Homosexuality

[soccergirl]

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

 

[camerong]

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

Welcome to the Forums!

If you’re Catholic, I really don’t think you have a choice about this one. Despite what some here say, it is simply logically impossible to both believe that the Church is Christ and believe that it is wrong about homosexuality. The question is, do you believe the Church is divine, or not? Either the Church is telling the truth or its lying. If it’s telling the truth, believe it. If its lying, then there’s no reason for any of us to be Catholic.

Let me remind you, of course, that the Church does not teach that homosexuality is wrong–only that homosexual sex is a sin. One is not sinning or wrong by merely being a homosexual, and the Church has observed what you have–that many people have no choice in the matter.

To make an educated decision, I truly think you should spend time learning about the Church’s teachings on family and sexuality as a whole. (Please forgive me if you already understand the following). It’s not some puritanical assertion–it’s that sex, the reason sex exists, is to make children. Sex certainly serves other important purposes, but its raison d’etre, if you will, is to make children. So, the Church teaches that it is unacceptable to have sex while at the same time defeating the natural process of conception. That includes condoms, the pill, and sex that by its nature cannot result in conception, such as oral or anal sex (regardless of whether a homosexual or heterosexual does it). When we have this kind of sex, we are telling God that His provisions and methods are not good enough for us–we want the pleasure, but the blessings from it it.

Ultimately, I also want you to consider what I wrote several posts above–I believe that homosexuality is wrong primarily because the Church said so (though I have other reasons). And I firmly believe the Church is Christ on this earth. If Christ Himself appeared and told us homosexuality was wrong, we would have no doubts. The thing is, that’s exactly what has happened.

Good luck!

 

[soccergirl]

So is it natural for a person born homosexual to want to have sex with the same sex in the same way someone who is born heterosexual naturally wants to have sex with the opposite sex , if that’s a biological thing, then would it be wrong because God created our biology? I just don’t understand why someone would be biologically made that way if God didn’'t want people to sin. I just want to connect science with religion, because I believe God created physical, and spiritual world, so how can they contradict each other?

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hello Soccergirl,

Here is the other side of the story.

You must know or have heard of gay people who have lived as a loving couple for years. My daughter and partner have done so for over 20 years. Some people on this thread have tried to suggest that they cannot be truly happy, but as her dad I know if she is happy or not and by everyday standards their relationship is as good as any straight couple. Second ,remember that expressing their love physically hurts nobody. Next remember that you worship a God whose essence is love and ask yourself and your conscience - would such a God condemn a wonderful love that hurts nobody? Finally remember the stories of Jesus’s conflict with the Pharisees over rules - he said that they should not blindly follow rules but should think of what was behind the rules. What do you think he would have said of people who condemn love that is wonderful and harms nobody because it offends some archaic rule?

Now your church has a long argument to condemn this love. My view is that this shows there must be some flaw in the reasoning. Your church says that as sex is for reproduction it is wrong to have sex that frustrates this purpose. Hence gay sex and contraception are banned. But sex is also and I think more importantly to express love so why should sex that does this only be banned? After all my wife and I cannot have children because we are too old but we are still allowed to have sex to express love. Why not gays who because of their orientation cannot have children? There are lots of problems with the Church’s views on Natural Law Ethics and many are the books that have been written on the subject so, prepare for lots of hard arguments on both sides.

But basically the situation is very simple - do you deny what is in front of your eyes because clever people tell you that what you see cannot be so OR do you say, “No, this is love and this harms nobody so it cannot be sinful”?

Let me end with a story. In the Middle Ages the clever thinkers in the Church had concluded via lots of complicated arguments that the moon was perfect and had a perfectly smooth surface. When Galileo saw mountains and craters on the moon they told him he must be mistaken! And refused to look through the telescope. But obviously the cleverest argument in the world cannot alter the facts.

That is like what the church says about my daughter - when I tell of the great love she and her partner have for each other and how this is expressed physically, they refuse to accept what I have seen or look for themselves. They have decided on the basis of their clever clever arguments that what is before their very eyes is not really there.

Now, after this post I prophesy that loads of Catholics will queue up calling homosexuality names etc etc but again I plead with you - look with clear eyes on gay people in faithful life long partnerships and ask yourself ;‘are they really sinful?’

Good luck.

Laurie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Soccergirl,

You are also quite right in what you say. It is perfectly natural for a gay person to desire a member of the same sex - it is the way they are. Nobody knows why people turn out gay - probably the answer is quite complicated - but, however it happens, some people end up that way with a natural desire for their own sex.

