Homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter 031064
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My argument follows a perfectly logical stream- I don’t see how direct statistics cannot be proven logical. Who are you to pontificate on documents that are more than 2000 years old? The bible also implies that other totally socially unacceptable things are to be done, such as stoning, would that be ok? Evidently God must have slipped with the ‘pleasure brush’ when he was painting mankind because all men- not just some- have the innate ability to receive an orgasm in the rectum with no genital stimulation at all. How is that explained, coincidence? You say that they vagina and penis are made for one another- if the rectum can receive this pleasure also why is that not part of the natural order?
 
031064 said:
Also, if God is so immensely foresighted than why would he ‘doom’ certain well-meaning people to this path? It is statistically correlated that with each older brother a man has he is 27-33% more likely to be homosexual, therefore if you have 4 older brothers you are virtually guaranteed to be gay (this is called the Fraternal Birth Order effect and is the most reliable method of predicting bi and homosexuality.) How are homosexuals supposed to feel close to a God who dooms them to sin as a result of their place in male birth order? That’s tremendously just! Mind you I suppose given the history with genocide, acceptance of slavery etc. we’re not really talking about a historically just being. Why should we be forced to accept a priori that all of the things in the bible are simply and unquestionably true?
Click to expand...
I think it’s only fair that you list your source on this.
 
Why is homosexuality, from a logical perspective, wrong?

Since homosexuality includes lesbianism and no, erm, orifices are damaged, except during childbirth, then does that mean that there is nothing wrong, from a logical perspective, with lesbianism in the 21st century

Two lesbians can have children using current technology at their disposal

The species survives perfectly if:

For every woman who is a lesbian, there is one man who is gay
For every female asexual there is one male asexual
For every female celibate there is one male celibate
The remainder of the population are heterosexual and for every female, there is a male
 
031064 said:
My argument follows a perfectly logical stream- I don’t see how direct statistics cannot be proven logical. Who are you to pontificate on documents that are more than 2000 years old? The bible also implies that other totally socially unacceptable things are to be done, such as stoning, would that be ok? Evidently God must have slipped with the ‘pleasure brush’ when he was painting mankind because all men- not just some- have the innate ability to receive an orgasm in the rectum with no genital stimulation at all. How is that explained, coincidence? You say that they vagina and penis are made for one another- if the rectum can receive this pleasure also why is that not part of the natural order?
Click to expand...
Please note that pleasure is not the logical “end” of sexual intercourse.

If your argument for homosexuality is focused on pleasure, you are heading down a very slippery slope that leads essentially to, “What ever feels good for me is ok” including pedophilia etc.
 
031064 said:
My argument follows a perfectly logical stream- I don’t see how direct statistics cannot be proven logical. Who are you to pontificate on documents that are more than 2000 years old? The bible also implies that other totally socially unacceptable things are to be done, such as stoning, would that be ok? Evidently God must have slipped with the ‘pleasure brush’ when he was painting mankind because all men- not just some- have the innate ability to receive an orgasm in the rectum with no genital stimulation at all. How is that explained, coincidence? You say that they vagina and penis are made for one another- if the rectum can receive this pleasure also why is that not part of the natural order?
Click to expand...
Statistics and anecdotes do not make a logical argument. Even if the statistics are true, they are not a logical argument in and of themselves. They can be used as part of a logical argument, but they require interpretation.

For example, you state that each successive male sibling is 27-33% more likely to be homosexual.

First, you will have to forgive us for not taking such a claim at face value. Statistics are arrived at in all sorts of ways. You have not provided a source for this statistic, which makes it impossible to evaluate it.

Second, even if we assume that such a statistic is true, so what? How does it logically follow from that statistic that homosexual activity is okay? That’s a big leap and you would need to fill in the gaps in order for your argument to truly be logical.

Let me fill in the gaps for you:
  • A large percentage of men with older brothers end up being gay.
  • Gay men must necessarily act out on these tendencies.
  • When a large percentage of people do anything, it is morally acceptable.
  • Therefore, it is morally acceptable to engage in homosexual acts.
Obviously, that’s a poor logical argument. I use it not as a strawman but only to illustrate the types of steps that are involved in constructing a logical argument. It is easy for us to make leaps in logic because we do not take the time to identify the steps that we take from the “facts” in order to reach our conclusion.

