Homosexuality

[Dan_Daly]

Here’s the kicker: People can (and often are) reasonable with regard to one belief while being unreasonable with regard to other beliefs. When discussing an issue, what’s important is their reasoning on the issue being discussed, not how reasonable/unreasonable they are with regard to other beliefs. To dismiss a person’s reasoning on a topic because of their faulty reasoning on another topic would be to commit the fallacy called the argumentum ad hominem.

But my point wasn’t about what motivates one to do good, but whether or not the fact that a god commands something makes it good or bad.

So you seem to be saying that loving someone means one aught to obey their commands. Thus, it seems that the logical consequence of this is loving your enemy requires obeying your enemy. Do you think we should love our enemies? if so, do you think US soldiers would have to obey terrorists (which would be a logical consequence to what you seem to be saying and a “yes” to the previous question).

Or loving someone does not necessarily mean one aught to obey them.

Yes, we agree, people can be reasonable on somethings and unreasonable on others. I think we all do both, although in varying degrees.

However, the existence of God is central to our topic, so my question remains: do you believe in God?

I did not say that loving equates to obeying. Loving entails knowing and appreciating the true nature of the relationship between the lover and the person he loves. In the case of a man and God, that means man recognizes God as his:
-Creator
-Lord
-King
-Redeemer

Among other things.

God is our king whether we like the fact or not. He is our creator whether we like the fact or not. He is our Lord whether we like the fact or not.

So will we be:
-a disobedient subject/creation
-an obedient subject/creation who only offers such obedience while grumbling and complaining
-an obedient subject/creatoin who offers willing obedience out of love

That is the question.

Pax Christi

 

[Dan_Daly]

I’d add that based upon your own arguments you seem to be stigmatizing murderers. Why is it obvious nobody would want to live in a society with widespread murder? We do.

While you seem to recognize the negative social impact of murder, you simply dismiss the negative social impact of sexual immorality, be it homosexual or heterosexual.

-the spread of disease
-abuse of women
-abuse of children
-unstable family relationships
-violence

These are only a few of the consequences that follow when a society abandons obedience to God’s plan for marriage: an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman which lasts until death and is open to life.

Pax

 

[Portrait]

By what standard are you judging your god’s character? If you are doing so by his own standard, that would be circular.

So your god is a-ok with owning human beings as property in some contexts! That alone should suffice for not trusting him as a messenger of morality.

Yes I would (at least when it comes to morality). The Ten Commandments forbid things like working on the Sabbath under penalty of death, which we don’t adhere to today. Most of the good prohibitions in the Ten Commandments have been frowned upon by every society. Similarly, the Sermon on the Mount does contain some good teachings, but it also give bad advice by advocating extreme pacifism (Matthew 5:38-42), it tells people to not plan for the future (Matthew 6:25-34), and it contradicts itself (for example, Matthew 6:1-4 says to pray in secret while Matthew 5:16 says to do good works so that others may see them).

Oh yeah, I shouldn’t forget that in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:17-20) Jesus said, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled,” meaning that all of the Old Testament laws apply, even the laws about slavery and not working on the Sabbath under penalty of death.

Any intersection between the ten commandments and our values are incidental.

Dear Biblepoe,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response above.

The criterion, dear friend, by which I evaluate the character of God is Divine Revelation in Sacred Scripture, which reveals that He is merciful and gracious and is truth and love. Moreover, His dealings with men in the biblical narrative exemplifly repeatedly the truth that He is such. The faithful, who accept the inspiration and truth of Sacred Scripture, believe this because they know that “God is the author of Sacred Scripture. The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 105). True, this is a matter of Christian belief, but the faithful would most certainly reject the notion that they judge God’s character by their own arbitrary standard.

God’s revelation, dear friend, was progessive and what I am contending is that this whole issue of slavery in the O.T. must needs be seen against the backdrop of the privilleged position of the Jews as the people of God.

It is important for us today, dear friend, to understand that legitimate distinctions can be made between the legislation given to Israel as a theocratic state under Moses and the more universal revelation given to mankind. Thus, for example, in the Mosaic law the death penalty was prescribed for eighteen different offences, including attempting to lead men to worship other gods (Deut. 13: 1-6); cursing a parent (Ex. 21: 17); kidnapping (Ex. 21: 16) and the rape of married woman (Deut. 22: 25-29).

