Homosexuality

[camerong]

Please don’t get frustrated. I’m enjoying our friendly debate.

On to your points…

You keep saying its not black or white. If you are referring to the Church being right or not, then I fail to see what you say could be true, and you haven’t given me any explanation for your assertion. Either the Church is infallible or it’s not. It seems as simple as that. It is not as if the Church is kinda infallible.

And, you’re right, it is nice to have Christ Himself telling me the truth of the universe and how to life correctly. If what Christ says ever seems daft to me, I will promptly re-evaluate my own perspectives.

1. Your infallible church. Believe in it if you wish, it seems to me to have been fallible historically and to be fallible in its teachings now [again see below]. And many Catholics see their church as divinely inspired but nevertheless fallible because it is composed of humans. Define them away as not being Catholics if you like but that’s cheating isn’t it.

Yes, members of the Church make mistakes, often very grave ones. No one ever claimed this would not be true. What we claim is that the Church, when making a narrow set of proclamations it declares to be infallible, is actually infallible. I challenge you or anyone else to find me an instance where the Church claimed to be infallible–there are many–but was proven wrong or fallible–there are none.

1. On to morality. Please read what I say before you reply. I said clearly:
   **
   Producing unhappiness is not the only reason why an act might be wrong.**

I apologize, I misread your quote, and thought you to be saying the opposite. That was my mistake.

I am claiming no more than what is before my eyes. By all human standards their relationship is good.

[Now you might say that I cannot be certain - true but nor can I be certain the moon is not green cheese.

That is true–by all human standards, their relationship is good. But I don’t think morality is anthropomorphic, in other words, stems from humans. I think morality exists objectively, outside of humans, and is really unconcerned with what matches our human standards at the moment. If we were to agree that an objective morality exists, what would be most clear is that while human ideas of morality strive towards it, they always get it wrong in significant ways.

I do not doubt your ability to determine that your daughter is happy. My argument is not defeated if it is proven that homosexual relationships really can lead to happiness. I have been quite happy in my sin before. I even suspect many Catholics, for example, live very happy lives routinely committing grave sins.

My argument is, however, that your daughter would be more fulfilled if she ceased the relationship and embraced the Church. Happier? Perhaps not–it’s not clear that happiness and devotion are always associated. But as I have said before, I do not believe the point of life, the reason we are created, was to be happy. And I would gladly trade a sinful-but-happy life for a devout-but-unhappy one (at least, I hope I would). That said, however, I also believe that true happiness over eternity is unquestionably and ONLY associated with devotion.

Of course it may be that gay physical sex is condemned by God. If so God is arbitrary for condemning in gay people what is commended in straight, for allowing gay people to have their desires but not allow them to express them.

Arbitrary means making a distinction without reason. It is not at all arbitrary for God to say that sex should only occur when a penis enters a vagina. In fact, let’s expand the rule to say that any sexual organs can come in contact with any other sexual organs, as long as they were evolutionarily designed to do so. That is not arbitrary. It is not arbitrary, say, for me to tell my son only to use his hammer to pound nails, and not to paint the walls with. It would be arbitrary for me to say his hammer can pound walls and paint the walls, because it makes him happy to paint walls with it. That is essentially what you ask.

My friend you are like the religious people who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope at the moon because there could be no mountains on it. After all an infallible church told them so and therefore we must accept its authority surely?

Again with this. Do a quick word search on this site about infallibility, so that you do not attribute infallibility to things the Church has never claimed to be so. This is like me telling you that I think Columbus sailed in 1491, but that I wasn’t at all sure, and then you declaring me a liar because it was actually 1492.

That is amusing but condemning 20 years worth of exquisite love as a perversion worthy of Hell is a horrible example of religion gone wrong.

I never condemned it as a perversion worthy of hell, whatever that means. And I would not contest that they actually feel love. But as I have shown ad nauseum, merely because a relationship produces love and happiness does not make it moral. I would be happy to address these things again, but I have fully detailed my arguments to this effect in previous posts.

It looks like we are beginning to reach a conclusion of our discussion, though please continue if you have more to say. Anyway, my primary reason for continuing this was to make arguments to soccergirl as to why she should accept the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. Soccergirl, if you are still reading, please let us know if you have any additional questions or thoughts.
[/quote]

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

I agree we seem to have reached the end of our debate.

