Homosexuality

[Charlemagne_II]

Jmp

**If it does happen to be a sin though, I don’t think it’s as bad as everyone says it is. **

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

I know it is fashionable for teenagers to rebel against authority, but do you really want to rebel against the Catholic Church and become your own moral authority on what is right and wrong?

 

[Jmp15945]

Jmp

**If it does happen to be a sin though, I don’t think it’s as bad as everyone says it is. **

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

I know it is fashionable for teenagers to rebel against authority, but do you really want to rebel against the Catholic Church and become your own moral authority on what is right and wrong?

I didn’t say they were right, which once again everyone seems to think. I didn’t say whether it was a sin, or if it was a bad sin. I said I don’t think it’s as bad as everyone says it is. Everyone that says it’s bad compares it to bestiality, rape, pedophilia, and someone earlier compared it to murder. All of those things have a victim, homosexual relationships, between two people of consenting age, that has no victim. It may be sinful spiritually, but it shouldn’t be compared to a sin where someone ends up getting hurt. It was both parties that made the choice to sin, there isn’t a victim here.

“If it does happen to be a sin though, I don’t think it’s as bad as everyone says it is.”

That’s not me saying that it isn’t a sin, or it is one. I just think that when hardcore catholics and christians provide an analogy, they should be providing an analogy that makes sense.

For example, the person earlier flat out compared it to murder, which again, has a victim.

They could’ve said "If there was contraception in adam and eves time, and they chose to use it, no one would be alive today. They both go against natural law… ect. ect. and that’s why they’re wrong. " It’s the exactly same point, but doesn’t compare it to murder.

That’s my point, people compare it to things that are totally awful just to get the point across of how homosexuality is, but the things compared aren’t even comparable. I’m catholic, I didn’t say whether or not I give into my urges or not. Just because I’m homosexual, don’t pretend to know me or pretend that I rebel because It’s “fashionable”. What upsets me is that everyone turns a blind eye to contraception and sex before marriage but homosexuality is 10 times worse. People pick and choose things from the bible every day, but homosexuals get preached to the most. That’s what gets me.

Not to say that homosexuals shouldn’t get preached to, but why does no one care to tell more people they’re sinners when they have sex before marriage, use contraception, watch pornography, or anything else. Yet, everyone has no problem preaching against homosexuals. Why don’t all mortal sins get the same treatment from people… I don’t understand it at all.

 

[James1215]

For those who believe that homosexuality is not a choice, do you believe that it always not a choice i.e. that nobody chooses to engage in homosexual behavior just for the kicks, so to speak?

This is not a great question but a total misunderstanding or an insincere comment, in my opinion. Homosexuality is involuntary, and gay sex is not. And having said that, few people are eligible to participate in gay sex just for kicks - could you or I? As to whether gay people ever have sex out of love, as Jmp might agree, this is something outsiders cannot presume to deny.

 

[buffalo]

Thank god adam didn’t.

But that’s exactly what I’m saying. People compare it to some things it shouldn’t be compared to. If it is a sin and I’m going to compare it to another, I would choose something more relatable, like contraception or sex before marriage.

Comparing being gay to murder, rape, pedophilia, ect. I don’t think that’s a fair comparison at all. The fact is, when someone engages in homosexual sex with another who consents, and they wait until consenting age just like a regular couple, then you can’t compare it to a sin where there is a victim.

They chose the sin, there is no victim. Maybe it’s bad spiritually, but it can’t be compared to where there is a victim. That’s what upsets me when people try to explain how it is wrong, there are other ways then comparing it to something it’s not similar to.

That was the entire point of my post- people compare it to things that aren’t comparable, just to get the point across that is it a sin. I didn’t say it was or wasn’t a sin, once again that’s not my point at all. I don’t think it has a place being compared to something like murder because it’s not murder. Abel didn’t say “Cain, Okay I’m ready, murder me”

EDIT: I read your post again, and you twisted my words! I didn’t say it wasn’t a grave sin, I just said I don’t think it’s as grave as the sins people compare it to. Then you go on to compare it to murder!

