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

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Does the church consider certain sexual acts performed by gay people to be immoral? Yes.

The inclinations of the participants is not a factor.

And this is where you are open to accusations of hypochrisy because there are vastly more Catholics indulging in acts that you use as one of the determinants to describe homosexuality as wrong as there are indulged by gay people.

Can you recall any threads about those acts as practiced by heterosexual Catholics?

 

[Maximus1]

You say that but we both know being born heterosexual didn’t require us to rise above it. We got to love who we wanted to, I have a family, a full love life, and nobody called us anything but good. I am not going to “pile on” someone who is told the person they love makes them disordered or evil by the Church or laity of a church they love. Empathy is fundemental for a Catholic. I find myself unapologetic when my conscience guides me.
One thing.
In terms of Genesis, it does not begin at Genesis 3.
You might consider starting at 1:1.
It was good
It was good
It was good
It was very good.
That’s what it says and means. We need to remember it about each other and the world we live in.
Peace

 

[Rau]

And this is where you are open to accusations of hypochrisy because there are vastly more Catholics indulging in acts that you use as one of the determinants to describe homosexuality as wrong as there are indulged by gay people.

Sorry - where have I said anything hypocritical? So no, I reject that entirely.

Can you recall any threads about those acts as practiced by heterosexual Catholics?

Omg there are heaps. “Is masturbation really wrong”, “Why is pre-marital sex wrong”… the list goes on. Just as the inclinations of the persons engaged in same sex sexual acts is immaterial to the moral assessment, do the religious badge is immaterial to the moral assessment of other opposite sex sexual acts.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And this is where you are open to accusations of hypochrisy because there are vastly more Catholics indulging in acts that you use as one of the determinants to describe homosexuality as wrong as there are indulged by gay people.

Sorry - where have I said anything hypocritical? So no, I reject that entirely.

Sorry, when I say ‘you’ I should have said ‘one’. One is open to accusations of hypochrisy if one only concentrates on the sexual acts of gay people and ignore those of heterosexual people. As I say, there are never any threads about that.

 

[Rau]

As I say, there are never any threads about that.

Are you only recently joined CAF? There are squillions.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And this is where you are open to accusations of hypochrisy because there are vastly more Catholics indulging in acts that you use as one of the determinants to describe homosexuality as wrong as there are indulged by gay people.

Sorry - where have I said anything hypocritical? So no, I reject that entirely.

Can you recall any threads about those acts as practiced by heterosexual Catholics?

Omg there are heaps. “Is masturbation really wrong”, “Why is pre-marital sex wrong”… the lust goes on. Just as the inclinations of the persons engaged in same sex sexual acts is immaterial to the moral assessment, do the religious badge is immaterial to the moral assessment of other opposite sex sexual acts.

Your editing your posts quicker than I can read them!

And I’m not talking about individual acts such as masturbation or common or garden varieties of sex outside of marriage. I am suggesting that these type of threads are complete with accusations that what two men or two women get up to in bed is wrong (therefore homosexuality is wrong) when very many more Catholics no doubt engage in the very same acts themselves.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

As I say, there are never any threads about that.

Are you only recently joined CAF? There are squillions.

See above.

 

[Rau]

Your editing your posts quicker than I can read them!

Nah mate, you respond quicker than allows me time to complete them!

 

[Rau]

I am suggesting that these type of threads are complete with accusations that what two men or two women get up to in bed is wrong (therefore homosexuality is wrong) when very many more Catholics no doubt engage in the very same acts themselves.

I suppose the thread topic sets the parameters? But if the topic were: “Is anal sex wrong”, you pretty much know what a Catholic perspective would be, and that would be true regardless of the inclinations of the participants, and regardless of the sex of the “receptive” partner in that act. But if the receptive partner is male, then yeah, rather more corrective action would be needed to arrive at a natural act.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I am suggesting that these type of threads are complete with accusations that what two men or two women get up to in bed is wrong (therefore homosexuality is wrong) when very many more Catholics no doubt engage in the very same acts themselves.

I suppose the thread topic sets the parameters? But if the topic were: “Is anal sex wrong”, you pretty much know what a Catholic perspective would be, and that would be true regardless of the inclinations of the participants, and regardless of the sex of the “receptive” partner in that act. But if the receptive partner is male, then yeah, rather more corrective action would be needed to arrive at a natural act.

I know what the Catholic position is. My point is actually: Where are all those threads?

 

[Rau]

I know what the Catholic position is. My point is actually: Where are all those threads?