I think, as I have said before your argument comes down to:

The Catholic Church is infallible on some issues
One of these is its condemnation of gay sex
Therefore gay sex is wrong.

My argument is;

My daughter and her partner’s love is wonderful and right
The Catholic Church says it is not
Therefore the Catholic Church is mistaken.

Now you have obviously studied the matter in detail and so will know that Natural Law Ethics has many problems philosophically e. g.
1] It moves from an IS to an OUGHT, from the sexual organs are for reproduction therefore they ought only to be used for that purpose. Most philosophers dispute such a move.
2] Many of the ethical decrees derived from Natural Law ethics seem to be dubious and contrary to our normal moral intuitions because they cause suffering - contraception, gay sex, absolute prohibition of lying … Of course you can and do just bite the bullet here but others are not so bold.
3] Sex is also and arguably more importantly for the expression of love. To disallow this when reproduction is impossible is to state that the purely biological function must overide the social. You can of course reply that both must happen but again it seems arbitary and to cause unnecessary suffering and odd that a good God could demand this.
4] Moral rules are surely about how we can live fulfilling human lives. Presumably that is what God wants. You would rather lead an unhappy life of virtue than a happy life of vice. So would I. But for most vice we have a reason why it is a vice over and above - God doesn’t like it if you use a part of your body for something not biologically intended. This latter fact seems to have nothing to do with morality [back to ‘ought’ from is ‘again’]
5] It is not clear why the negative of an act that cannot give reproduction trumps the positive of expressing love.
6] It seems contrary to Jesus’s attitude to rules.

Now none of these or the many other problems that there are with natural law do not prove for certain that Natural Law ethics is wrong. Few philosophical positions can be refuted outright. But, taken all together, these objections mean that very few people, outside your church, find Natural Law ethics plausible.

To end finally with my daughter. You might not have called her perverted or condemned her to hell but your church has and I’m surprised [and pleased] you got cold feet here. My illustration with the telescope is misconstrued by you. Simply it was to show a situation where Galileo could not be argued out of what was before his own eyes. Before my eyes are 20 years of blissful happiness that are 100% good. If it is not then God has made me so that I can know nothing at all - and that surely cannot be the case. Therefore whatever you say I cannot be convinced. Any argument that tells me my daughter is perverted must therefore be fallacious in some way.

Finally I do feel, and I say this with sorrow because the Catholic Church has done much good, to see goodness in front of your eyes, as you must have done with faithful gay couples, and to denounce that goodness as evil is to be morally blind and wicked. It makes me angry when my wonderful child is condemned. For what? For expressing a harmless love! Condemned on the basis of a dubious medieval doctrine. Condemned by people professing a God of Love.

I say again, ‘Blind guides’

Yes I am pleased that you have discussed so politely but just as you think my daughter is in a sinful situation, you will allow me to think that you and your church are very evil indeed and hurtful when it comes to this issue. Polite evil is still evil.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Addendum

What I am saying is that morality is not simply about coldly applying rules - it is a matter of the heart and the emotions too. It is about empathy. Those who burnt heretics thinking it was good lacked it. Jesus insisted on it when he argued with Pharisees who blindly called for rules to be obeyed.

You and your church lack this quality when faced with faithful gay couples and prefer medieval logic to empathising with what you see before you. That is your mistake - not a mistake in logic but a grave lack of emotion and of love for your fellow human being. A grave flaw. The fault of legalism.

Enough already,

Good night

 

[davidv]

Addendum

What I am saying is that morality is not simply about coldly applying rules - it is a matter of the heart and the emotions too. It is about empathy. Those who burnt heretics thinking it was good lacked it. Jesus insisted on it when he argued with Pharisees who blindly called for rules to be obeyed.

You and your church lack this quality when faced with faithful gay couples and prefer medieval logic to empathising with what you see before you. That is your mistake - not a mistake in logic but a grave lack of emotion and of love for your fellow human being. A grave flaw. The fault of legalism.

Enough already,

Good night

Frankly, you have demostrated that you are no position to make such a set of judgmental claims.

