Homosexuality

[Fallstar]

Identity can be easily separated into the parts which are intrinsic to the self and extrinsic to the self. The parts which are intrinsic cannot be rejected without destroying the self; these include among other things, the psyche and the body, and sexuality(as it is rooted in both). Extrinsic things include things which can be rejected without destroying the self and things which cannot be rejected without destroying the self. Among the first category include one’s religion and society(rejection destroys then transforms into something different). Among the second category include various devotions or aspects of society such as a scapular or a Ferrari(these can be left aside without a complete rejection of the whole system).

As sexuality is intrinsic to the human soul(as JPII said) and as it is intrinsic to the body as anyone can see or feel, rejecting it is several sins. For example: it is prima facie prudery; it is a rejection of God’s image in His creation; it is a rejection of the ability to express love. Thus, the free choice of chastity notwithstanding, sexuality must be expressed.

It is a fact that homosexuality is seen throughout the animal kingdom, thus it cannot be said that it is against nature, unless by nature it is meant “Human Nature.”

If homosexuality is specifically against Human Nature, this means that God failed in creating homosexuals, since God created man in His Image and Likeness, His Image and Likeness being Human Nature. But God is perfect and so cannot fail. Thus, God made homosexuals.

Here is the problem.

God made homosexuals. Catholic homosexuals are forced to do two things against the self: deny the self* and not love. Were these freely chosen, it would be one thing, but they are compulsions.

On the other hand, there is the much more pleasant world offered by other churches, Gay Pride, etc. There, there is no compulsion to deny the self* or to deny love. Thus, they are more morally attractive.

Note: when I speak of denying the self, I am speaking of denying the intrinsic self made by God, not the extrinsic self which one constructs out of society and gives up for Lent.

This is one of the things I’m struggling with.

 

[DOShea]

If homosexuality is specifically against Human Nature, this means that God failed in creating homosexuals, since God created man in His Image and Likeness, His Image and Likeness being Human Nature. But God is perfect and so cannot fail. Thus, God made homosexuals.

There are errors in reason all over this statement and I suspect it’s that you’re trying to reverse-engineer something in order to make something that doesn’t fit seem to. If I use your statement’s logic, I can say that anything we have in the world - guns for example - are because God gave us the knowledge to make them, therefore He must want us to use them, therefore war must be okay or else God screwed up in allowing us to have guns. I could make the same argument for poison gas, atomic bombs, whatever.

It is these kinds of logical fallacy that got Pat Robertson in trouble many years ago for saying something to the effect that HIV/AIDS was made by God as a way to punish homosexual behavior. His reasoning was that why would God make a disease like that if it wasn’t for that reason. See, you can hang just about anything on God if you reason like that.

Just because something exists does not equate to a mandate from God to use it. If you stop and think about it, something like a gun might have a good use, like protecting yourself from a rattlesnake. But it could also have a bad use, such as using a gun to hold up the convenience store. How the gun gets used is up to us, a choice, from the free will given by God. We get to choose, and choices have consequences. It would be wrong to say the convenience store clerk was shot because God did it by giving us guns and greed.

It is a fact that homosexuality is seen throughout the animal kingdom, thus it cannot be said that it is against nature, unless by nature it is meant “Human Nature.”

I would like to see some proof of this claim. I suspect you are taking the occurrence of something and forcing a nature upon it. Certainly you are not suggesting animals display homosexuality in action in the same way humans do, or with the same frequency.

I opened a box of Cheerios two days ago and in there was a dark brown, twisted, distorted, almost perfectly cubical Cheerio. My guess is it is really two or more Cheerios that got mashed and stuck in the process, overcooked, and ended up in my box. Because I found one - it occurred - I can’t simply make the claim that square, dark brown Cheerios “exist in nature.” They don’t, they are UNnatural.

God made homosexuals. Catholic homosexuals are forced to do two things against the self: deny the self* and not love. Were these freely chosen, it would be one thing, but they are compulsions.