On Contraception

“the intrinsic evil of contraception” (Vademecum for Confessors, n. 4)
“intrinsically against nature … a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.” (Casti Connubii, n. 54)
“intrinsically immoral” (Address to Midwives)
“intrinsically wrong” (Humanae Vitae, n. 14)
“intrinsically immoral” (Compendium, n. 498)
“intrinsic unlawfulness of contraception” (Pope John Paul II, Speeches, 27 Feb. 1998)
“intrinsically evil acts … something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 80)
“intrinsically immoral” (Familiaris Consortio, n. 32)

On homosexual acts: “intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law” (Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations)

On laws allowing abortion or euthanasia: “legislation allowing such crimes is intrinsically immoral” (Speech John Paul II, July 7, 2000)

On wars of aggression: “intrinsically immoral” (Compendium of Social Doctrine, n. 500)

On artificial procreation: “intrinsically illicit” (Dignitas Personae, n. 17)

On human cloning: “intrinsically illicit” (Dignitas Personae, n. 28)

On certain types of laws: “intrinsically unjust” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 73; et alia)
and other documents.

The Magisterium has also specifically condemned the idea that an act can be known to be moral without knowing whether or not it is intrinsically evil (Veritatis Splendor, n.

82).

 

[James1215]

In spite of the comparisons to Cain’s murder and the implications of killing out the human race, and contrary to the impressively vague notion that gay sex is ‘intrinsically disordered’ let’s remember that being gay is mentally sound, normal and healthy according to evidence.

apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

Sure scientific evidence is different from faith, but it is also worth taking a break to remember that the more emotive and charged discussion gets, the less likely it is to be charitable and loving towards those who might feel targeted.

 

[buffalo]

In spite of the comparisons to Cain’s murder and the implications of killing out the human race, and contrary to the impressively vague notion that gay sex is ‘intrinsically disordered’ let’s remember that being gay is mentally sound, normal and healthy according to evidence.

apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

Sure scientific evidence is different from faith, but it is also worth taking a break to remember that the more emotive and charged discussion gets, the less likely it is to be charitable and loving towards those who might feel targeted.

There is no way to make a serious claim SSA is mentally sound, normal and healthy. That is a crock and everyone knows it. You can call on science all you want but its limited say about it is severely lacking.

A bottom line question - does it help you get to heaven?

 

[John21652]

In spite of the comparisons to Cain’s murder and the implications of killing out the human race, and contrary to the impressively vague notion that gay sex is ‘intrinsically disordered’ let’s remember that being gay is mentally sound, normal and healthy according to evidence.

apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

James, it beggars beleif that someone who describes themselves as an atheist would come to a Catholic forum and so obviously seek justification and even affirmation of personal beliefs regarding homosexuality. In fact, your coming to CAF defies logic and common sense. Your task would be so much easier if you went to one of the anti-Catholic websites which abound on the Internet, or even to one of the numerous web sites dedicated to atheism. You, however, choose to come to CAF knowing full well that the Catholic Church is vehemently against homosexuality on both theological and Natural Law grounds. The latter, of course, underpins Catholic philosophy, as it has underpinned humanity’s political, legal and moral philosophy for most of history. Knowing that Catholics well versed in the Catechism and moral theology will attack your personal opinions, thus making the affirmation of your personal views that much more difficult, I then must ask are you really here to try and convince others that the Catholic Church is somehow wrong on this issue? If that is the case, then your presumption at moral, philosophical and theological expertise is breathtaking in its arrogance, because you are attempting to place your own reasoning powers above those of emminent philosophers, theologians and moral ethicists who have shone the light of Reason on human affairs for much of history.

Your paragraph above highlights this explicitly. You use the phrase “… impressively vague notion…” when commenting on whether homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. That one phrase indicates you are dismissive of Natural Law moral reasoning and that means, by inference, that you denigrate Natural Law philosophy. Considering how Natural Law philosophy underpins much of western democracy’s institutions, I really wonder if you are sublimally anti-western morality and social institutions. Be careful, for it has long been noted that the Natural Law has a habit of burying its undertakers.

You see James, Natural Law moral reasoning unequivocally shows us that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and therefore immoral. No ‘ifs’, no buts’ and no “…impressively vague notions…” about it. I suggest that before you begin to throw around such empty phrases, you begin a proper analysis of Natural Law and pit your intellect against some of the finest minds to ever grace planet earth, for they, not you James, built the Natural Law and from it they built our western-judeo Christian societies.

As for your assertion that “…being gay is mentally sound, normal and healthy according to evidence.”, that is purely subjective and contrary to not only Natural Law, but to much of the available secular evidence.

There is much evidence that dissproves your assertions and it doesn’t require a great degree of initiative to find it. Try this link, where you can read the following that evidence is mounting that homosexuality is pathological, manifested in many and various ways. For instance -

One important and carefully conducted study found suicide attempts among homosexuals were six times greater than the average (Remafedi et al. 1998).

Sure scientific evidence is different from faith, but it is also worth taking a break to remember that the more emotive and charged discussion gets, the less likely it is to be charitable and loving towards those who might feel targeted.