It is hardly surprising that the Decalogue has been “frowned upon” by fallen men in their rebellion against God and His universal laws for mankind. Nevertheless, dear friend, the Church treats the Ten Commandments as divine laws from Almighty God that Holy Mother Church can never change, add to, or subtract from. Moreover, the Church does not see the Decalogue as arbitrary rules and regulations, but as commandements for protection. If we are obedient to them eternal happiness will be our reward, but if we disobey them we will surely suffer the dreadful consequences.

Regarding the Sermon on the mount, dear friend, I think that your understanding of its teaching is plainly wrong. Your first passage (S. Matt. 5: 38-42) does not “advocate extreme pacifism”, for Jesus is treating of the issue of unlimited personal vengeance in the light of the circumscribed Mosaic precept An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, which had in fact been given to put a check upon the lust to avenge. Jesus insists that a disciple should be ready to suffer loss rather than to resort personal vindictiveness. Jusus does not state that men should irresponsibly make no provision for their future (S. Matt. 6: 25-34), rather He is refering to undue anxiety as to whether men will have the wherewithal to provide food and clothing for themselves and their dependents. He is decidedly not decrying careful and sensible provision for the future. He bids His disciples to refrain from freting unduly about what tommorrow may bring - jolly excelllent counsel. With regards to St. Matthew 6: 1-4and 5: 16, there is no contradiction as you allege. The first passage is discussing how pious acts are vitiated when performed to ‘be seen of men’. Only when practiced with an entire lack of ostentation and without any desire to win praise from men, are they of any true worth. In the latter text (5: 16), Jesus is saying that His disciples must not hide themselves, but must live and work in places where their influence may be felt, and the light that is within them be most fully manifested to others - not, I hasten to add, for their own glorification (cf. S. Matt. 6: 1-4), but that others may see the light of genuine Christian goodness, finding expression in practical acts of loving-kindness and service. It is a light not of this world but one which emanates from God and as such gives honour and praise to its Giver. As for your final biblical reference (S. Matt. 5: 17-20), I have already anticipated my response in my remarks above repecting the legislation given to Israel as a theocratic state and the universal revelation given to all mankind which has perpetual validity. Thus, dear friend, we need to distinguish between that which is distinctly temporary and the moral law which is eternally binding.

The Decalogue and the Lex Divina are the historical roots of the American legal system. Indeed, that is why Moses is included among the great lawgivers whose faces are represented in the fresco that adorns the walls of your House of Representatives chamber. How is that insignificant, dear friend?

To be continued/

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

The intention of the user, not the maker, is what’s important. This reminds me of a scene from Apollo 13 when the flight director of the mission said to the manufacturer of the one of the spacecraft sections that they needed to use for something it was not designed to do, “I don’t care what it’s designed to do, I care what it can do.”

I never said that pleasure is the highest good. However, I see no reason why doing something for pleasure alone is necessarily immoral.

On top of that, sex serves a social role by bringing people together. Even the Catholic Church seems to recognize it, since it teaches that the purposes of sex are both unitive and procreative. I simply see no reason why the ability to procreate should be a requirement for sex to be moral.

I’m not aware of any studies that suggest that sexual acts not open to procreation causes one to become more selfish.

That’s irrelevant to my objection, which is that the capability to procreate is of no relevance to the morality of sex.

Dear Biblepoe,

Hello again and now to continue with my response.

You are mistaken, dear friend, what the Maker intended is what is of paramount importance. Therefore what matters is whether or not something is contrary to God’s design for human sexuality. When we look back to what we are told about the beginnings of human sexuality in the Book of Genesis, we find that carnal copulation was intended to be a seal on a faithful, loving, exclusive heterosexual relationship. As God created man and woman together in His own image, ‘becoming one flesh’ in heterosexual intercourse is not merely a union but a reunion, but a homosexual union is in effect a repudiation of that arrangement. This is why it is so wicked to seek to legitimize and normalize homosexual deviant acts of depravity or to argue that homosexual liasons are equally acceptable alternative variants.

True, dear friend, seeking pleasure is not always sinful *per se *, thus I might go on a cruise for pleasure and relaxation or have a meal out with my wife for pleasure, but a homosexual liason is purely hedonistic and serves no purpose, save for the sexual gratification of those involved in this most unnatural union. Now clearly this is as immoral as auto-eroticism or beastality because it eliminates the possibility of the gift of life, thus frustrating the command of God to ‘Be fruitful and multiply’. Any sexual act that is closed the gift of another human life is necessarily unnatural and wrong because it is a departure from God’s norm for human sexuality.