We also need to avoid the proof by verbosity method of reasoning, by which we strand together numerous anecdotes and factoids and then assume that they collectively prove our point. It’s an easy trap to fall into when we feel so passionately about something and have heard all these different points from all these different sources. But it’s not the correct way to build a logical argument.
 
031064 said:
My argument follows a perfectly logical stream- I don’t see how direct statistics cannot be proven logical. Who are you to pontificate on documents that are more than 2000 years old? The bible also implies that other totally socially unacceptable things are to be done, such as stoning, would that be ok? Evidently God must have slipped with the ‘pleasure brush’ when he was painting mankind because all men- not just some- have the innate ability to receive an orgasm in the rectum with no genital stimulation at all. How is that explained, coincidence? You say that they vagina and penis are made for one another- if the rectum can receive this pleasure also why is that not part of the natural order?
Click to expand...
Hmm, you really don’t understand, do you. The rectum itself does not receive pleasure. It’s the friction caused in the rectum that can manipulate the sexual organs to receive pleasure, not the other way around.

I’ll be praying for you. 😉
 
It is actually the rectum proper, there is no other stimulation needed. The prostate in particular.
 
“The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23
 
DCNBILL said:
Note that none of the above argument is based on logic as the original post stated.

I would repeat my question from above, what would be a logical “end” for homosexuality?
Click to expand...
The logical end is that the homosexual would act as a supplementary caregiver to their siblings offspring and would in so doing benefit the race as a whole.
 
031064 said:
The logical end is that the homosexual would act as a supplementary caregiver to their siblings offspring and would in so doing benefit the race as a whole.
Click to expand...
In logic this is called a non sequitur.
P: homosexual act
Conclusion: …caregiver…

The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Where is the logically valid argument?

The person with SSA does not have to act on it to do charitable things.
 
031064 said:
Why is homosexuality, from a logical perspective, wrong?
Click to expand...
This has been covered on numerous threads lately, but the basic answer is that sexuality’s function is intimately tied with procreation. In the language of natural law we would say that sex is “rightly ordered” to procreation. Or those of a more philosophical bent might say that sex has two intertwined aspects: the love-giving aspect and the life-giving aspect. These are designed to be together.
If you’re religious then you say that God designed it that way; if you are not, then nature just happened to work it out that way. Regardless, it can’t be denied that sex and babies are somehow linked!

This does not mean that every sexual act must result in pregnancy, but each act must be “rightly ordered.” (A favorite retort here is that infertile couples or the elderly can legitimately have sex even though their activity cannot produce offspring. That’s true – they are still using their bodies as they were designed. The fact that their fertility is dormant does not take away from the function; it just means that the full function “broke down” somewhere.)

Homosexual activity, however, is twisting the nature and function of the sexual act from the very start.

Contraception is wrong for similar reasons – the couple is at least using their bodies as designed, but they intentionally thwart the function; they basically “force” a breakdown. Homosexual activity doesn’t even get that far. It attempts to use the love-giving aspect of sex when there is no counterpart in existence for the life-giving aspect.
 
A question that I have is, what if a ‘gay gene’ is discovered and verified? How would that change how we read those scriptures or our opinion of the right/wrong of the gay lifestyle? After all, it would mean it is some sort of biological defect that occurs in some people - no different than mental retardation, Parkinson’s disease, or being born without arms or feet. It’s an interesting thought and one that just might turn out to be fact one day. Remembering also that leprosy was thought to be due exclusively because of sin in biblical times; of which we now know differently; as well as the same argument being used against black people not so many years ago.

Something I think we all seem to miss in using the scriptural argument is that, along with many of the quotes about homosexuality being an abomination to God, homosexuality most often not standing alone in that text but, rather it is included in a list of several other sins that God considers an abomination. Among which are: gossiping, untruthful business practices, the love of money, oppressive treatment of others, lying, vanity, and those who sow discord among their brethren.

I can see and understand both sides, but I’m having a hard time taking any firm stand either way. I’m trying to keep an open mind that, even as Christian Catholics, we might just be wrong about a few things; therefore, I keep praying for God to physically clarify this issue.
 
karennascargo3 said:
A question that I have is, what if a ‘gay gene’ is discovered and verified? How would that change how we read those scriptures or our opinion of the right/wrong of the gay lifestyle? After all, it would mean it is some sort of biological defect that occurs in some people - no different than mental retardation, Parkinson’s disease, or being born without arms or feet. It’s an interesting thought and one that just might turn out to be fact one day. Remembering also that leprosy was thought to be due exclusively because of sin in biblical times; of which we now know differently; as well as the same argument being used against black people not so many years ago.

