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

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheDefaultMan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HarryStotle said:
Sex is purposed for procreation. The sexual act makes use of complementary bodily organs to express love AND the desire to procreate.

To use the sexual act purely for gratification (self and other) or merely to express affection for a being/individual who is not sexually complementary assumes that the sex act is justified purely for the sake of expressing affection or for pleasure.
Click to expand...
Why is it that you talk of heterosexual sex being an expression of “love” but gay sex as being only a possible expression of “affection”?
 
Well. Bf the word of god was written down by human beings. With the Holy Spirit I agree So … what’s the argument ?
 
God is against it’s in the Bible. But the is redemption and penance So… there is tuff. And if your with god. You know what’s right Bc of the Bible and tradition and the magisterium. And you can do wrong. And guess what. You can be saved. Sounds like you want to be saved or you wouldn’t ask
 
It’s astonishing how each post becomes more demeaning than the last
 
HarryStotle said:
Not clear that that follows. Diseases and physiological/genetic conditions are biological but that does not entail they must be accepted as is, or as morally significant. That is not to say such biological conditions do not mitigate culpability, but it doesn’t mean they become acceptable, morally speaking.
Click to expand...
Let me restate… being a man can be verified through biology, DNA, and other science. Being a woman same. If it is determined that a homosexual man is materially different than a heterosexual man biologically, that would have implications that need to be studied. If is is determined to be more than an inclination and instead a nature, that would have implications that need to studied.
 
Thorolfr said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Sex is purposed for procreation. The sexual act makes use of complementary bodily organs to express love AND the desire to procreate.

To use the sexual act purely for gratification (self and other) or merely to express affection for a being/individual who is not sexually complementary assumes that the sex act is justified purely for the sake of expressing affection or for pleasure.
Click to expand...
Why is it that you talk of heterosexual sex being an expression of “love” but gay sex as being only a possible expression of “affection”?
Click to expand...
Not to do apologetics for the poster but…
The love between a man and woman is expressed in the fullest way, and in a uniquely complementary way that involves the fullness of the persons; body and soul.

No other relationship is “like this”. Do we agree? Might have some elements, but is not unique in it’s expression as a man and woman are.
The love between a man and woman, as good and unique as it is, does not detract from the goods in other relationships. Gay people living committed lives together. Fathers and sons. Mothers and daughters. Close friends. These can all have various really good expressions of love.

But they do not express love in the unique way that a man and woman do. And none of these relationships bear the fruit of that love in human existence.

Please everyone take note: nothing is said here about any religion whatsoever (hi Freddy and Jan!), and nothing negative was said about homosexuality.
Do we agree?
 
Last edited:
SeekSalvation said:
40.png
goout:
40.png
SeekSalvation:
Is homosexuality immoral? Is it a mortal sin? I think you’ll find your answers here:

Gen 1:27 – God made them male and female
Gen 19 – the homosexuals of Sodom destroyed
Lev 18:22 – homosexuality called “abomination”
Lev 20:13 – death penalty for homosexuality
Rom 1:27 – called unnatural, shameful, and a perversity
1 Cor 6:9 – active homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God
1 Tim 1:9-10 – homosexuals called “sinners”
Click to expand...
That’s not helpful to a non-believer.
Click to expand...
What’s your point? Not to present God’s words because a non-believer won’t accept it? What if just one non-believer does? Than it was worth showing that one person what scripture says!
Click to expand...
The point of God’s word is salvation; the spiritual healing and well being of the person.
Evangelization expresses God’s word in ways that your listener can relate to.
Throwing bible verses at a non believer is not incorrect, it’s simply foolish and unproductive until the hearer has reached a stage of docility to the Word. And if I read my bible correctly,
St Paul became all things to spread the gospel to all people,
we are to wise as serpents,
and we are to bear fruit.
 
Last edited:
This appears to be a reference to Natural Law, which I don’t actually believe exists.
 
niceatheist said:
This appears to be a reference to Natural Law, which I don’t actually believe exists.
Click to expand...
Label the argument as you wish.
After you label it according to your belief system, can you then address it with reason?
Better question is, are you willing to do that?
 
Last edited:
Yes, to start with, whatever Catholics may think, people don’t just have sex to procreate, and many heterosexual couples have non-procreative sex. By the standard invoked here, the only proper sex would be sex during ovulation, and everything else would be of lesser value.
 
niceatheist said:
Yes, to start with, whatever Catholics may think, people don’t just have sex to procreate, and many heterosexual couples have non-procreative sex. By the standard invoked here, the only proper sex would be sex during ovulation, and everything else would be of lesser value.
Click to expand...
good talking points, but I have the answer to my question:
goout said:
Label the argument as you wish.
After you label it according to your belief system, can you then address it with reason?
Better question is, are you willing to do that?
Click to expand...
and the answer is NO.
 
so if you are not willing to look at a position, understand it, and respond, why are you here?
 
I just did. Even heterosexual couples have non procreative sex. In other words natural law appears more like Anne Landers advice. Many Catholics ignore the ban on contraception, almost all Protestants do, other faiths don’t even care about claims rooted in Natural Law.
 
niceatheist said:
Yes, to start with, whatever Catholics may think, people don’t just have sex to procreate, and many heterosexual couples have non-procreative sex. By the standard invoked here, the only proper sex would be sex during ovulation, and everything else would be of lesser value.
Click to expand...
Have you been here such a short time that you still don’t understand Christian thought on marriage? What you cite above are old canards that are simply tired.

so again, without saying a word about homosexuality, and without appealing to religions, and without saying one negative thing about other relationships…

Is marriage of a man and woman unique in it’s fullness, expression, and it’s essentiality to human existence?

What do you say?
 
Last edited:
niceatheist said:
I just did. Even heterosexual couples have non procreative sex. In other words natural law appears more like Anne Landers advice. Many Catholics ignore the ban on contraception, almost all Protestants do, other faiths don’t even care about claims rooted in Natural Law.
Click to expand...
Please start another thread on that.
 
No I don’t think it’s that unique. Children can be conceived by unmarried couples, through rape and adultery, through polygamous marriages.
 
But the argument here is that homosexuality is immoral because it isn’t “as good” as heterosexual sex. By pointing out that a good many heterosexual sexual interactions don’t measure up I demonstrate that natural law arguments aren’t even intrinsically accepted by many Christiana. They same most stringently applied by opponents of homosexuality to, well, homosexuals. Where’s the condemnation and demands for action against heterosexual couples who use contraception, or commit adultery, or who masturbate. Sure, some Christians will say such acts are wrong, but there’s a special level of fear and venom reserved for the LGBTQ community, to the point where there sexual acts have been compared to bestiality on this very thread.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top