 

[benidict]

Addendum

What I am saying is that morality is not simply about coldly applying rules - it is a matter of the heart and the emotions too. It is about empathy. Those who burnt heretics thinking it was good lacked it. Jesus insisted on it when he argued with Pharisees who blindly called for rules to be obeyed.

You and your church lack this quality when faced with faithful gay couples and prefer medieval logic to empathising with what you see before you. That is your mistake - not a mistake in logic but a grave lack of emotion and of love for your fellow human being. A grave flaw. The fault of legalism.

Enough already,

Good night

:coffeeread: actually, i think the Catholic Church is more tolerant of homosexuals, than most. as for burning heritics at the stake? well everyone has had there turn at that. including pagans. you may want to read the Catholic Catechism on the issue of homosexuality. you may come away with a different view. Peace

 

[camerong]

I appreciate your thoughtful conclusion to our debate. Let me only add that I hope you have not gotten the wrong impression, either from misunderstanding of Catholicism, or from overzealous Catholics themselves. No Catholic should ever condemn any person, for any act. The issue is not who is bad and who is good, but what acts are wrong or right. I understand this may seem like a petty distinction to you, when for homosexuals, homosexual sex seems an intrinsic part of their being.

However, let me change the discussion and suggest that sex need NOT be an intrinsic part of a homosexual’s life. It occurred to me in our latest discussion that all of the love and compassion your daughter and her partner have could be had without sin. I personally have advocated on other posts that chaste homosexuals are an asset to our Church. There are many homosexual couples in the Church who live together, share a love like you have observed, and yet do not sin because they do not have sexual relations. So, as a parting thought (and feel free to add your own and continue this), I wish only to say that I actually would consider rather little of your daughter’s relationship as sinful. You and I can cherish nearly the same thing. Of course, I would insist that they remain chaste, and you would insist it is their right to not do so, thus this does not lead to an agreement or resolution, but at least we are closer.

 

[Cinette]

The Catholic Church has many enemies - apart from the devil.

The secular world to which many atheists belong is very powerful and uses every excuse to hurt the Church. The gay culture is one of them. You claim that your daughter and others like her can act out their orientation. The Catholic Church says it is a sin but at the same time if your daughter and her partner sought out the CC they would not be rejected.

However, the Church cannot act our her teachings without been not just criticised by the secular world and its allies, but punished as well. For instance an adoption agency in the US that had been operating for over 100 years doing much good was forced to close down because it objected to placing children in gay homes! Is that right?

A priest in Canada had to pay a fine because he spoke against the gay act.

One hears many stories like this. Our children go to schools where teachers are teaching about sex and their teachings are contrary to our beliefs. This confuses children and is bad for them. We the parents cannot object!!! Is that right?

In our really pernicious secular culture we are doing severe damage to society. The breakdown of the family is a very serious matter. People are growing up having never been exposed to moral teachings and end up committing horrendous crimes - they do not know right from wrong!

We need to fight this and pray about it.

Having said that I would like to add a word about your daughter and her partner. If I were to meet them socially and found much in common (other than their orientation) I would no doubt like them. I would be their friend. I also have no doubt the Church would embrace them if they were to reach out to the Church. Yes they may be happy in their gay state but it is still not right. I would not censure them causing them to be ostracised - I would defend and protect them from harm. I certainly would not make them feel uncomfortable. I would not be their enemy for who they are. God is the judge. He is merciful.

 

[Mortification]

Did not quite understand that, “does not benefit the survival of either the individual organism”

The species will survive because there are enough heterosexuals; by the way, I do not hear the same argument against asexuality

Keyword being: heterosexuals.

If there weren’t any heterosexuals to make the world go round from the very beginning and all we had were homosexual couples, we’d be extinct. The species would not have survived. Same goes for an asexual couple, we’d still be extinct.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

**So, as a parting thought (and feel free to add your own and continue this), I wish only to say that I actually would consider rather little of your daughter’s relationship as sinful. You and I can cherish nearly the same thing. Of course, I would insist that they remain chaste, and you would insist it is their right to not do so, thus this does not lead to an agreement or resolution, but at least we are closer. **

Thanks Camerong that was generous. As a matter of interest we have in St Albans a gay Anglican dean who lives openly with his partner but they have given an undertaking not to have physical relationships. A compromise.

A compromise that seems uneasy for two main reasons.