God made the world in such a way that this happens and, as you rightly say, it would be quite wrong of him to ban the expression of a love that he has created. And it does no harm so in effect the Church has God say, “I have made a world in which you are gay and where if you express this physically with a partner in a faithful relationship you will get great delight and hurt nobody, BUT I have these rules you know and have decided that if you do this and do not repent I will cast you into torment in Hell for ever”

Would a God of Love really say this? I don’t think so.

Laurie

 

[soccergirl]

The problem is that if homosexuality is really okay, then the entire Bible has been discredited because if one thing in the Bible is wrong then you have to question all of it. I personally believe that the Bible is valid because the Catholic Church was given the authority to validate it from Jesus Himself to Peter and so on. My problem is if homosexuality is a biological thing that isn’t chosen, then why did God do that in our evolution if He wants people to be lead away from sin?

 

[soccergirl]

Has it been proven that homosexuality is genetic/biological thing?

 

[camerong]

So is it natural for a person born homosexual to want to have sex with the same sex in the same way someone who is born heterosexual naturally wants to have sex with the opposite sex , if that’s a biological thing, then would it be wrong because God created our biology? I just don’t understand why someone would be biologically made that way if God didn’'t want people to sin. I just want to connect science with religion, because I believe God created physical, and spiritual world, so how can they contradict each other?

There are lots of things we are naturally drawn to that are immoral. Men left to their natural desires rape women. Some have desires towards children. Some towards animals. Note, I am very certainly NOT equating homosexuality with these things, but the argument “it’s natural so it must be okay” clearly fails because of these examples. All of us have natural desires which are clearly not moral. Further, the Church points out that homosexuality is NOT natural, in a certain way. Women are not equipped with organs to have sex with other women, nor men with other men.

The problem is that if homosexuality is really okay, then the entire Bible has been discredited because if one thing in the Bible is wrong then you have to question all of it. I personally believe that the Bible is valid because the Catholic Church was given the authority to validate it from Jesus Himself to Peter and so on. My problem is if homosexuality is a biological thing that isn’t chosen, then why did God do that in our evolution if He wants people to be lead away from sin?

Our evolution has also given us the desire to sex before marriage, to steal, to lie, etc. Do you question whether sex before marriage is acceptable, just because we have the natural urge to do it?

The common view is to see homosexuality as undesirable if homosexuals were required to remain chaste. I would not view it this way. No doubt homosexuality is a heavy cross–but all crosses are blessings, and the grace a homosexual gains from remaining chaste must be very powerful. Perhaps that is why God makes some people homosexuals–so they can become more devout. Recall that Catholicism holds that the purpose to life is not happiness, but devotion.

Has it been proven that homosexuality is genetic/biological thing?

The Church has recognized that many people cannot help but to be attracted to the same sex (whether this is genetic, biological, learned at very early age is not important, and it is likely a combination of them all).

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Camerong - It is fine for you to disagree but please read what I have written. The difference between rape, murder and lots of things that are wrong and gay sex between faithful partners is that the former cause lots of unhappiness but FAITHFUL GAY SEX HURTS NOBODY! That is why so many people question if it is wrong!

Soccergirl -There are loads of things said in the Bible that we do not think are right. In the OT: genocide, polgamy, stoning adulters…In the NT Paul approves of slavery, thinks marriage is a poor substitute for celibacy, thinks women should obey their husbands and not speak in Church. However that does not mean that you need reject the whole Bible. Perhaps the writers were inspired by God but not all the time. They had free will and perhaps used it from time to time to mistake what God wanted them to say? It is a big question but only fundamentalist Christians think that every word in the bible is true. We have some times to look at what the Bible is saying and in the light of what we know about right and wrong declare that the Bible writers were mistaken. For example in the OT God commands the Jews to kill all the Amalakites in a town including all the women and children. Do you think that God really said this?

Best wishes and keep thinking!

Laurie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Reply to Cinette,

In answer to your question - I would prefer my daughter to continue to live with the wonderful partner she has had for the last 20 years. Obviously!

Best wishes.

 

[soccergirl]

I feel like all of the Bible is right, or none of it is. I don’t think you can pick and chose. Either there is the God of the Bible, or there is a God everyone makes up personally based on what they personally believe. The latter would have everyone scattered, and not united. So I’m still not totally with you Laurie.

So homosexuals are born homosexuals because it gives them a cross to bear?

 

[Cinette]

I feel like all of the Bible is right, or none of it is. I don’t think you can pick and chose. Either there is the God of the Bible, or there is a God everyone makes up personally based on what they personally believe. The latter would have everyone scattered, and not united. So I’m still not totally with you Laurie.

