Homosexuality

[ladybri77]

So celibacy is unnatural too, right?

I was trying to prove a point based on the question by the previous poster. Heterosexual sex is in the natural order of things if one chooses to have it, homosexual sex cannot be. If one doesn’t choose to have it, that’s also fine, but it is in no way unnatural if one doesn’t choose to have sex.

 

[richardacombs]

RichardCombs,

No I am not limiting the homosexual elements to just child rearing, but that is one example of where they can be benefical. Read again what I wrote though, it is not limited to children. I quote that in the animal kingdom many species “benefit greatly rather than suffer from the existence of non-reproducing elements in their hierarchy.” I certainly do not reduce people to being mere incubators and rearers of children like some here would have them…

You mean that human homosexuals contribute to humanity. I wouldn’t argue that point. I certainly think that many do. They do not, however, benefit the reproductive process, except as possible caregivers, a position unmarried heterosexuals would be better suited for, since they are the ideal in a reproductive discussion, whereas homosexuals serve no physical reproductive purpose.

I am not sure what use your point is about unmarried homosexuals, except as a jumping point for getting in a not subtle attempt at calling people who disagree with you “liars” as you did here. Nothing I am saying about homosexuality and the possible natural explanations for it preclude single heterosexuals from doing or partaking in anything.

I did not imply that you are a liar, nor did I infer such a thing. The point of the paragraph was “Actually, you could use the same example you provide to demonstrate a statistically equal disadvantage of homosexuals in the system, since heterosexual humans are forced to care and provide for non-reproducing members of their society.”

We were talking about reproductive advantages and disadvantages as they fit into an evolutionary theory, not some possible benefits in an utopian homosexually biased society, which would in all probability soon dwindle into extinction.

If you however think the earth is flat as you say above, then there is a lot more work to be done here than discussing possible evolutionary advantages of species producing non-reproductive elements

If you want to evade the use of all the probabilities, likelihoods, thoughts (actually, not the human thought process, but loosely used as a synonym for maybe), and appearances, you only strengthen my argument that using the same words and the simplest of empirical evidence, I can make a case for a flat earth. The use of probabilities, likelihoods, thoughts, and appearances amount to nothing more than wishful thinking.

The problem that many advocates of homosexuality fail to address is that they do not provide verifiable evidence. I have read, “Homosexuals have no choice; they’re born that way.” Provide me valid scientific evidence of hereditary homosexuality–some specific genetic link.

Or, for instance, the case you have attempted to make that human homosexuals are beneficial to the reproductive process as caregivers. Fine. Show me valid evidence that human homosexuals actually fill that niche better than human heterosexuals to provide an evolutionary advantage.

Human homosexuals may be born with homosexual tendencies. I don’t know. Some humans may be born with tendencies toward pedophilia, or sloth, or theft, or murder. I don’t know, but that doesn’t excuse human behavior, once those tendencies become action.

You could make the same case that you’re trying to make for greed, or sloth, or murder: the practice of each could be shown to be somehow beneficial to humans and shown to be replicated in the animal kingdom. After all, many wild animals kill other animals, even their own kind. That’s not evil. That’s not a sin. Many animals sleep sixteen hours a day. That’s not evil. That’s not a sin. Many animals take from other animals without need and will eat so much they actually vomit, just because they want more. That’s not evil. That’s not a sin.

They are animals. We are human. We should do better even on that level.

 

[richardacombs]

It is kind of unfair though that heterosexual can have loving intimate relationships with the opposite sex, but homosexuals can be in a loving relationship with the person they love (because it is immoral according to the church). So it is definitely different than a heterosexual avoiding lust.

Fair? I don’t know. I know that humans are social animals and they crave close companionship. I would never want to deny someone close social interaction with another human being, but that’s the rub of free will. Many times we have to choose the things that are the most difficult to do.

Let me give you an example. Pontius Pilate was asked to make a decision to either release or condemn Jesus. In his quest for some easy, fair solution, Pilate asked, “What is truth?” (John 18:38) (KJV) The Way, the Truth, and the Life was before him. Pilate didn’t have far to look, if only he had looked. In the end, Pilate gave in to the clamor of the crowd (the spirit of the time) and condemned Jesus to death.

 

[benidict]

So celibacy is unnatural too, right?

i hope not! or im in big big trouble. but yes i would say even though i practice it,it is unnatural. the man was made for woman, and vice versa. its a lifestyle choice. just as male homosexuality is unnatural, it is a lifestyle choice. to say its genetic is just laughable, because if it is, then the gene is working against itself to stay viable. makes no sense. peace.

