Homosexuality

[James1215]

John,

Yes it is quite clearly my opinion on the matter that I am claiming, not Ultimate Truth. However, I think it is intuitively highly agreeable. I would link this to theological ground by arguing that some features of human nature might be part of God’s design, and perception and intuition must be adequate for coming to some moral judgments.

My argument is not that everything is by design - love is the main criterion here. I don’t think my views can be misrepresented as easily as you might like.

Now, can you prevent me seeking this basis by claiming both that no element of human nature reflects design and that no human faculties are capable of discerning moral value?

 

[James1215]

Incidentally, is mention of intestinal worms in gay men a knock-down argument? This stretches belief, let alone plausibility!

 

[James1215]

Debora,

I understand the view that gay sex is a sexual sin much like premarital sex, but whereas the latter could be put down to giving in to temptation before it is allowed, the former is regarded as never legitimate. This is in spite of the recognition that gay people can love each other just as strongly. I appreciate the social significance of encouraging the view that gay sex is just another sexual sin (and we’re all sinners), but is it not a bit disingenuous to claim comparability of treatment when the impact of the judgement is necessarily much more severe on the gay people?

 

[John21652]

Incidentally, is mention of intestinal worms in gay men a knock-down argument? This stretches belief, let alone plausibility!

It was an extension of the examples of the horrendous medical issues involved and to which I gave a link. You did check the link, James, didn’t you? It’s a world wide public health issue. Like I said, go look it up yourself. Are do you conveniently ignore all that stuff?

 

[James1215]

Yes indeed I did read it, but from the information it gives, you cannot conclude that homosexuality itself is responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS. The article states that ‘complex factors increase risk’ including:

Existing relative high prevalence of HIV in gay population
Lack of knowledge of HIV+ condition
Complacency about risk
Substance abuse

And even social discrimination and cultural issues ‘including homophobia, stigma,
and lack of access to health care may increase risk behaviors or be a barrier to receiving HIV prevention services.’

The article appears to be a sincere and informed contribution to fighting the spread of AIDS, not a condemnation of homosexuality

 

[mathematoons]

I understand the view that gay sex is a sexual sin much like premarital sex, but whereas the latter could be put down to giving in to temptation before it is allowed, the former is regarded as never legitimate.

Is it really worse to have sex with the wrong person than to have sex with the right person at the wrong time? After all, at the wrong time, even the right person becomes the wrong person.

I appreciate the social significance of encouraging the view that gay sex is just another sexual sin (and we’re all sinners), but is it not a bit disingenuous to claim comparability of treatment when the impact of the judgement is necessarily much more severe on the gay people?

I’m not sure I’m following you here. Can you explain?

 

[James1215]

If the view is that ‘we are all sinners, we all may commit sexual sins’ then there is an implied equality between hetero and homo people, because we are all weak humans.

If someone were to say that the corresponding measures one should take against these sins were also comparable, I would disagree. It is relatively easy to wait until marriage (especially depending on the speed of the engagement) compared to difficult to remain chaste one’s entire life. So there is a tension in the two statements.

You would deal with this by presuming that it is worse to succumb to gay temptation than to straight. Even if I was working in agreement with Catholic views of sexual sin, I think there would be some evidence required to support what you say.

 

[michelleds]

If the view is that ‘we are all sinners, we all may commit sexual sins’ then there is an implied equality between hetero and homo people, because we are all weak humans.

If someone were to say that the corresponding measures one should take against these sins were also comparable, I would disagree. It is relatively easy to wait until marriage (especially depending on the speed of the engagement) compared to difficult to remain chaste one’s entire life. So there is a tension in the two statements.

You would deal with this by presuming that it is worse to succumb to gay temptation than to straight. Even if I was working in agreement with Catholic views of sexual sin, I think there would be some evidence required to support what you say.

I hate to sound like a broken record but these same arguments keeping being made by different posters. There is nothing special about having SSA. for a 43 year old woman with SSA and a 43 year old unmarried woman, the requirement is the same. identical. nothing unique or special.

The argument, sometimes hidden and sometimes blatent, that SSA or gay-ness is somehow so special as to require special exemptions from God’s law, is nothing more than a hopeful justification, created out of whole cloth.

 

[buffalo]

Yes indeed I did read it, but from the information it gives, you cannot conclude that homosexuality itself is responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS. The article states that ‘complex factors increase risk’ including:

Existing relative high prevalence of HIV in gay population
Lack of knowledge of HIV+ condition
Complacency about risk
Substance abuse

And even social discrimination and cultural issues ‘including homophobia, stigma,
and lack of access to health care may increase risk behaviors or be a barrier to receiving HIV prevention services.’