The Catholic Church does indeed teach that sex has a unitive role, but only within in a loving heterosexual marriage, dear friend. Pro-creation is the most natural outcome of the joining of a man and woman and this can never be the case within a homosexual union because those of the same gender were not intended by God or by nature for intimate sexual relations.

We do not need to be spoon-fed with ‘studies’ which confirm that sexual acts that are non-procreative foster selfishness. Surely, this is a self-evident fact, dear friend, for the couple involved have only each other to think about and to satisfy, whereas the presence of children naturally encourage them to be less focused upon themselves and their own wants.

The inability to pro-create can only be ‘irrelevant’ with respect to couples who are infertile, since their inability to engender offspring is through no deliberate fault of their own. However, in the case of homosexual unions the moral question is highly relevant, since it is unnatural and immoral, being contrary to God’s norm for human sexuality.

This will be my final post for now as it is my custom to take a breather from the boards at weekends. Have a jolly splendid weekend, my dear friend, and thankyou for a charitable discussion.

God bless you.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

 

[Biblepoe]

Yes, we agree, people can be reasonable on somethings and unreasonable on others.

So you seem to be withdrawing the initial reason for that question being relevant.

However, the existence of God is central to our topic, so my question remains: do you believe in God?

You haven’t demonstrated that my belief or nonbelief in the existence of a god is relevant, so I’ll try to keep the discussion on topic and, as much as I can, to the point. I don’t want you to get away with steering the topic away.

I did not say that loving equates to obeying. Loving entails knowing and appreciating the true nature of the relationship between the lover and the person he loves.

I just want to emphasize that believing that a being exists is not necessary for understanding the nature one would be having with the being if the being did exist.

In the case of a man and God, that means man recognizes God as his:
-Creator
-Lord
-King
-Redeemer

Among other things.

God is our king whether we like the fact or not. He is our creator whether we like the fact or not. He is our Lord whether we like the fact or not.

I wouldn’t recognize your god as a lord and king over me because I have never seen a logical argument that demonstrates that we aught to do what he says. Where is the logical connection between, “God is a powerful being who created us,” to, “We aught to obey him?” How do you jump from that is statement to that aught statement?

I’d add that based upon your own arguments you seem to be stigmatizing murderers.

I’m saying that murdered by definition murder, and that no god or ‘natural law’ is required from people to abhor and strictly prohibit murder.

Why is it obvious nobody would want to live in a society with widespread murder? We do.

It’s obvious that 99.99999% of everyone wants to live in a society free of widespread murder because every society has had some sort of prohibition against killing others without approved reasons (like self-defense).

While you seem to recognize the negative social impact of murder, you simply dismiss the negative social impact of sexual immorality, be it homosexual or heterosexual.

-the spread of disease
-abuse of women
-abuse of children
-unstable family relationships
-violence

These are only a few of the consequences that follow when a society abandons obedience to God’s plan for marriage: an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman which lasts until death and is open to life.

While there definitely can be negative impacts of certain sexual behaviors, adherence to your god’s commands are not necessary to avoid or reduce them. In fact, your god, in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 orders that a woman who is raped must marry her rapist! Do you really think that obeying that command reduces negative social impacts?

 

[Biblepoe]

The criterion, dear friend, by which I evaluate the character of God is Divine Revelation in Sacred Scripture, which reveals that He is merciful and gracious and is truth and love.

So it seems you’re evaluating god’s character by the criteria he gave you in his holy book! Given that, regardless of whether or not he is a sadist who enjoys torturing other, he can always give his own character as the standard for judging himself!

God’s revelation, dear friend, was progessive and what I am contending is that this whole issue of slavery in the O.T. must needs be seen against the backdrop of the privilleged position of the Jews as the people of God.

So there are contexts in which your god would permit owning another human being as property.

It is hardly surprising that the Decalogue has been “frowned upon” by fallen men in their rebellion against God and His universal laws for mankind. Nevertheless, dear friend, the Church treats the Ten Commandments as divine laws from Almighty God that Holy Mother Church can never change, add to, or subtract from.

In that case, do you think that the prohibition against working on the Sabbath is a good rule that aught to be implemented in our society?

If we are obedient to them eternal happiness will be our reward, but if we disobey them we will surely suffer the dreadful consequences.

Sure, your god uses his power to punish and reward to get people to follow his commands. However, this is not an argument that the things he commands are moral per se, only that you’ll want to follow them if you want a reward or don’t want to be punished.