1] Christianity is a religion, which unlike many others, insists on the importance of the body so to say, ‘love with your mind but not your body’ seems to go against that. I suppose you might respond by saying that there are lots of ways you can express love physically without having sex - going out for an intimate meal for example. This leads on to the second problem.
2] The natural law objection relates to sex without the theoretical possibility of reproduction. So, for men, no anal sex, no mutural masturbation. But what about holding hands, kissing, cuddling with or without clothes…? It would seem that they are allowed provided we are sure that they do not lead on to forbidden acts.And what is forbidden for lesbians? Is having an orgasm wrong for a woman if there is no possibilty of reproduction? If it is, can they hold hands, cuddle etc - where is the line to be drawn? Suppose you say that it is wrong to do anything that might foster desire. Well then that is probably impossible if they live together.

I do not know what my daughter and partner ‘do in bed’ to express their love. * But considering the matter it seems in the words of Monty Python to be ‘too silly’ and in my words ‘too legalistic’ if we allow gay people to live together, express their love in all sorts of physical ways but rule out the ‘climax’ [literally as well as physically] of such a relationship.

No doubt there are many people who could live without full sex if they have to. No doubt many do this without any problems. However if I was told that I could not have sex with my wife I would be devastated - but then my soul, if it exists, is very firmly embodied! There must be gay people who would feel similarly.

Best wishes

Laurie*

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

To Cinette,

Thank you for saying:

Having said that I would like to add a word about your daughter and her partner. If I were to meet them socially and found much in common (other than their orientation) I would no doubt like them. I would be their friend. I also have no doubt the Church would embrace them if they were to reach out to the Church. Yes they may be happy in their gay state but it is still not right. I would not censure them causing them to be ostracised - I would defend and protect them from harm. I certainly would not make them feel uncomfortable. I would not be their enemy for who they are. God is the judge. He is merciful.

I appreciate you saying this. I do not agree with what you say about the wrongness of faithful gay sex but your heart is obviously in the right place and your loyalty to your church is to be admired.

Best wishes

Laurie

 

[ladybri77]

I’m a senior in high school, and I’m trying to figure out what I believe regarding homosexuality before I go to college, and enter the “real” world. I feel confused because I know a guy who was born gay (like he wanted to wear dresses, and play with barbies from the time he was 2 years old). And I also know people I’ve known my whole life spontaneously realize that they are really gay or bisexual. I just don’t understand how it is a sin if it’s something you were born with… Why would God inherently make someone that way if it is wrong… By the way, I’m not saying that it isn’t possible that it is wrong, but I feel very confused. And I am catholic. I guess it’s just that there are so many people that I know who are either homosexual, or believe that homosexuality isn’t harmful that I don’t know what to believe anymore.

-Feel free to educate me

Okay, soccergirl. Many people are deceived into thinking the act of homosexuality is okay, when it is not. They believe the lie the enemy throws out. It has never been proven that there is a “gay” gene, but there is plenty of evidence of environmental factors showing this, i.e. emotional wounding from a very young age; sexual abuse, emotional/physical abuse by withdrawal of love or an overly critical parent, a parent with a chemical addiction, lack of mother or father love during critical emotional development which causes the child to seek out another of the same sex to fill mom or dad love they didn’t receive.

There have been many studies done regarding both physical and environmental causes, and while there has not “yet” been a finding for physical evidence, that doesn’t mean there isn’t one. There were also many environmental studies done on homosexuals who had severe woundedness via some kind of abuse from an early age that show strongly an attraction to the same sex. Many people have found the Lord and have turned away from their sin as God heals their emotional woundedness and some then start developing feelings for the opposite sex. There are some exceptions to this where the child believes something that is not true like a perceived belief that they are not loved by the parent when in fact they are, low self-esteem, peer group rejection and feeling ostracized by either can lead to feelings of wanting to bond with the same sex to fill the need for what is lacking in themselves.

Here is one recent article on the unsubstantiation of the “gay” gene theory that was published recently.

onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=528376

Thanks for asking!

 

[ladybri77]

Laurie,

Is it evil for the church to condemn an immoral act (but offer love to the people involved such as the Catholic group, Courage) and immorality in general in our society?

