How can homosexuality be immoral or contrary to natural ends if there is a genetic/evolutionary/biological reason for it?

[Rau]

Simply making the point that fertility is meaningless in a same sex relationship means it is meaningless in very many hetrosexual relationships.

I was making the general observation and drawing the self-evident conclusion. A man Ejaculates sperm. Can you see that suggests the appropriate venue for that activity is a woman?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Simply making the point that fertility is meaningless in a same sex relationship means it is meaningless in very many hetrosexual relationships.

I was making the general observation and drawing the self-evident conclusion. A man Ejaculates sperm. Can you see that suggests the appropriate venue for that activity is a woman?

The point that you made was specifically that sex between two men is meaningless as regards fertility. You used that exact word. The point I was making is that for heterosexual people of a certain age that exact same point stands.

If you now want to argue something else along the lines of ‘this tab was designed to fit into this slot’ then feel free.

 

[Freddy]

Thorolfr:

So, how do you explain same-sex activity among bonobos and other primates? They’ve obviously found other uses for sexual activity beyond reproduction.

No idea.

Bonding. And because it feels good. Pretty much the same reasons why 99% of all human sexual acts occur. I’m somewhat bemused why this obvious fact is quite often ignored as if it plays no part in human sexuality.

 

[buffalo]

Bonding. And because it feels good.

If it didn’t feel good we would be extinct.

 

[Rau]

The point that you made was specifically that sex between two men is meaningless as regards fertility.

My reference to “fertility” was a reference to the nature of sperm - the fact that men ejaculate. Two men exchanging sperm is lacking in a fundamental way. It is clear that man and woman are made for each other. It is clear that two men exchanging sperm is always fractured.

 

[Rau]

Pretty much the same reasons why 99% of all human sexual acts occur. I’m somewhat bemused why this obvious fact is quite often ignored as if it plays no part in human sexuality.

Not ignored. I agree entirely. But between men and women, all elements of the act “make sense”.

 

[Chistian-ity]

PS: It seems as though most, if not all of the people who have replied so far are ignorant of Thomistic ethics and philosophy in general. If you do not have any understanding of Thomism then you might as well not reply. Baseless appeals to the will of God are not sound responses.

Boutta go read all of summa theologica and educate myself. be right back though. :+1:t2:

 

[1Lord1Faith]

So, how do you explain same-sex activity among bonobos and other primates? They’ve obviously found other uses for sexual activity beyond reproduction.

Why are you bringing bonobos, and other primates, into a discussion about human sexuality? I’m sure you don’t think the intellect of a primate is comparable to a human’s intellect. Don’t we use our intellect before we engage in sex? Don’t we have the ability to see the good that we can produce from any given act? Does having that ability mean that we have a closer resemblance to God, or a closer resemblance to a primate? So, what should we be referring to when we discuss human sexuality - God or primates?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Bonding. And because it feels good.

If it didn’t feel good we would be extinct.

That’s patently untrue. There are two reasons why a couple have sex. One is because it feels good and the other to conceive. The desire to conceive is completely separate from the urge to have sex. I assume that you are not married as you would have known that.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The point that you made was specifically that sex between two men is meaningless as regards fertility.

My reference to “fertility” was a reference to the nature of sperm - the fact that men ejaculate. Two men exchanging sperm is lacking in a fundamental way. It is clear that man and woman are made for each other. It is clear that two men exchanging sperm is always fractured.

Fertility references the ability to conceive. I can only respond to what you write. It’s no good complaining when I point out the error in your argument that that’s not what you meant. It’s what you wrote. And what you wrote about fertility in regard to same sex couples also applies to couples where the woman is past child bearing age.

Your argument has now changed to a version of ‘this tab is meant for that slot’. Which is less wrong but equally irrelevant.

 

[Rau]

Your argument…

So in short you really have no basis to deny the obvious incongruity of 2 men engaging in sexual acts, nor any argument to explain how such can fit with the evident nature of their body and the act.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Your argument…

So in short you really have no basis to deny the obvious incongruity of 2 men engaging in sexually acts, nor any argument to explain how such can fit with the evident nature of their body and the act.

You think it’s incongrous because they are using body parts that were ‘designed’ for conception purely for pleasure and when conception is impossible. So therefore they shouldn’t do it. Luckily my wife doesn’t agree with that viewpoint.

 

[Thorolfr]

I was responding to Rau who was not making a religious argument about sexuality. Also, I still think we share a lot more with our primate kin than what some people want to acknowledge.

 

[Rau]

You think it’s incongrous because they are using body parts that were ‘designed’ for conception purely for pleasure and when conception is impossible.

No - because they use body parts that inherently could never in any circumstance fulfill their evident promise (as they apply them).

One has to say black is white to dispute that observation.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Okay, but mine wasn’t a religious argument either. But I’d assume that my mention of God made you think it was a religious argument. I could just as well have said “a higher power” instead of God, or even “philosopher”.

 

[Thorolfr]

Okay, but mine wasn’t a religious argument either. But I’d assume that my mention of God made you think it was a religious argument. I could just as well have said “a higher power” instead of God, or even “philosopher”.

In your post you said:

Don’t we use our intellect before we engage in sex?

We’ll, I’m not certain we do very much. The first dictionary definition of “intellect” I found was: “the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, especially with regard to abstract or academic matters.” Sexuality is not an abstract or academic matter for most people. In fact, it seems to me that sexuality is the opposite, a rather strong and primal drive.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You think it’s incongrous because they are using body parts that were ‘designed’ for conception purely for pleasure and when conception is impossible.

No - because they use body parts that inherently could never in any circumstance fulfill their evident promise (as they apply them).

One has to say black is white to dispute that observation.

‘Never in any circumstances’ amounts to a whole lot of ‘could care less’ as far as I’m concerned.

Two people use various bodily bits and pieces for mutually agreed recreational purposes with no hope or expectation or even interest in conception.

Am I describing a Christian married couple who have been together for 40 years or a young gay couple? Let me know.

 

[Rau]

‘Never in any circumstances’ amounts to a whole lot of ‘could care less’ as far as I’m concerned.

That is apparent - you don’t care to confront the issue.

Am I describing a Christian married couple who have been together for 40 years or a young gay couple? Let me know.

Could be either Fred, because your description is so vague. Does the couple possess complementary genitalia so that they can be used together in the manner of their evident design? This requires man+woman.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Sexuality is not an abstract or academic matter for most people. In fact, it seems to me that sexuality is the opposite, a rather strong and primal drive.

Not sexuality, but sex, as in, primarily, intercourse. And no, there’s probably not much thought given to it when there’s birth control, incompatible soft parts, an old married couple, or immaturity involved. But hopefully people think twice before they have sex with an animal, or a piece of machinery.

But people who have sex in a natural fashion, as bonobos do, may have to think about relationships, disease, or pregnancy before they engage in sex. And that thinking can be called reasoning or objectivity understanding. Considering what the future may hold in regards to family planning is indeed an exercise in the abstract, the what if’s.

 

[jack63]

I get that it is complicated. People should not be condemned or made to feel terrible about how God made them. The thing is that this Ted talk presents point of view (i.e. homosexuality is exclusive and is a form of birth control) that is least compatible with Catholic teaching and very far away from any published scientific study. Shouldn’t we talk about something closer to reality?

The question seems to show you’re searching for some type absolute statement. I can’t give that even if I wanted to…