You are not making any distinction between a homosexual and homosexual acts. The Church does make that distinction. Before making further conclusions, you should check out what those distinctions are and try to understand them.

On the other hand, there is the much more pleasant world offered by other churches, Gay Pride, etc. There, there is no compulsion to deny the self* or to deny love. Thus, they are more morally attractive.

That’s exactly right, what you get with those is “a more pleasant world,” where pleasant means do whatever you want because there is no standard in place to judge good versus evil. Therefore, you can’t have any evil. But what happens after your stay in this world is over? Then you will be forced to face the one standard of Truth, and that is the God who created us. Then, if the church that gave you “a more pleasant world” was wrong about sin, you’re in pretty deep trouble, as opposed to being with the Church who told you the truth, though unpleasant, all along. Now you can’t have two churches teaching opposing viewpoints and both of them are right; either one is right and the other wrong, or both of them are wrong. It’s up to you to figure out how you can know the truth and recognize it in the Church that teaches it.

Maybe this is simplistic, but it’s pretty odd to accept a church that teaches there is no such thing as “sin,” yet you have 1500 years of Jewish history where they all dealt with sin against laws and commandments that were revealed to them by God. Then you have Jesus coming into the world and saying specifically He came here for sinners, to save them from sins. Hmmm… wouldn’t that make God a liar? Who to believe… Jesus or some New Ager with three books on how to not fall prey to sin that doesn’t exist.

I wonder what your beliefs are regarding kleptomaniacs. Did God make them? Did He intend for them to steal your belonging because He made them, or do you think maybe He made them but expected them to show restraint around your belongings, difficult that it might be, struggle that it might be? Did God make quicksand, and did He intend for you to dive in it, or to suffer never knowing what it feels like to experience it? The point I’m trying to make to you is there is a difference between something “is” and something “is because.” We can know something is, but we often don’t know why it is, thus we can’t assume because God made something that we get to assign the why to it.

 

[Trishie]

For those who accept the validity of the bible, the problem becomes deeper perhaps.

Romans 1:24-27

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Leviticus 18:22

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female ; it is an abomination.

 

[Churchmouse]

I wonder what your beliefs are regarding kleptomaniacs. Did God make them? Did He intend for them to steal your belonging because He made them, or do you think maybe He made them but expected them to show restraint around your belongings, difficult that it might be, struggle that it might be? Did God make quicksand, and did He intend for you to dive in it, or to suffer never knowing what it feels like to experience it? The point I’m trying to make to you is there is a difference between something “is” and something “is because.” We can know something is, but we often don’t know why it is, thus we can’t assume because God made something that we get to assign the why to it.

What about those who have BIID (Body Integrity Identity Disorder)? Did God intend for some to desire amputation? If a man desires that a limb or limbs be amputated (for no apparent medical reason) would he think this is allowable by God? Is the desire to have limbs cut off intrinsically connected to the soul?

CM

 

[Ruthie_again]

p. 1 of 2

Fallstar, I am going to go through your line of thought, and point out where you have missed the truth – that is, where your logic is bad.

I do this from love. I have always had homosexual friends, and I owe them a lot. Because of this, I want them/you all to join me in the Church.

“Identity can be easily separated into the parts which are intrinsic to the self and extrinsic to the self. The parts which are intrinsic cannot be rejected without destroying the self;”

Bad teeth are intrinsic to my physical self; I inherited them. I rejected them: I got braces. Sin is also intrinsic, since I inherited Original Sin from Adam and Eve.

“these include among other things, the psyche and the body, and sexuality(as it is rooted in both).”

The only way to reject my entire psyche is to kill myself. That doesn’t mean I can’t reject parts of my psyche. I can also reject parts of my body – that’s what keeps the cosmetic surgeons in business.

Sexuality is indeed rooted in both, but I can reject parts of that, too. Lust is not rational; it is my job to refrain from acting on my lust, when the results would be bad. To put it more crassly, I don’t need to hump everything that turns me on.