Regarding the Sermon on the mount, dear friend, I think that your understanding of its teaching is plainly wrong. Your first passage (S. Matt. 5: 38-42) does not “advocate extreme pacifism”, for Jesus is treating of the issue of unlimited personal vengeance in the light of the circumscribed Mosaic precept An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, which had in fact been given to put a check upon the lust to avenge. Jesus insists that a disciple should be ready to suffer loss rather than to resort personal vindictiveness. Jusus does not state that men should irresponsibly make no provision for their future (S. Matt. 6: 25-34), rather He is refering to undue anxiety as to whether men will have the wherewithal to provide food and clothing for themselves and their dependents. He is decidedly not decrying careful and sensible provision for the future. He bids His disciples to refrain from freting unduly about what tommorrow may bring - jolly excelllent counsel. With regards to St. Matthew 6: 1-4and 5: 16, there is no contradiction as you allege. The first passage is discussing how pious acts are vitiated when performed to ‘be seen of men’. Only when practiced with an entire lack of ostentation and without any desire to win praise from men, are they of any true worth. In the latter text (5: 16), Jesus is saying that His disciples must not hide themselves, but must live and work in places where their influence may be felt, and the light that is within them be most fully manifested to others - not, I hasten to add, for their own glorification (cf. S. Matt. 6: 1-4), but that others may see the light of genuine Christian goodness, finding expression in practical acts of loving-kindness and service. It is a light not of this world but one which emanates from God and as such gives honour and praise to its Giver. As for your final biblical reference (S. Matt. 5: 17-20), I have already anticipated my response in my remarks above repecting the legislation given to Israel as a theocratic state and the universal revelation given to all mankind which has perpetual validity. Thus, dear friend, we need to distinguish between that which is distinctly temporary and the moral law which is eternally binding.

You having to write a lengthy paragraph to show that the Sermon on the Mount doesn’t contain some horrible advice if properly interpreted shows, at very least, that your god has been ineffective at accurately communicating his messages about what is moral and immoral.

Also, Matt. 6: 25-34 (King James Version) says:

“Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?”

you really need to stretch passages like these in order to make your argument about them offering good advice.

You are mistaken, dear friend, what the Maker intended is what is of paramount importance. Therefore what matters is whether or not something is contrary to God’s design for human sexuality.

No one on this thread has demonstrated a logical connection between, “it is the case that god created us with the intention of us having sex this way,” to, “We aught to have sex the way the god intended.” How do you draw a logical bridge between that is statement to that aught statement? That’s been my point this entire thread.

True, dear friend, seeking pleasure is not always sinful *per se *, thus I might go on a cruise for pleasure and relaxation or have a meal out with my wife for pleasure, but a homosexual liason is purely hedonistic and serves no purpose, save for the sexual gratification of those involved in this most unnatural union. Now clearly this is as immoral as auto-eroticism or beastality because it eliminates the possibility of the gift of life, thus frustrating the command of God to ‘Be fruitful and multiply’. Any sexual act that is closed the gift of another human life is necessarily unnatural and wrong because it is a departure from God’s norm for human sexuality.

So it seems you are withdrawing your argument that homosexuality is immoral on the grounds that it has not purpose other than pleasure seeking, and that you’re going back to it going against your god’s will.

Homosexuality being against god’s will has been the argument consistent throughout this thread, yet I haven’t been shown a logical connection from the is to the aught with regard to god’s commands.

The Catholic Church does indeed teach that sex has a unitive role, but only within in a loving heterosexual marriage, dear friend. Pro-creation is the most natural outcome of the joining of a man and woman and this can never be the case within a homosexual union because those of the same gender were not intended by God or by nature for intimate sexual relations.

In post 19, you said that ‘natural’ means adhering to god’s intent. So what you really seem to be saying in the above paragraph is that the union in a sexual relationship only matters if it conforms to god’s intent.

We do not need to be spoon-fed with ‘studies’ which confirm that sexual acts that are non-procreative foster selfishness. Surely, this is a self-evident fact

No, things like this shouldn’t just be accepted without some sort of evidence (at very least, personal observation). Accepting things without evidence is a huge problem and is the number one reason why some people are so easily taken advantage of.

Surely, this is a self-evident fact, dear friend, for the couple involved have only each other to think about and to satisfy, whereas the presence of children naturally encourage them to be less focused upon themselves and their own wants.

This argument works just as well against those who don’t have children.

The inability to pro-create can only be ‘irrelevant’ with respect to couples who are infertile, since their inability to engender offspring is through no deliberate fault of their own. However, in the case of homosexual unions the moral question is highly relevant, since it is unnatural and immoral, being contrary to God’s norm for human sexuality.