The article appears to be a sincere and informed contribution to fighting the spread of AIDS, not a condemnation of homosexuality

How about rectal reconstruction surgery? I do not want to pay for it.

 

[James1215]

I get the feeling your unwillingness to pay comes from your particular Catholic perspective, and the latter is not supported by the former. For me, with my ideological underpinnings, I am quite happy to pay for other people’s health treatments if they cannot afford them.

 

[James1215]

Michelle,

‘The argument, sometimes hidden and sometimes blatent, that SSA or gay-ness [homosexuality] is somehow so special as to require special exemptions from God’s law, is nothing more than a hopeful justification, created out of whole cloth’

I’m sorry if other people have made you tired from justifying your faith, but if you do not want to engage with my argument on homosexual design, rather than casually dismiss it, you don’t have to - I will talk to someone else.

James

 

[Newbie2]

I get the feeling your unwillingness to pay comes from your particular Catholic perspective, and the latter is not supported by the former. For me, with my ideological underpinnings, I am quite happy to pay for other people’s health treatments if they cannot afford them.

Even if their irresponsible repeated behavior,causes their own medical problems, such problems being completely avoidable?

 

[buffalo]

I get the feeling your unwillingness to pay comes from your particular Catholic perspective, and the latter is not supported by the former. For me, with my ideological underpinnings, I am quite happy to pay for other people’s health treatments if they cannot afford them.

It is not restricted to this. ANY risky behavior that will increase my health insurance costs I would have an issue with. Included would be skydiving, extreme sports, risky sex, etc. As with auto insurance and life insurance, ask the question - if yes then they should be thrown into a risk pool and pay the increased cost themselves.

 

[michelleds]

Michelle,

‘The argument, sometimes hidden and sometimes blatent, that SSA or gay-ness [homosexuality] is somehow so special as to require special exemptions from God’s law, is nothing more than a hopeful justification, created out of whole cloth’

I’m sorry if other people have made you tired from justifying your faith, but if you do not want to engage with my argument on homosexual design, rather than casually dismiss it, you don’t have to - I will talk to someone else.

James

James, my apology, somewhat tongue in cheek, was to sounding like a broken record. It wasn’t personal to you. Now, what do you want to say about what I said that you quoted? My statement re specialness was in direct response to your statement regarding how a straight person “only” had to be chaste until they could get married. (as an aside, and not for argument, I might point out that this brought to mind an imagery of a “shotgun wedding” literally)

 

[Newbie2]

It is not restricted to this. ANY risky behavior that will increase my health insurance costs I would have an issue with. Included would be skydiving, extreme sports, risky sex, etc. As with auto insurance and life insurance, ask the question - if yes then they should be thrown into a risk pool and pay the increased cost themselves.

Dittos.

 

[James1215]

I think you’re right to point out sometimes it seems that many opinions/arguments are repeated by different posters with apparently little regard for what has already been said. I will try and avoid being guilty of this myself! I reacted haughtily because I thought you had just generalised what ‘my kind’ (atheists…) say about these sorts of things, yet it seemed you were adding nothing by pointing this out, because my post was not to you!

I was clarifying something asked by Mathematoon, but on the issue of expectations of gay/straight people, it just so happens that gay people face a much more long-term requirement than married straight people. Clearly this fact can be acknowledged without an implicit value assertion.

 

[James1215]

N2 and Buffalo - as we’re talking about our own money, this is a moot point!

 

[buffalo]

N2 and Buffalo - as we’re talking about our own money, this is a moot point!

How are risky behavior health care costs not born by taxpayers or insurance members?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

There is absolutely ZERO evidence to support homosexuality being genetic. There is no gay gene.
Homosexuality is the result of one or more of upbringing/environment/choice.
Active homosexuality is not only a sin but it is a grave sin.

Agree.

 

[TimothyH]

No, unexplained meaning no one knows why or how this happened, whether it be genetics, environmental, or psychological.

But we DO know that it was not a choice. That’s why homosexuality is refereed to as a condition, not a choice. And as it is not a choice, it cannot be a sin in itself.

No one wakes up one day and thinks “hmmm I think I’m gonna go ahead and be attracted to the same sex now.”

You are reading too much into the Catechism, things which it does not say.

The Catechism does not say that it is not a choice. It simply says that the reason why some experience same sex attraction is UNEXPLAINED. A “Condition” refers to a status, or a state. “Condition” does not refer to the cause of the status or state. A condition, status or state can be chosen or caused by something outside of one’s control

I’m not arguing the cause of homosexuality and prefer not to engage in such a discussion. I am however, challenging your intepretation of the Catechism. The words in the Catechsim do not state that it is not a choice. They state that the reason is simply unexplained.

-Tim-