am not fully understanding your argument of Nature v Natural? Just because it exists in nature doesn’t make its various uses natural. Such as the consumption of toxins like alcohol or tobacco, are naturally taken through the mouth but is far from natural to the body.
 
Last edited:
I get understand the gig saw argument. However the example you used in reference to biology is not under your control. Choosing to do sodimitical behavior you can control. Choosing to kiss someone you can control. My point is that it seems like the basis and main argument for sodomy being immoral can be used againt kissing for example if one is consistent. That’s the conclusion I reach when we consider that certain properties of our body have a sole purpose regardless of what humans have accustomed to or interpreted. I’m not entirely sure if I’m making my self clear or if I’m articulating what I want to say correctly. Perhaps you can help me hash this out.
 
I believe sodomy is immoral. I believe in the word of God. I’m not saying I agree with it. I’m trying to approach this from a philosophical standpoint. Also btw I wouldn’t respond with a “God said so” argument by default because you don’t know if the other person believes in a deity or not.
 
Sodomy & kissing are not the same, both are intentional acts, however one is a mortal sin in accordance with our religion the other is not. Maybe it can be seen this way

Kissing is an act of compassion for the soul
Sodomy is an act of pleasure for the flesh
 
Human sexuality from a Catholic perspective is two-fold:
  1. For procreation
  2. For spousal intimacy
A family needs love to sustain and grow, as it also needs procreation. Therefore, the Church recognizes and promotes sexual intimacy between husband and wife, which includes romantic kissing.

A family without love is dying.
 
The reason that gay sex is considered sinful is because there is no procreative aspect - a man can’t conceive with a man and a woman can’t conceive with a woman - not because parts were or weren’t “made to go into other parts”. As jochoa noted, the Church teaches that sexual relations must have a procreative aspect.

A heterosexual married couple could engage in forms of foreplay that involved parts going into other parts they weren’t “made to go into”, as long as they finished with a normal act of marital relations. The couple are not allowed to have sexual relations consisting solely of acts that do not conclude with a normal act of marital relations, because there would be no procreative aspect.

I recommend you abandon this argument about parts being “made to go to each other” because it would wrongly suggest that the Church not only disallows kissing, but a whole lot of other stuff that married couples might do in the manner I described above. I hope you understand what I mean since I am not allowed to be physically descriptive on this forum or the mods will delete it.
 
Last edited:
I am going to try hard not to be too descriptive either, but is it right to assume the ‘parts going into parts’ they were not designed to go into, mustn’t end in the climaxing of the man, as that climaxing isn’t able to create life? Or if he did climax somewhere that cannot create life, but later during the same act (the same night) climaxed in a natural way that can create life, would it be okay?
 
The man needs to finish inside the woman in the normal way.

It’s kind of difficult to discuss this here because like I said the last time I wrote a medically correct post, it got flagged and red penciled because somebody was all worried “children” might read it. (My opinion is that if someone is 13+ as you’re supposed to be on here, and is reading this forum, then they are old enough to hear the facts of life explained with correct terminology, as this would have helped me greatly when I was that age but everybody was too delicate/ embarrassed to explain it properly and I ended up having to buy a copy of “Our Bodies, Ourselves” when I moved out of my parents’ home in order to understand how everything worked; however that’s a topic for another thread.)
 
Last edited:
I’m not familiar with the term “gig saw argument” but I guess others here are. I think I get the idea.
The question becomes, “is the gig saw argument one that can be used by Catholics?”
Would the gig saw argument tie in with natural law at all?
Also I think that the title of this thread is not the best description for the content.
 
Last edited:
@Tis_Bearself

So to confirm, what is the correct answer?
  1. The man can only finish once and it has to be the ‘normal way’.
  2. The man can finish a few times, as long as each of those is the ‘normal way’.
  3. The man can finish a few times, as long as at least one of those is the ‘normal way’.
 
The correct answer is 2) . Finishing other than the normal way is wrong. ( There is no limit on number of times so I’m not sure why you put 1) as an option; if he did 1) it would also be okay.)

Men also need to be aware of their own ability or lack thereof to control their bodily responses when they are having relations with their wives.
 
Last edited:
Are you sure it isn’t 2? The man is only allowed to finish once? So he wouldn’t be able to finish 2 or 3 times, even if each of those is the natural way in his wife?
Tis_Bearself said:
Men also need to be aware of their own ability or lack thereof to control their bodily responses when they are having relations with their wives.
Click to expand...
Of course. A premature ‘finish’ is possible and I suppose the question then would be, if the man didn’t mean do do it, is it still a sin because he should have known his body better and made sure this didn’t occur?

Don’t mean to hijack the thread by the way and apologies if this discussion is a bit graphic for anyone, but I would think if there are any minors who read this forum, they’ll hopefully be avoiding this topic as sex often comes up in homosexual threads.
 
I said the correct answer is (2). I mistyped my first response because I didn’t read carefully enough. (it’s 7 am here, I just woke up a half hour ago) but I corrected it like 30 seconds after I typed it and my post is clear now.

I will step off now because I also don’t want to derail the thread and I need to go do morning stuff like feed the animals and go to church.
 
Last edited:
Yes finally somone thats understanding my question. All these other folks are explaining to me what sexuality if for (I already know why). These other people are assuming I’m comparing the act of sodomy and kissing when clearly I’m not. I’m merely saying the naturalistic argument used against sodomy could be used against kissing in that properties of our body are made for some purposes and others not regardless pf what people think. I’m guessing also I didn’t do a good job with the explanation and the question but that’s also the limit with online forums. You can only explain so much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top