 

[benidict]

It is kind of unfair though that heterosexual can have loving intimate relationships with the opposite sex, but homosexuals can be in a loving relationship with the person they love (because it is immoral according to the church). So it is definitely different than a heterosexual avoiding lust.

how is it unfair? im single. so according to the Church im to remaine chaste. doesnt matter what i think on the subject. this is what the Church has decreed. it is a private intstitution, which can set its own guidlines and rules. go ahead. have all the loving relationships with the same sex you want. but dont try to impose your values on an independent institution. it doesnt work that way. you can always leave and find somewhere more accomidating. i could too. but i personally believe the Church is right. peace

 

[Pons]

So celibacy is unnatural too, right?

The difference is Christ sanctioned celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God for those who can live with it (Mt 19:12):

“For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

“Celibacy for the Kingdom & the Fulfillment of Human Sexuality” by Christopher West

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Okay, let’s assume it’s wrong or immoral

I am afraid I have no such assumption available to me as that is generally what this whole thread is about. If the thread is discussing a certain conclusion, then I am not about to assume that conclusion in order to find evidence to support it.

I repeat: Never, ever, rely on evidence that is only evidence if you are forced to first assume the conclusion before the evidence supports that conclusion. Not only is it dangerous to do this, but you will very often be pulled up and made look silly for it too.

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

RichardCombs,

I have to admit I am entirely confused by you claiming that homosexuals are not good caregivers because they are not the ideal in a reproductive discussion. This appears to be a total non-squitar. In the realm of care giving and upbringing the reproductive part is already complete. Reproduction at this time has nothing at all to do with the successful and healthy upbringing of a child. Despite the beliefs of some members of the catholic clergy, sexual intercourse on any level should not be part of the upbringing and childhood experiences of our off spring, it should be entirely irrelevant.

As I said, the non-reproducing elements of other species benefit and do not harm those species. This is both in AND out of the realm of child care and child rearing. IN that realm is it useful to have elements that have not off spring of their own so their time and energy can be directed to other children. OUT of that realm these social structures also benefit from having elements who’s time and energy benefit the species as a whole and not merely the realm of rearing their own children.

I did not imply that you are a liar, nor did I infer such a thing.

Nor did I claim you called ME one. But I reffered instead to your unsubtle decision to throw about implications within catchphrases like:

This is certainly a case of figures don’t lie, but liars sure figure.

Comments like this add nothing to a conversation, serve only to make the other side of the conversation look bad, but succeed only in making the speaker look bad. Insults demean only the insulter, NEVER the insulted.

 

[ladybri77]

I am afraid I have no such assumption available to me as that is generally what this whole thread is about. If the thread is discussing a certain conclusion, then I am not about to assume that conclusion in order to find evidence to support it.

I repeat: Never, ever, rely on evidence that is only evidence if you are forced to first assume the conclusion before the evidence supports that conclusion. Not only is it dangerous to do this, but you will very often be pulled up and made look silly for it too.

You stated “if the thread is discussing a certain conclusion.” Not necessarily, people are coming in with many different conclusions about homosexuality. I’ve seen many times where this tool is used in arguments where we say, let’s assume something in order to prove a point. This is not an irrelevant statement at all especially in light of all the different conclusions made in this forum. It is perfectly reasonable in order to prove a point.

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

But not if the only way to prove your point is to first assume it.

Clearly there are useful times to assume something in order to explore it, but not if it leaves you with a conclusion that is only supported by things that you have to assume the conclusion in order to prove it.

The analogy I often offer is that of the 23ist. These people believe the number 23 controls everything. If you assume this to be true, you will find supporting evidence literally everywhere. Try it as a thought experiement sometime, it works. You will find 23 everywhere, or 32 which is 23 backwards, or numbers which are multiples of 23, or whose digits add to 23.

Many people are 23ists because of this. What they do not realise is that this works for EVERY number, especially low end prime numbers like 17, 19, 23 etc.

But they assume their conclusion and then find evidence that fits it ONLY because they have assumed the conclusion. As I said this is dangerous and you need to watch for yourself doing it.

That said, I have no ground on which to make any assumption about homosexuality being “wrong” or “immoral” and so it is not an assumption I am willing OR capable to make.

 

[ladybri77]

But not if the only way to prove your point is to first assume it.

Clearly there are useful times to assume something in order to explore it, but not if it leaves you with a conclusion that is only supported by things that you have to assume the conclusion in order to prove it.