So homosexuals are born homosexuals because it gives them a cross to bear?

*I believe that most homosexuals are conditioned by their environment. A family is made up of a Mom and Dad and then come the children. We live in a world that has become extremely corrupt because people believe they can do what they like - it is their choice to abort, to have sex with whoever and whenever… This is a long story so I will cut it short to the best of my ability.

Children respond to their environment. A child who grows up in a stable home and sees that their parents love and respect each other will naturally develop in the same way and look for love, stibility, family… Let me give you an example of a child that went the other way for a while.

“John” was a “surprise” baby born after three daughters. The Father owned a sports shop and wanted his son to be sporty but the son was not really interested in sport very much (wasn’t a sissy either) but the Father would “tease” John and call him “My fourth daughter” which was very hurtful. An employee who worked for the Father began to invite John fishing and won his confidence until one day…he made an advance. John was confused but the man was his “friend” and so he did not protest too much…!! The advances were mild but took place nevertheless. John one day spoke to a teacher at his school and the teacher said “Oh you must not be ashamed of your sexual orientation” so John drifted into this lifestyle and after highschool he lived the homosexual lifestyle. Fortunately one day he met an older man who had observed his unhappiness and confusion and counselled him. John worked his way out of the homosexual lifestyle. He is now married and has children and counsels others. I saw a TV programme interview with a Psychologist who works with people of same sex attraction and he has written a book. Basically he says that in many cases it is a consequence of an absent Father - whether a single parent home or one where the Father is too busy - he comes home, reads his newspaper undisturbed, is away on business and generally does not participate in the child’s life much. Parents are warned about this.

We also are exposed (in your face) through films, magazines, social behaviour etc to sinful lifestyles. The tempation is there all the time.

Soccergirl you live in a world full of “inyourface” temptations and you are going to have to be really strong if you decide to choose a future that will bring you happiness. People say it is natural to have sex, sex has become recreation, fun! There is something else. When a woman has intercourse there is a hormone which is released by the brain called Oxitocin which bonds her with her lover. This hormone is also released during childbirth and breast feeding. So a woman who engages in sex with someone she thinks she is in love with and perhaps more than one will be confused by the oxitocin don’t you think?

My marriage is wonderful and we are crazy about each other. You see there can be sex without intimacy… Intimacy is part of the privacy and specialness of one’s relationship with a spouse. Don’t you want that?

One more story before I sign out. My daughter-in-law’s sister got married three weeks ago - she was 35 and a virgin. Mary has long blond hair and is striking. However, she is selective and waited for the right man. Many women couldn’t wait that long. I don’t know if I could have but she did.

We have choices for good or bad… I will tell you something else. I left the Catholic Church for 27 years. I am back for 20 years and have got to know my Faith really well and continue to do so. The Church Jesus founded is exciting, beautiful and precious. I suggest you get to know your Faith, really know your Faith and you will see. You will benefit.

Yes some people are born that way… Yes it is a cross they must bear. Some people are also born blind or deaf or worse. We don’t have all the answers. We do the best we can with what we have…

Cinette*

 

[camerong]

Camerong - It is fine for you to disagree but please read what I have written. The difference between rape, murder and lots of things that are wrong and gay sex between faithful partners is that the former cause lots of unhappiness but FAITHFUL GAY SEX HURTS NOBODY! That is why so many people question if it is wrong!

By saying it hurts nobody, you are already presuming you are correct. That’s not a valid position. If I’m right, and it is immoral, it indeed hurts all parties involved. Now, you may say that the fact that it appears to hurt no one is evidence that it is moral, but again, that’s not enough to say that because it hurts no one it IS moral. I can think of plenty of things which hurt no one which are immoral. I doubt you would be willing to do away with beliefs in right or wrong, and only judge actions upon whether they hurt anyone or not. Say, an adulteress relationship where the cheated-on spouse never finds out? History has shown many famous instances of this, where for all we know, no one was hurt by it. At least, we can declare that no one was hurt just as much as we can say that about a homosexual couple.

Soccergirl -There are loads of things said in the Bible that we do not think are right. In the OT: genocide, polgamy, stoning adulters…In the NT Paul approves of slavery, thinks marriage is a poor substitute for celibacy, thinks women should obey their husbands and not speak in Church. However that does not mean that you need reject the whole Bible. Perhaps the writers were inspired by God but not all the time. They had free will and perhaps used it from time to time to mistake what God wanted them to say? It is a big question but only fundamentalist Christians think that every word in the bible is true. We have some times to look at what the Bible is saying and in the light of what we know about right and wrong declare that the Bible writers were mistaken. For example in the OT God commands the Jews to kill all the Amalakites in a town including all the women and children. Do you think that God really said this?