I find it very hypocritical that someone who comes to a well known and very obviously a Catholic web site and who preaches such obvious anti-Catholic beliefs, so easily falls back onto the equally well known catholic principle of “charity” when his opinions are challenged. In other words, under the guise of “personal opinion” you feel free to denegrate every single principle of Catholicism and then cry foul by dint of the “charity” card when you are rebutted. Nothing you write of, and say you believe, in stands up to scrutiny according to either Catholicism, or common sense.

 

[Sullibe]

This is not a great question but a total misunderstanding or an insincere comment, in my opinion. Homosexuality is involuntary, and gay sex is not. And having said that, few people are eligible to participate in gay sex just for kicks - could you or I? As to whether gay people ever have sex out of love, as Jmp might agree, this is something outsiders cannot presume to deny.

See, I question this, with, I’ll admit, no authority to do so except my personal opinion.

I have no doubt that there are many, and probably most, gays out there who deal with SSA as an involuntary pulse. However, I have met several, mostly gay men, who I classify as the Narcissistic Gay. These are the gay men who in reality seem to be so in love with themselves, that they seek what they consider the next best thing (since part of being a narcissist requires attention from others, so being alone is out of the question), another guy who is very attractive (though they’ll never admit that their partner is MORE attractive than them, or even AS attractive), and then they feel they have the best of both worlds.

Now I suppose it’s entirely possible that this is really an act, but given that I have witnessed this behavior from several different gay men, in many different places, and of many different ages and races, I do find it hard to believe that ALL of them are managing to put up the same pretense. And it’s this type of homosexual behavior that leads me to believe that in SOME, but definitely not all, cases, that it could indeed be a choice.

Has anyone else ever come across this type?

 

[Newbie2]

This is not a great question but a total misunderstanding or an insincere comment, in my opinion. Homosexuality is involuntary, and gay sex is not. And having said that, few people are eligible to participate in gay sex just for kicks - could you or I? As to whether gay people ever have sex out of love, as Jmp might agree, this is something outsiders cannot presume to deny.

I note that you fail to answer the question.

You’re claiming, then, that all people who consider themselves homosexuals haven’t chosen that orientation?

Yes, there is a difference between the acts and the orientation, that is a good point. But there are undeniably those who have chosen to be attracted to people of the same sex; people who are perhaps confused about their sexuality and are influenced by a certain element to “become gay”.

If your assertion were so, every single case where someone has changed their orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, assisted or not, is bogus. It is irrefutable that there are those who were homosexual and have changed orientation. How can that be so if the person did not choose to be homosexual in the first place?

 

[StOwen]

I note that you fail to answer the question.

You’re claiming, then, that all people who consider themselves homosexuals haven’t chosen that orientation?

Yes, there is a difference between the acts and the orientation, that is a good point. But there are undeniably those who have chosen to be attracted to people of the same sex; people who are perhaps confused about their sexuality and are influenced by a certain element to “become gay”.

If your assertion were so, every single case where someone has changed their orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, assisted or not, is bogus. It is irrefutable that there are those who were homosexual and have changed orientation. How can that be so if the person did not choose to be homosexual in the first place?

No he’s saying that being attracted to the same sex is not something one can simply ‘turn on’ or ‘turn off’.

 

[Newbie2]

No he’s saying that being attracted to the same sex is not something one can simply ‘turn on’ or ‘turn off’.

Yes, I understand that, and agree with that, but elsewhere he implies that homosexuality is ONLY acquired through some prenatal presposition, and not at all by choice.

 

[James1215]

John,

‘I suggest that before you begin to throw around such empty phrases, you begin a proper analysis of Natural Law and pit your intellect against some of the finest minds to ever grace planet earth, for they, not you James, built the Natural Law’

I will start with this notion that the Natural Law was constructed.

‘As for your assertion that “…being gay is mentally sound, normal and healthy according to evidence.”, that is purely subjective and contrary to not only Natural Law, but to much of the available secular evidence.’

I said according to evidence and meant it – have a look at the link I gave, it is to an APA site.

Charity and love are not exclusively Catholic, and I deliberately phrased my point with these words for the resonance they have in terms of the faith. I am not asking for charity in comments about me but in comments to others who might feel targeted by the highly emotive way this is being discussed.

James

 

[James1215]

Yes, I understand that, and agree with that, but elsewhere he implies that homosexuality is ONLY acquired through some prenatal presposition, and not at all by choice.