The argument that I mentioned infertile couples in response to was your argument that having sex without the possibility of procreation is immoral. Now, it seems you are going back yet again to arguing that god commanded sex to be a certain way, and thus having sex contrary to that is immoral. I’m fine if you want to continuously go back to that argument if you actually demonstrate the validity and soundness of it.

 

[davidv]

{snipt}
No one on this thread has demonstrated a logical connection between, “it is the case that god created us with the intention of us having sex this way,” to, “We aught to have sex the way the god intended.” How do you draw a logical bridge between that is statement to that aught statement? That’s been my point this entire thread.
{snip}

This question was answered in post #10 of this thread.

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

Disordered sex is an offense against reason. One “ought” to be reasonable therefore one ought to avoid offending reason.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

[Hi, I’m not new, but I haven’t been here in years ]

I think your post is interesting, but I think your whole thing about people not being “born like that” in regards to sexuality is completely irrelevant. It was a red herring you should have dismissed. Who cares if somebody is “born gay”? We’re not talking about being homosexual per se, but committing homosexual actions and engaging in homosexual “marriage”.

Whether a gay orientation is genetic or not is totally irrelevant and a complete red herring. I don’t think it even needs to be addressed. Interesting read though.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

[Oh, and as to their responses, I think that they’re pretty bad and that’s all I’ll say about that. The key in these discussions is to keep everything polite, not get worked up, and stay detached and impersonal.

A lot of people look at these things without being close to the situation. Being close friends with people who support gay marriage, and being family members and friends with gay people, I’ll give my views WHEN THE SITUATION CALLS FOR IT. But I won’t pick fights. The one thing I’ve noticed is that the majority of the people supporting gay marriage are nice, well-meaning, good people, and talking down to them or “preaching” to them will only make you look bad in comparison. Just my two cents.]

 

[Dan_Daly]

So you seem to be withdrawing the initial reason for that question being relevant.

I don’t believe so.

You haven’t demonstrated that my belief or nonbelief in the existence of a god is relevant, so I’ll try to keep the discussion on topic and, as much as I can, to the point. I don’t want you to get away with steering the topic away.

You’ve made the statement that what God thinks is irrelevant to the morality of sexual behavior. Whether or not God exists is pertinent to whether or not He is relevant. If we were having a discussion about whether or not global warming was a significant problem, it would be relevant to know if everyone in the conversation believed in the globe.

I just want to emphasize that believing that a being exists is not necessary for understanding the nature one would be having with the being if the being did exist.

I disagree. A hypothetical abstract relationship is quite different from an actual concrete relationship with an existing person. For example, how a single man relates to his imaginary future wife, is quite different from how a married man relates to the actual woman he is married to. And if the married man, is not willing to acknowledge that his wife exists, he will…have problems.

I wouldn’t recognize your god as a lord and king over me because I have never seen a logical argument that demonstrates that we aught to do what he says. Where is the logical connection between, “God is a powerful being who created us,” to, “We aught to obey him?” How do you jump from that is statement to that aught statement?

That’s an interesting question. First off, God has told us to do so. Secondly, if God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and responsible for our creation, continued existence, and eternal salvation, it would appear to me to be the height of arrogance to believe that you or I, who are not all-powerful or all-knowing and completely dependent on God, should follow our own will instead of God’s will when the two conflict.

I’m saying that murdered by definition murder, and that no god or ‘natural law’ is required from people to abhor and strictly prohibit murder.

What is your definition of murder?

It’s obvious that 99.99999% of everyone wants to live in a society free of widespread murder because every society has had some sort of prohibition against killing others without approved reasons (like self-defense).

This is an argument in favor of the natural law. As you point out, every culture understands that murder is wrong. Unfortunately, while understanding that it’s wrong, many cultures still tolerate and even promote it, sometimes on a massive scale, as our society does with the murder of the unborn.

While there definitely can be negative impacts of certain sexual behaviors, adherence to your god’s commands are not necessary to avoid or reduce them. In fact, your god, in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 orders that a woman who is raped must marry her rapist! Do you really think that obeying that command reduces negative social impacts?

Obeying any of God’s commands reduces negative social impacts, as sin (the refusal of obedience to God) is by definition a negative social impact. As a Catholic, I am not going to argue that we should be living by the law of the Old Testament. The Old covenant has been fulfilled in Christ’s New Covenant. Furthermore, the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Ghost, is the authoritative interpreter of Scripture.