The analogy I often offer is that of the 23ist. These people believe the number 23 controls everything. If you assume this to be true, you will find supporting evidence literally everywhere. Try it as a thought experiement sometime, it works. You will find 23 everywhere, or 32 which is 23 backwards, or numbers which are multiples of 23, or whose digits add to 23.

Many people are 23ists because of this. What they do not realise is that this works for EVERY number, especially low end prime numbers like 17, 19, 23 etc.

But they assume their conclusion and then find evidence that fits it ONLY because they have assumed the conclusion. As I said this is dangerous and you need to watch for yourself doing it.

That said, I have no ground on which to make any assumption about homosexuality being “wrong” or “immoral” and so it is not an assumption I am willing OR capable to make.

That’s interesting. I’m sure it’s true what you say about the 23ists. I will pray for you that your eyes be open to the Truth, the only Truth that offers peace and salvation, Jesus Christ.

Peace

 

[richardacombs]

RichardCombs,

I have to admit I am entirely confused by you claiming that homosexuals are not good caregivers because they are not the ideal in a reproductive discussion. This appears to be a total non-squitar. In the realm of care giving and upbringing the reproductive part is already complete. Reproduction at this time has nothing at all to do with the successful and healthy upbringing of a child. Despite the beliefs of some members of the catholic clergy, sexual intercourse on any level should not be part of the upbringing and childhood experiences of our off spring, it should be entirely irrelevant.

As I said, the non-reproducing elements of other species benefit and do not harm those species. This is both in AND out of the realm of child care and child rearing. IN that realm is it useful to have elements that have not off spring of their own so their time and energy can be directed to other children. OUT of that realm these social structures also benefit from having elements who’s time and energy benefit the species as a whole and not merely the realm of rearing their own children.

Nor did I claim you called ME one. But I reffered instead to your unsubtle decision to throw about implications within catchphrases like:

Comments like this add nothing to a conversation, serve only to make the other side of the conversation look bad, but succeed only in making the speaker look bad. Insults demean only the insulter, NEVER the insulted.

Provide evidence, not words. What you provide are opinions, not verifiable facts.

As to my purposeful decision to use a certain sentence, I have explained that by demonstrating that numbers can be used in various way to prove opposite points.

You have purposely chosen to ignore the salient points of the argument and, instead, concentrated on imagined insults.

 

[Portrait]

I actually laughed when I read sodomy ‘damages the orifice in question’. That is so wrong. Second of all if God is the creator of all things why did he concentrate the nerve endings in the rectum so highly in order that men (and not some, but all men) could receive pleasureful sensations there? Why would he have allowed that to happen if supposedly it is contrary to his master design?

Dear 031064,

Anal intercourse is sexually deviant conduct that is dishonouring to Almighty God and a violation of His moral law.

From a purely biological perspective, those of the same gender are not designed for intimate ‘face to face’ copulation, physically or genetically. Biology dictates that the vagina is made to accommodate the male penis. Moreover, the vagina has natural lubrication and multiple layers of protective skin cells in a way in which the anus does not, hence the dangers of infection and disease from anal intercourse are manifestly obvious. It is in this respect alone 'unnatural, that is to say, contrary to the created and God-given expression of human sexuality.

Whilst procreation may not be the only end of carnal copulation, it is clearly a major part of it. Without heterosexual intercourse as the natural expression of human sexuality, the future of mankind would surely be in jeopardy.

In view of this, can I kindly request that you at least re-consider your opinions on this very weighty ethical issue. Please do not be deceived, homosexuality is improper and unnatural conduct and intrinsically disordered.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

You are correct to say that from a purely biological point of view our sex organs are designed for reproduction.

=>

From that you infer that if we do something that ‘frustrates’ this purpose, it is wrong. [This you call ‘unnatural’[/COLOR].

So how do you make the step in this reasoning? Well because you assume that if something is ‘unnatural’ as defined it is wrong.

**Question 1 - How do you justify this assumption?

Question 2 - Sex has a social purpose which is to demonstrate love. It could be argued that this is more important than its biological purpose. [Human sociability is a higher order activity than reproduction]. Why is it wrong then to have sex for this purpose alone as gay people do?**

Question 3.- A celebate person frustrates the purpose of his sex organs but this is not considered wrong. Why?

Question 4 - A couple who cannot have children, a couple who practise natural birth control [Which is actually not natural at all!] are frustrating the purpose of sex but they are not doing wrong. Why?