Best wishes and keep thinking!

Laurie

Referring to the bolded section: I believe every word of the Bible contains religious truth. I do not believe every word is literal. But I do not believe homosexual sex is wrong because the Bible says so–I’m not convinced it even does. I believe it because the Church, Christ Himself, says so.

 

[Cinette]

By saying it hurts nobody, you are already presuming you are correct. That’s not a valid position. If I’m right, and it is immoral, it indeed hurts all parties involved. Now, you may say that the fact that it appears to hurt no one is evidence that it is moral, but again, that’s not enough to say that because it hurts no one it IS moral. I can think of plenty of things which hurt no one which are immoral. I doubt you would be willing to do away with beliefs in right or wrong, and only judge actions upon whether they hurt anyone or not. Say, an adulteress relationship where the cheated-on spouse never finds out? History has shown many famous instances of this, where for all we know, no one was hurt by it. At least, we can declare that no one was hurt just as much as we can say that about a homosexual couple.

*Absolutely reasonable argument! *

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Soccergirl
The world is not black or white I’m afraid that truth is never simple. Now regarding the Bible - think of St Paul approving of slavery - do you really think he was right? Think of God telling th Jews to kill all the Amalakites, children animals and all - do you think that was right?

So you see - the Bible is not all true. But there is no need to go to the other extreme and think it is all false.

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?’

It is not easy but the extremes ‘all right or all wrong’ are probably untrue but tempting perhaps!

Laurie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Camerong.

No I do not assume I am correct. In fact I make no assumptions at all I tell you what is in front of my eyes namely a wonderful loving relationship that hurts nobody and ask 'why is it wrong?'

Now you give an example of another relationship that hurts nobody namely a pair of adulterers who manage to keep their relationship secret. Well apart from the fact that, at any moment they might be discovered [causing unhappiness] they are reneging on a promise which is usually wrong. Also to ‘live a lie’ cannot be considered usually as an integrated life.

Producing unhappiness is not the only reason why an act might be wrong.

You meet a married couple who are in love, you see that their love makes them the good people they are, you see how it lightens up their lives and the lives of those about them [Cinnette and husband perhaps?] and then you meet a faithful gay couple of whom exactly the same can be said. If you see goodness the one couple you cannot deny it in the other can you.

Regards

Laurie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Cinnette,

You tell stories about people who have given up their gay lifestyle and are happy. I tell about my gay daughter who has lived in a loving gay partnership happily for over 20 years.

Here is the difference.** I do not suggest your friend goes back to his gay life if he is happy now, you suggest my daughter give up her love of 20 years. Monstrous!**
Best wishes

Laurie

 

[camerong]

Soccergirl
The world is not black or white I’m afraid that truth is never simple. Now regarding the Bible - think of St Paul approving of slavery - do you really think he was right? Think of God telling th Jews to kill all the Amalakites, children animals and all - do you think that was right?

So you see - the Bible is not all true. But there is no need to go to the other extreme and think it is all false.

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?’

It is not easy but the extremes ‘all right or all wrong’ are probably untrue but tempting perhaps!

Laurie

To a protestant, your perspective works. Prayerfully consider everything, chose for yourself what to believe. But for a Catholic, there is no middle ground. Either you accept the Church as infallible, or, if the Church is not infallible, it is an organization which has been perpetrating the biggest fraud in history. You see, the Church is not merely telling people how to be good people, as everyone likes to think Christ does in the Bible–the Church is actually declaring that IT IS Christ’s Body on Earth. It is declaring that in certain statements, it is divinely infallible. If you don’t believe that, you would be pretty insane to listen to the Church about anything else. If you know a wise man who is also a world renowned con artist, would you go to him for advice? That’s what you’re asking soccergirl to do here–reject the Church. There is no middle ground.

Now you give an example of another relationship that hurts nobody namely a pair of adulterers who manage to keep their relationship secret. Well apart from the fact that, at any moment they might be discovered [causing unhappiness] they are reneging on a promise which is usually wrong. Also to ‘live a lie’ cannot be considered usually as an integrated life.

Producing unhappiness is not the only reason why an act might be wrong.

Your statements contradict themselves. You say that breaking a promise is wrong, but you also say that the only reason an act might be wrong is if it produces unhappiness. It’s easy to envision a situation in which breaking a promise does NOT hurt anyone. Does that make breaking promises acceptable?