Pax

 

[pdstor]

It’s my view that none of the arguments on this thread have drawn a logical connection between, “it is the case that the creator commands X” and, “you aught to do X.”

The best attempt I’ve seen so far is to say that the god will reward and or punish us based on whether or not we follow his commands, but that’s not an argument that things are actually immoral per se, but rather an arguing that you’ll want to conform to the powerful dictator.

What does “ought to do X” mean? It means that, for whatever reason, choice X is to be selected over its alternatives. The “oughts” guide our choices, in other words.

God’s commands are to be followed precisely because God’s commands are revelations about the final cause of man, the objective and real end which guides our choices. As the ultimate Good, God precisely is morality itself. God’s commands ought to be followed because God is the oughts.

When Hume emptied his bowels on paper about this supposed “is-ought dichotomy,” it was because he had dispensed of final causes as inherent parts of nature, dismissing them as something we made up in our tendency to anthropomorphize stuff. Likewise, he dismissed of formal causation, and immediately spewed out the Problem of Induction as a result. He had himself planted the bombs that blow up his own philosophy and most of modern philosophy with it.

 

[pdstor]

While there definitely can be negative impacts of certain sexual behaviors, adherence to your god’s commands are not necessary to avoid or reduce them. In fact, your god, in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 orders that a woman who is raped must marry her rapist! Do you really think that obeying that command reduces negative social impacts?

Sorry to double-post, but I don’t like misrepresentations. “Rape” means seduction of a virgin here, an idea that is akin to nonviolent statutory rape like, say, someone older than 17 sleeping with a 17-year-old where it is illegal. Proof: Exodus 22:16-17.

 

[pdstor]

Dear filter2700,

The very unnaturalness of homosexual aberrant acts of grave depravity, is sufficient to condemn them, dear friend, because they are a violation of the natural order of our race. As with auto-eroticism and birth prevention, homosexual acts are unnatural and wrong because they involve the wasting of the substance (semen) that should be directed towards the creation of a new life.

Trying to work through this issue; maybe you can help. I would wonder why old people are allowed to marry, but not homosexuals. Aquinas wrote:

Although old people have not sufficient calidity to procreate, they have sufficient to copulate. Wherefore they are allowed to marry, in so far as marriage is intended as a remedy, although it does not befit them as fulfilling an office of nature.

By “remedy” he means, I am assuming, marriage as a means to prevent lustful acts, 1 Cor. 7:9. Certainly, people who have mixed sexual tendencies or even predominantly homosexual tendencies should marry a spouse of the opposite sex whenever a compatible one comes around with whom they can get aroused. But some homosexuals cannot be attracted to the opposite sex at all. Their nature to reproduce with the opposite sex is broken, but they can still burn with lust, just like us heterosexuals. Paul recognizes that most people cannot forego sex in 1 Cor. 7:7. So why force homosexuals into this slot?

 

[Biblepoe]

This question was answered in post #10 of this thread.

“1849Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121 ”

Disordered sex is an offense against reason. One “ought” to be reasonable therefore one ought to avoid offending reason.

I don’t buy that what you call “disordered sex” is a offense against reason (whatever that means). If by “offense against reason” you mean that it is unreasonable to do something, then that would need to be assessed in relation to an if statement. For example, it would be unreasonable to have homosexual sex if you want to obey Yahweh.

Note that I do recognize that some sexual acts, like rape, can be detrimental and should be prohibited if you want to live in a society where one need not fear being raped.

So again, how can one draw a logical connection between, “it is the case that god created us with the intention of us having sex this way,” to, “We aught to have sex the way the god intended.”

 

[davidv]

I don’t buy that what you call “disordered sex” is a offense against reason (whatever that means). If by “offense against reason” you mean that it is unreasonable to do something, then that would need to be assessed in relation to an if statement. For example, it would be unreasonable to have homosexual sex if you want to obey Yahweh.

Note that I do recognize that some sexual acts, like rape, can be detrimental and should be prohibited if you want to live in a society where one need not fear being raped.

So again, how can one draw a logical connection between, “it is the case that god created us with the intention of us having sex this way,” to, “We aught to have sex the way the god intended.”

You don’t have buy it. You have free will to accept or reject the truth. Please re-read post 10 and you will see your paraphase isn’t even close to what was meant.

Just because you accept some truth, you have no reasonable claim to reject others.

Already answered. And clearly you do not understood what was written. I would suggest the read and study very carefully the encylical Humanae Vitae. It is availble on the Vatican website.