Question 5 - Suppose we assume that not being able to have children is a negative feature of gay sex. It is also the case surely that expressing their love is a positive feature. Could you explain why the former outweighs the latter.

Question 6 - You worship a God who is, you claim, all love - please explain how he can be if he denies gay people the right to express their love physically. You may say that it is because he has made some rules which imply that this is wrong. My question is - why did he make those rules and not others?

No need to answer all these questions - suggest you try 1, 2, and 6

Best wishes

Laurie

 

[ladybri77]

You are correct to say that from a purely biological point of view our sex organs are designed for reproduction.

=>

From that you infer that if we do something that ‘frustrates’ this purpose, it is wrong. [This you call ‘unnatural’[/COLOR].

So how do you make the step in this reasoning? Well because you assume that if something is ‘unnatural’ as defined it is wrong.

**Question 1 - How do you justify this assumption?

Question 2 - Sex has a social purpose which is to demonstrate love. It could be argued that this is more important than its biological purpose. [Human sociability is a higher order activity than reproduction]. Why is it wrong then to have sex for this purpose alone as gay people do?**

Question 3.- A celebate person frustrates the purpose of his sex organs but this is not considered wrong. Why?

Question 4 - A couple who cannot have children, a couple who practise natural birth control [Which is actually not natural at all!] are frustrating the purpose of sex but they are not doing wrong. Why?

Question 5 - Suppose we assume that not being able to have children is a negative feature of gay sex. It is also the case surely that expressing their love is a positive feature. Could you explain why the former outweighs the latter.

Question 6 - You worship a God who is, you claim, all love - please explain how he can be if he denies gay people the right to express their love physically. You may say that it is because he has made some rules which imply that this is wrong. My question is - why did he make those rules and not others?

No need to answer all these questions - suggest you try 1, 2, and 6

Best wishes

Laurie

Contrary to popular thinking, reproductive means is the primary purpose for sexual intercourse, hence man was made for woman and woman for man. All things unnatural are not wrong except when it comes to sexual expression which is destructive to the person or persons when used against its main purpose, to reproduce or to express love to the opposite sex in a marriage covenant.

The only way true love can be validated is when one is expressing it in concordance with the design plan by the Divine Designer, otherwise, why would one want to hurt the other or oneself either emotionally, spiritually or physically?

When I say sexual expression can be destructive, I mean when used in the wrong way it can destroy one spiritually, emotionally and physically. I can vouch for the first two, and there is plenty of evidence for the third.

 

[Portrait]

You are correct to say that from a purely biological point of view our sex organs are designed for reproduction.

=>

From that you infer that if we do something that ‘frustrates’ this purpose, it is wrong. [This you call ‘unnatural’[/COLOR].

So how do you make the step in this reasoning? Well because you assume that if something is ‘unnatural’ as defined it is wrong.

**Question 1 - How do you justify this assumption?

Question 2 - Sex has a social purpose which is to demonstrate love. It could be argued that this is more important than its biological purpose. [Human sociability is a higher order activity than reproduction]. Why is it wrong then to have sex for this purpose alone as gay people do?**

Question 3.- A celebate person frustrates the purpose of his sex organs but this is not considered wrong. Why?

Question 4 - A couple who cannot have children, a couple who practise natural birth control [Which is actually not natural at all!] are frustrating the purpose of sex but they are not doing wrong. Why?

Question 5 - Suppose we assume that not being able to have children is a negative feature of gay sex. It is also the case surely that expressing their love is a positive feature. Could you explain why the former outweighs the latter.

Question 6 - You worship a God who is, you claim, all love - please explain how he can be if he denies gay people the right to express their love physically. You may say that it is because he has made some rules which imply that this is wrong. My question is - why did he make those rules and not others?

No need to answer all these questions - suggest you try 1, 2, and 6

Best wishes

Laurie

Dear Laurie Gibson,

My sincere apologies for the delay in responding to your questions, I am not ignoring them but I have only read your post just. God willing I will deal with them on Monday, so stand by for my reply. Thankyou for your questions and your patience.

A cordial welcome to Catholic Answers Forums - good to hear from a fellow U.K. citizen.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Contrary to popular thinking, reproductive means is the primary purpose for sexual intercourse

Your evidence for this is???

hence man was made for woman and woman for man. All things unnatural are not wrong except when it comes to sexual expression which is destructive to the person or persons when used against its main purpose, to reproduce or to express love to the opposite sex in a marriage covenant.