“Extrinsic things include things which can be rejected without destroying the self and things which cannot be rejected without destroying the self. Among the first category include one’s religion…”

“Religion” is an extrinsic label for a very intrinsic faith. Faith does not depend on logic. To destroy my faith is to destroy my self.

“…and society…”

One only rejects society if one becomes a completely self-reliant hermit. One can, however, choose one’s society.

“(rejection destroys then transforms into something different).”

I used to hang out with moral relativists. Now I hang out with Catholics. The moral relativists have not been destroyed; not even the one I was. I can easily fall back into it if I listen to their ideas without applying reason.

“Among the second category include various devotions or aspects of society such as a scapular or a Ferrari(these can be left aside without a complete rejection of the whole system).”

Right.

”As sexuality is intrinsic … rejecting it is several sins. For example: it is prima facie prudery; it is a rejection of God’s image in His creation; it is a rejection of the ability to express love.”

Nobody rejects sexuality. Most of us are made uncomfortable by some aspect of it; which aspect varies among people. We just choose how to handle it. And if you think a celibate has rejected the ability to express love… Jesus was celibate. He went through torture, and died for us. “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

“Thus, the free choice of chastity notwithstanding, sexuality must be expressed.”

We all are sexual by nature. Yet celibates do not die; to say “sexuality must be expressed” is false.

“It is a fact that homosexuality is seen throughout the animal kingdom, thus it cannot be said that it is against nature, unless by nature it is meant ‘Human Nature.’”

Actual sodomy is extremely rare in the animal kingdom. Humping serves a couple of purposes. In dogs (my area of expertise) it is a dominance ritual. And a female in heat, with no males available, will hump another female. She is doing her best to try to reproduce. The same thing occurs in make dogs who are confined together near a female in heat.

Homosexual sex is against nature (biology) in that nature’s purpose for sex is reproduction. Sodomy cannot create a baby, therefore nature’s purpose is denied. (I could even say that it is a rejection of biological sexuality.)

”If homosexuality is specifically against Human Nature, this means that God failed in creating homosexuals, since God created man in His Image and Likeness, His Image and Likeness being Human Nature. But God is perfect and so cannot fail. Thus, God made homosexuals.”

God did not create homosexuals, in the sense that He did not say “I will make Fallstar a homosexual.” Adam and Eve were genetically perfect. After the Fall, we became subject to genetic mutations. If homosexuals are born that way, it was not God’s choice. If they are homosexual because of nurture, that’s a result of other people’s free will. (Neither I, nor my Church, holds a position on this.* Science has not yet proved it one way or the other. From talking to my friends, I suspect it can be either or both.)

”Here is the problem.

God made homosexuals. Catholic homosexuals are forced to do two things against the self: deny the self* and not love. Were these freely chosen, it would be one thing, but they are compulsions.”

We do not compel homosexuals to do anything. We do not expect you to deny your same-sex attraction. SSA is indeed intrinsic to your nature, whatever its source.* Neither do we forbid you to love. Sex is not the only way to express love. Nor do we force you to be celibate. That is your choice. In fact, we cannot enforce anything. If you choose to receive the Sacraments when in a state of mortal sin, you can. We just tell you the truth: that mortal sin separates you from God, and that if you die in a state of mortal sin you will go to Hell.

”On the other hand, there is the much more pleasant world offered by other churches, Gay Pride, etc. There, there is no compulsion to deny the self or to deny love. Thus, they are more morally attractive.”

They are not “morally” attractive. They attract because they practice moral relativity. (“I’m OK, you’re OK.”) They tell you that whatever you want is just fine; there is no need for self-denial; love is whatever you want it to be; and there is no Hell.

Yours in genuine love,

Ruthie

• See next post

 

[Ruthie_again]

*From the Catechism, emphasis mine:

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, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” 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.

Dang it, Fallstar, I want to see you in Heaven! (assuming I get there.) This is not a snooty “I’m a Christian, so I have to be nice” reaction. It comes from my heart. :hug1:

So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
1 Cor 13:13 (RSV)