Something I think we all seem to miss in using the scriptural argument is that, along with many of the quotes about homosexuality being an abomination to God, homosexuality most often not standing alone in that text but, rather it is included in a list of several other sins that God considers an abomination. Among which are: gossiping, untruthful business practices, the love of money, oppressive treatment of others, lying, vanity, and those who sow discord among their brethren.

I can see and understand both sides, but I’m having a hard time taking any firm stand either way. I’m trying to keep an open mind that, even as Christian Catholics, we might just be wrong about a few things; therefore, I keep praying for God to physically clarify this issue.
Click to expand...
We all have to carry our crosses. If we are called to a chaste life because of a sexual tendency that is against the law of God…then we are called to a chaste life.
 
karennascargo3 said:
A question that I have is, what if a ‘gay gene’ is discovered and verified? How would that change how we read those scriptures or our opinion of the right/wrong of the gay lifestyle? After all, it would mean it is some sort of biological defect that occurs in some people - no different than mental retardation, Parkinson’s disease, or being born without arms or feet. It’s an interesting thought and one that just might turn out to be fact one day.
Click to expand...
You are right – it would simply be science confirming a “defect” – one of homosexual inclinations. But that would in no way excuse homosexual behavior.
Suppose someone is born with the defect of being unable to eat. We still help them comply with natural law to get them to eat, or provide nutrition in some manner. A defect doesn’t excuse the misuse of the body.

Or hey, what if I’m born with an insurmountable urge to have sex with animals? While not my personal fault, it would still be contrary to natural law, right?
 
Depends on many factors really. Can you narrow it down to what type of homosexuality? Gay is only 1 facet of homosexuality, prison rape/sex is not Gay for instance, adolescent experimentation is not Gay either, nor is pedophilia. How does bisexuality fit in? How much SSA is needed to be called a homosexual or Gay for that matter.
 
I think that you can use logic to prove almost anything, and that this issue can’t be decided by logic. Having been in both homosexual and heterosexual relationships I can tell you that one is based on mutual love in which two people complement one another, and the other is a partnership which can never be mutual. In some sort of way I can’t explain, but which I have felt undeniably, the sex in a homosexual relationship is about having power over oneself by having power over another human being who is nothing more than a symbol of oneself. There is no true connection there. It’s no different than masturbation using another person.

Having engaged in both, I can tell you that it feels the same as sado-masochism. It is a way for people to connect, true, but it is a way that keeps them down and links the act of sexual connection to many states of minds and attitudes that are harmful to the person. Sex is more than physical, so any logical argument to determine whether homosexual acts are harmful or not cannot be limited to the physical.

My long-term homosexual relationship was a disordered thing that I did at a time when my whole life was so disordered that I could not discern that there was anything higher; but even to the limited degree that it was recognized by society as being equal to heterosexuality, this kept me from even conceiving that sex could ever be or mean anything different.

My logic on this is that anything that keeps one from recognizing the higher parts of oneself by keeping them focused on the lower is wrong because it keeps us from our potential, that potential being for sacrificial love rather than for selfish love.

However, I feel strongly that the public disgust and hatred of homosexuality ostracizes the homosexual to the point of making it difficult or nearly impossible for them to find Truth. There can be no progress made on this issue until it ceases to be so highly emotional for both sides.

I now believe that homosexuality is a symptom that a person has not been loved sacrificially enough to perceive sacrificial love as a reality; therefore they will not look for it either in chastity or in heterosexual relationships. There was no force so active in keeping this reality from me at this time in my life as was the outward, unloving condemnation of religious people of my then-lifestyle. All I could see were a bunch of people terrified of something that had absolutely no effect on them personally, using it to distract themselves from all the problems in their own lives that they could have used this energy to examine. I believed for a very long time that religion was a force that kept people from being good people.

By the way, I’ve been happily married for quite awhile.
 
karennascargo3 said:
Remembering also that leprosy was thought to be due exclusively because of sin in biblical times; of which we now know differently; as well as the same argument being used against black people not so many years ago.