Yes, exactly. There is no evidence that any sexuality is chosen or produced by conscious effort. If someone says they had SSA but now chose to live as straight, this is not good enough evidence alone that sexuality is modified by thought. The observed data fit the orientation of bisexuality, not necessarily of a conversion. Backing up this interpretation is the fact that so much ‘conversion therapy’ achieves nothing.

And that type ‘narcissistic gay’ mentioned above, it seems an extremely subjective categorisation that belongs in the eye of the beholder. If you really think self-love can turn someone gay, this is an idea but one which surely needs evidence.

 

[James1215]

not necessarily prenatal, just not chosen

 

[John21652]

John,

‘I suggest that before you begin to throw around such empty phrases, you begin a proper analysis of Natural Law and pit your intellect against some of the finest minds to ever grace planet earth, for they, not you James, built the Natural Law’

I will start with this notion that the Natural Law was constructed.

‘As for your assertion that “…being gay is mentally sound, normal and healthy according to evidence.”, that is purely subjective and contrary to not only Natural Law, but to much of the available secular evidence.’

I said according to evidence and meant it – have a look at the link I gave, it is to an APA site.

Charity and love are not exclusively Catholic, and I deliberately phrased my point with these words for the resonance they have in terms of the faith. I am not asking for charity in comments about me but in comments to others who might feel targeted by the highly emotive way this is being discussed.

James

You wont debate the issues raised, will you James? Why is that? Is it intellectual cowardice, or intellectual vacuity? Yes, you linked to an APA site. I then linked to and quoted sites with emerging research results which contradict you. I rebutted your assertion *"…being gay is mentally sound, normal and healthy according to evidence." *However, you choose to ignore what doesn’t fit your personal views and you hide behind a call for “charity” which is a hallmark of the moral code you denigrate. That’s hypocrisy writ large.

And while you are at it, learn to use the ‘Quote’ button. You are making the thread untidy.

 

[James1215]

John,

No you did not rebut my assertions, you disagreed with them and cited what you thought was some contradictory evidence. As you yourself mentioned, I have spent over 100 posts talking about homosexuality; I am not about to let what only appears to be a good counter stand.

On that evidence.

Its rationale is reviewing research conducted as long ago as before 1973, and it spends a lot of time establishing a correlation between homosexuality and pathologies. It is a testament to the intellectual honesty of whoever wrote this page that after their focus on the sexuality itself as a locus of the research, they demonstrate that they do not substantiate your stance, and state this explicitly. That is not their aim. The purposes are to extend psychological study over groups who may be more prone to pathologies, but whom were neglected because of the verdict of the APA in 1973. It acknowledges that in the 1990s, other world organisations followed the judgment of the APA anyway, even if the APA was premature.

It states:

‘First, there is now clear evidence that mental health problems are indeed associated with homosexuality. This supports those who opposed the APA actions in 1973. However, the present papers do not answer the question; is homosexuality itself pathological’

‘The papers do show that since only a minority of a nonclinical sample of homosexuals has any diagnosable mental problems (at least by present diagnostic criteria), then most homosexuals are not mentally ill.’

I will make a few other points.

a) Correlation itself is insufficient for denigrating a condition that is not intrinsically pathological. There is a correlation between genius and mental health problems also.

b) The correlation they say is not inevitably due to social stigmatisation; they accept that it has a role. One piece of evidence they give suggested that pathology arose from a lack of self-acceptance. I would argue that self acceptance is related closely to the acceptance and love shown by others (or not shown), which is of course linked to stigmatisation.

c) Social stigmatisation is itself a nebulous concept, and I would argue that relevant factors range from overt condemnations by others to taboos reinforced by cultural heteronormativity. We need more evidence than a study conducted in the Netherlands to talk about this.

d) The pathologies they cite relate to other things which relate to homosexuality. They are apparently proximate but not intrinsic. For example - damaging social conventions on relationships in gay communities. Another example: ‘Another factor in suicide attempts would be the compulsive or addictive elements in homosexuality’. Someone would need to show that compulsion is a unique part of being gay for this to support your position. Instead, it shows that pathology (depression) might result from pathology (addiction), which are correlated with gay participants.

e) The complex web of interrelations between biological, environmental, social, cultural and cognitive factors needs considerable investigation. I foresee that the sexuality and the gay people themselves will bear no more intrinsic fault than applies to heterosexuality, after fuller analysis and research.

I will draw your attention back to the quote in your article: ‘most homosexuals are not mentally ill’

Yes there may well have been problems with the 1973 APA evidence (or there may not - it is the implications for research that were challenged here), but since then there have been decades of work undertaken. The link I gave to the APA now is more informed than ever.

 

[LemonAndLime]

If its a choice, why do people struggle against it?