**Why do you think that such love MUST be ‘destructive’? I suspect you reason that, because it was in your case it must always be so. This is known as a false generalisation. My daughter and partner have a gay love that is wonderful and positive. If you knew them you would admit as much. I am sorry that your experience was negative but don’t assume all gay experiences are like yours. **

The only way true love can be validated is when one is expressing it in concordance with the design plan by the Divine Designer, otherwise, why would one want to hurt the other or oneself either emotionally, spiritually or physically?

If God made a person gay how can it accord with his plan that they are denied love?

When I say sexual expression can be destructive, I mean when used in the wrong way it can destroy one spiritually, emotionally and physically. I can vouch for the first two, and there is plenty of evidence for the third.

**It ‘can’ be but often it is not – that is the point you need to think **about.

Regards

Laurie

 

[ladybri77]

Contrary to popular thinking, reproductive means is the primary purpose for sexual intercourse

Your evidence for this is???

hence man was made for woman and woman for man. All things unnatural are not wrong except when it comes to sexual expression which is destructive to the person or persons when used against its main purpose, to reproduce or to express love to the opposite sex in a marriage covenant.

**Why do you think that such love MUST be ‘destructive’? I suspect you reason that, because it was in your case it must always be so. This is known as a false generalisation. My daughter and partner have a gay love that is wonderful and positive. If you knew them you would admit as much. I am sorry that your experience was negative but don’t assume all gay experiences are like yours. **

The only way true love can be validated is when one is expressing it in concordance with the design plan by the Divine Designer, otherwise, why would one want to hurt the other or oneself either emotionally, spiritually or physically?

If God made a person gay how can it accord with his plan that they are denied love?

When I say sexual expression can be destructive, I mean when used in the wrong way it can destroy one spiritually, emotionally and physically. I can vouch for the first two, and there is plenty of evidence for the third.

**It ‘can’ be but often it is not – that is the point you need to think **about.

Regards

Laurie

God didn’t “make” people to be gay just like he didn’t make people to have other sinful tendencies and weakness. We have a sinful nature because of the Fall in the beginning when sin entered the world. If you would consider man’s fallen nature and maybe the “why” behind why your daughter feels the way she does, I’m sure it would become clearer to you. The reasons why people fell attracted to the same sex point very positively to environmental influences whatever they may be. Please consider this for a moment would you?

P.S. My proof that it is biological first is Genesis in the bible, the obvious physical differences between male and females being made for one another, and the wisdom of the Holy Spirit backed up in holy scripture.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

God didn’t “make” people to be gay just like he didn’t make people to have other sinful tendencies and weakness. We have a sinful nature because of the Fall in the beginning when sin entered the world. If you would consider man’s fallen nature and maybe the “why” behind why your daughter feels the way she does, I’m sure it would become clearer to you. The reasons why people fell attracted to the same sex point very positively to environmental influences whatever they may be. Please consider this for a moment would you?

Well, for whatever reason, some people turn out to be gay. The question then is ‘is it right for them to express their love physically as straight people do?’ Some do whatever and their love turns out to be wonderful, positive and beneficial to them and others. So we had better find some very good reasons for saying it is sinful.

P.S. My proof that it is biological first is Genesis in the bible, the obvious physical differences between male and females being made for one another,

Yes the first male and female were made for each other but it does not follow that all other males and females were also made for each other! After all Adam was a gardener – am I sinful because I was a teacher?

and the wisdom of the Holy Spirit backed up in holy scripture.

**Other Christians, seeing the lives of gay couples they know, find the Holy Spirit telling them God approves. As to Holy Scripture, you had better quote me the verse. Here is one for you, ‘The Law was made for man, not man for the Law’.**Best wishes

Laurie

PS You did not answer my point about you ‘generalising’.

 

[davidv]

Well, for whatever reason, some people turn out to be gay.

Is this ordered or disordered? What is the basis for your answer?
**

The question then is ‘is it right for them to express their love physically as straight people do?’

**
How do you define right?

Some do whatever and their love turns out to be wonderful, positive and beneficial to them and others. So we had better find some very good reasons for saying it is sinful.

How do you know that it turns out so positively? Can you see the effect on their soul?

**Yes the first male and female were made for each other but it does not follow that all other males and females were also made for each other! **After all Adam was a gardener – am I sinful because I was a teacher?

Laurie

PS You did not answer my point about you ‘generalising’.

On what basis do you equate nature (sexuality) with occupation? One is given the other is chosen.