Turning to the adultery hypothetical. Do you not believe that there has ever been a pair of adulterers who did not feel any remorse for their actions, were never afraid of getting caught, and yet never caused anyone any pain outside of themselves? If not, imagine such a case. In such a situation, according to your second statement, the adultery is not wrong because it doesn’t hurt anyone. Correct?

What if I steal a thousand dollars from Bill Gates, and he never finds out. That would make me super happy, and he experiences no unhappiness ever. Is that okay then?

And what about when things get more complicated? How do you balance my happiness gained from an act against another person’s unhappiness? If it makes me super duper happy, and makes someone else only a little unhappy, is it wrong? What if I steal a thousand dollars from Bill Gates, and he does find out, but since he’s a billionaire, he only cares a little bit. That would make me super happy, and he experiences very little unhappiness. Does that mean it’s not wrong?

What you propose is a kind of subjective morality, or in other words, that morality differs for everyone and every situation. Like wishing to have Catholics decide their own doctrines (albeit prayerfully), subjective morality is an utter and complete rejection of the Church. There is no middle ground between believing that God has given mankind one eternal morality, and believing all that matters is what makes us happy.

 

[MerryCatholic]

you cannot use bees as an example, you have to use mammals since the whole sodomy thing does not relate to the lower animals. If you are reducing homosexuality to sodomy you will have to restrict your consideration in that way.

Gay does not equal homosexual and has no meaning whatever in the animal world so do not use it in that way if you are discussing biology, not culture.

sodomy the act is wrong because it is destructive and damages the orifice in question which was not made for the purpose. you can use a pen as a can opener but that does not benefit the pen, the can, or the food inside. It is unproductive, useless and potentially dangerous for the animal because it is physically destructive, and that physical destruction is its main purpose, and for the species because species preservation is not served.

near relatives or other members of the group can assist in child-rearing irrespective of their sexual orientation so by itself that is no argument.

the condition of a subgroup of homosexual, as in acting out sexually in that manner, individuals is destructive of the group in that it thwarts normal social and family relationships of the group. It appears in nature only in conditions of stress–captivity, population pressure, habitat destruction; or disorder–hormonal disruption, behavioral maladaption etc. Therefore the study of nature shows it is contrary to natural law, and therefore never a good thing in the long run for the individual animal or the society or the species.no, life saving medical procedures are done to correct a condition that is contrary to natural law so this example also fails

those who argue that homosexuals actual benefit the individual, social group and species by their activity will have to demonstrate proof, until then the natural law as discovered and explained by science will have to suffice in the evidence generated up until now. Love how science-philes who cling to the theory of evolution reject it when it backs up the notion of natural law in the reproduction and survival of species

Great answer!

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Camerong,

You are very good on the it’s either black or its white argument quite forgetting that there are many shades of grey in between. One [false] attraction of your church to people who like things simple is that you have this nice position - don’t bother to think just accept what the church tells you no matter how daft it seems [more on this below].

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.
2. 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 cannot give a general account of right and wrong that is subject to no philosophical objections. If I could I would be Professor of Philosophy at Cambridge University. Nor can you or you would have that position yourself! I am certainly not propounding such a theory here.However I do not accept that if I deny Natural Law Ethics or some of the teaching of your church I am therefore obliged to accept that ethics is subjective -whatever that means.

So let me tell you where I am coming from. As a father I am surely in a position to realise if my daughter is happy. If she has been that way for 20+ years due to her relationship with her partner I can surely be expected to know that too? If the relationship has produced other good effects on herself and on her partner that too would be obvious. If too nobody has been hurt by the relationship again that would be clear to me. 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. Nevertheless it is highly probable. I do not need to be able to give a full philosophical account of right and wrong either to recognise goodness that is so self-evident. It is absurd to say that such an account is needed for, if it was, nobody would be able to say murder was wrong or marital love good.]

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. He is also inconsistent because he is a
God of Love yet he is supposed here to be condemning it.

What God cannot do is make their love bad by human standards because, in the case of my daughter the love displayed is a paradigm example of human love. Now God is supposed to want us to fulfill our true nature by loving him and by loving our neighbour - it is therefore inconsistent to say that he condemns gay love.

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?

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. Good people blinded by dogma into believing monstrous things. A bit like the burning of heretics. You probably don’t accept that but I bet your great grandad ten times removed did. His church told him that it was fine so as the heretics perished in agony before him he could not see it was wrong blinded by the church that told him not to worry - actually all is well, no wrong here at all.

You blind guide!

Best wishes

Laurie