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Ladybri,

Hello - you ask me a direct question so I’ll answer.

In my view it is immoral for your Church to see goodness and condemn it as evil.

[Your ‘evidence’ to soccergirl is very biased. Nobody knows for sure what the cause of homosexuality is - nor does it matter really. The stuff about childhood problems etc is just speculation. You generalise from people like yourself who have had problems with their gay orientation to conclude that all gay people must have problems or be inadequate in some way, which is just not true. You refer to websites dedicated to ‘finding’ that gay sex is harmful but, no doubt there are gay sites dedicated to the opposite! I prefer to believe what impartial invesigators find]

Best wishes

Laurie

 

[ladybri77]

Ladybri,

Hello - you ask me a direct question so I’ll answer.

In my view it is immoral for your Church to see goodness and condemn it as evil.

[Your ‘evidence’ to soccergirl is very biased. Nobody knows for sure what the cause of homosexuality is - nor does it matter really. The stuff about childhood problems etc is just speculation. You generalise from people like yourself who have had problems with their gay orientation to conclude that all gay people must have problems or be inadequate in some way, which is just not true

. You refer to websites dedicated to ‘finding’ that gay sex is harmful but, no doubt there are gay sites dedicated to the opposite! I prefer to believe what impartial invesigators find]

Best wishes

Laurie

True about impartial investigators. However, you can’t ignore the evidence found by legitimate scientific studies which found strong evidence of environmental causes, not to exclude physical causes, of course, however, strong, unbiased evidence to the latter, that’s all I’m saying.

This is NOT speculation as there were legitimate studies done over a period of time to draw this conclusion.

 

[ladybri77]

Laurie, you said to another poster, “The third alternative is not to ‘pick and choose’ it is to prayerfully consider what the Bible says and think about it. It is to read commentaries etc and then decide. It is to ask, ‘Would a good God really say this?’”

I have prayerfully considered (as well as thousands of other people) what the Bible has to say about homosexuality, and our prayers have been answered, and that is that what the Bible calls sin, is sin, it is the incorruptible Word of God. Those that have received the Holy Spirit will know its truths.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Fair enough - but others have got the opposite answer from the Holy Spirit.

 

[ladybri77]

Fair enough - but others have got the opposite answer from the Holy Spirit.

Well, from what I’ve heard, the majority of those that hear from the Holy Spirit have the truth about sin as is stated above.

 

[soccergirl]

I’m seriously thinking I should go with what the Bible and the church teaches because I feel like if the Bible/Church is wrong about this, then everything else it teaches would have to be questioned, and there would be no final answer to what is right and wrong.
I believe that the catholic church is the true church Jesus founded so even though I don’t understand why people were made in different ways, I decided that I just have to trust Jesus/God and His judgement since He is all knowing.

 

[UnworthyApostle]

“Fair enough - but others have got the opposite answer from the Holy Spirit.”

Well, people like Koresh and Mason were hearing the “spirit” too. So, I guess they must have been divinley inspired since they were “in the spirit”.

This is what happens when reason is taken away from faith and emotion. That is, people’s emotions move them to think and do actions which are contrary to God and the natural law. Freud said that people have an underlying animal beneath the intellect, but Christians call that the fallen nature. So, homosexuality is part of that fallen nature or that underlying animal that Freud speaks of. Something can feel good and/or look good. It does not make it so, nor make it right. For instance, an abused wife may appear to be happy and fine, but that does not make the abuse right. Issues must be looked at logically as well with emotion to get the full scope.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Black or White again Soccergirl! Either the Bible/Church is all right or it is all wrong. Not so simple.

People don’t like having to think, you know, and so decide to find something or someone who will just give them the answers. Sorry but truth is not so easily obtained, and you have to think things out yourself.

When it comes to right and wrong you also have to be able to ‘put yourself in the other person’s place’. Do that now with gay sex.

**Here is a couple who have lived and loved in a wonderful happy relationship for over 20 years. Nobody has been harmed.

How do you think they would feel [how would you feel?] if told that their love was a perversion and a God of Love was going to send them to eternal torment, because they were of the same sex.**

Are you willing to agree to that because you don’t want to do some thinking yourself.

Actually, the fact that you are starting to question what you have been taught means that you can never really go back to just accepting it.

Best wishes