Something I think we all seem to miss in using the scriptural argument is that, along with many of the quotes about homosexuality being an abomination to God, homosexuality most often not standing alone in that text but, rather it is included in a list of several other sins that God considers an abomination.
Click to expand...
First of all, let us be clear: ALL HUMAN SUFFERING is a result – direct or indirect – of sin. Leprosy (and any disease), war, poverty, greed, etc., did not exist until after the fall.

Second, the Bible is not merely a list of things that are allowed or disallowed. It is a demonstration of God’s salvific work throughout human history. The Law of Moses is contained therein not merely because it was the operant law for the Jews, but also because it is morally instructive.

In other words, the morality molded by the Law of Moses is a hint of the morality of Christianity – as Christ said, He came to fulfill the Law, not to change it. The spirit of the Law remains the same. Thus, while we would no longer condone stoning an adulteress or owning slaves (let alone killing or beating them), an honest reading of the Scripture reveals the beginning of basic Christian morality:
  1. Love God by obeying His will
  2. Love your neighbor by obeying God’s will
  3. Your actions have consequences
So it’s not enough to read Scripture as a pure condemnation of homosexuality (and non-Christians reject that out of hand, anyway). Rather, it is more productive to trace the institution of Christian morality and charity and the rationale behind it as they appear in Scripture.

After all, the Church is our moral compass; Scripture is a tool she uses to guide us.

Peace,
Dante
 
DCNBILL said:
Note that none of the above argument is based on logic as the original post stated.

I would repeat my question from above, what would be a logical “end” for homosexuality?
Click to expand...
Pleasure is the logical end. The op does not understand that when he says who does it hurt that it hurts society. You have a society that has learned pleasue as it aim. When pleasure is the aim we miss what is good. We use people as objects for our own gradification.
A quote from PJPII The sexual instinct wants above all to take over, to make use of another person, whereas love wants to give, to create good, to bring happiness

Here is some more. Love cannot take the form of mere use, even if enjoyment is mutual and simultaneous. Instead, it finds its proper expression in the union of persons. For love is the unification of persons. What is more, it is only when it directs itself to the person that love is love

The only escape from this otherwise inevitable egoism is by recognizing beyond any purely subjective good, I.e. Beyond pleasure. An objective good, which can also unite persons and thereby acquire that charateristcs of a common good, in so subject themselves to it. Thanks to it they are united by a true, objective bond of love which enables them to liberate themselves from subjectivism and from egoism which it inevitably conceals. Love is the unification of persons

So here is the problem people are more concerned about pleasure than loving the person. This has destroyed our society.
 
031064 said:
That’s not actually true. In honey bees there exist sterile males whose sole purpose is to care for other bees. Evolution would not necessarily remove homosexuality because it may have provided for additional non-childbearing caretakers. Genetically, given that a gay persons’ nieces and nephews have 1/4 of their genes it would be beneficial to the continuity of their gene pool to act as an additional caretaker to those nieces and nephews.

What is so objectively wrong about sodomy as an act? Oral sex? I used to propose them as being disordered also but how exactly are they ‘sinful’? That’s a rather heavy word to use for acts that do not harm other people in any way, is it not?
Click to expand...
What is wrong with sodomy? Well for one thing it is an exit point where the body expels the waste (feces) and anything inserted is bound to get dirty and smell I would imagine. Is it not painful? After a lot of use I would imagine that the apperture would lose its elasticity and it would be difficult to prevent the waste from freely leaving the body! This would require the use of daipers. How uncomfortable and embarrassing! What about painful?

Can the anus be considered a sensitive sexual instrument like the normal sexual organs of a male and female?

I believe that homosexuality may be emotional more than anything else really. In fact I have thought about this and separate homosexuality from “gay” whereby the first is an emotional disorder and “gay” is a decadent sub-culture. When observing the behaviour of “gay” people we see that it is ugly and dirty - it is not love, it is self-gratification to the extreme where anything goes and these people indulge in anonomous sexual activity - there is seldom a long term commitment. It is a sad state.

If one is from a normal and happy family any sexual confusion can be dealt with but we note that today 37% of children born are from single parents. Each child needs to say “Mama and Papa” “Mom and Dad”. Take out the love and caring ingredients from the family and the result may be incomplete and problematic.

Cinette:(😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top