I’ve been here for quite a few years. There are many. But I’d suggest the it is the topics that are prevalent in society at large that come up the most Eg homosexuality and gay marriage are topical, and subjects like anal sex are not. And the former is the subject of societal claims that these are good things, to be welcomed and celebrated. The latter is not. Not surprising which topic turns up on a discussion forum.

 

[o_mlly]

The human need to reproduce itself can be governed. Priests remain celibate, for example.

But I come from a more utilitarian stance. It comes down to this; it’s none of your business, and using Aristotlean ethics as a cover for essentially telling sexually active homosexuals that what they’re doing is simply giving into animalistic passions without equal condemning sterile heterosexual couples for the same apparently animalistic pleasures is deeply unfair, and more than a little biased.

Thank you for your answer to my request for a principled argument that separates homosexuality from bestiality – the former condoned and the latter condemned. Unfortunately, your answer does not do so.

It appears you offer two principles and two criticisms. First the principles:

1. “None of your business”. Sorry, that dos not meet the objective.
   Homosexual asserts to heterosexual, “None of your business.”
   Bestial actor asserts to heterosexual, “None of your business.”
   Bestial actor asserts to homosexual, “None of your business.”

Bestiality and the homosexual actors may assert he same principle. No difference here.

1. The utilitarian stance:
   Taken to mean maximize pleasure and minimize suffering for the most. Sorry, once again this principle does not separate the homosexual actor from the bestial actor. Both may subscribe to the same principle. As a utilitarian, the homosexual actor asserts, “If it feels good (and doesn’t hurt anyone) then I may do it”. As a utilitarian the bestial actor asserts the same. No difference.

Please spare me the “cruelty to animal” and “mutual consent” fallacies. Google “Horse semen collection” and watch a video of the happy stallion giving full consent to a brown bag.

So you have not offered any principles which would allow one to condone homosexual acts and condemn bestial acts.

Next to your criticisms.

1. Priest are celibate. Sorry, no incoherence in celibacy. The non-use of a faculty is not synonymous with the misuse of a faculty. The glutton cannot justify his misuse of food by claiming that another fasts.
2. Married sterile heterosexual have sexual intercourse. Sorry, no brass ring on this claim either.

Recalling my claim …

… the homosexual act satisfies only a human want (pleasure) and does so by frustrating the human need to reproduce.

The aged married heterosexual couple’s act of sexual intercourse is natural to the organs employed. Therefore, the act in se does not frustrate the procreative end, rather the age of the actors does. Not so with the homosexual act. The unnatural homosexual act in se absolutely frustrates a procreative end.

 

[niceatheist]

My struggle is why your condemnation should have any weight at all.

 

[Thorolfr]

Freddy:

It’s just that some repeat what you just said and then take it further and say that therefore homosexuality is wrong.

Never mind whether it is wrong. What astounds me is that some will not admit that the homosexual inclination (sexual attraction) is at odds with the evident nature of men and women - that evidently they are “designed” for each other, and other configurations are at odds with the (physical) nature of the participants.

What I can’t help noticing is that what we see in the world around us both among humans but also among other species of living things is that they often don’t seem to use all their body parts only in the originally designed configurations and for their original purposes. When it comes to sexuality, apparently some life forms on this planet have moved beyond their initial natures toward also using for other social purposes what was originally designed only for procreation. Humans and some other more complex species have developed more complex behaviors. The real world seems much messier and in my opinion more interesting than the ideal and perfectly ordered version of the world that some people want.

 

[Flor]

You have asked a fairly complex question. I would like to see an actual Priest’s reply to it.
We all know that from the old testament , the phrase "homosexuality is as an abomination to the Lord " is often quoted. Yet Jesus said, " let he who is without sin cast the first stone … " It’s common to act as though being a homosexual is a much graver sin than most others. Perhaps it’s not.
Nowadays, the liberal society is glorifying LGB ( plus a couple more letters ) agenda. This creates a danger for some young people to get caught up in the gay culture who really aren’t there by instinct. And kids are being told to identify as being gay or born the wrong gender when they are too young to have developed their sexuality. This is bad.
But for some reason, there are homosexuals who were clearly born that way. Since God creates all of us, and he is Love, asking what’s up with that is a good question.
I recently read an article which stated that scientists have not been able to find homosexual " genes ".

 

[Rau]

But for some reason, there are homosexuals who were clearly born that way.

Quite possibly, but I don’t think this is known for sure. No clear cause has been identified.

Since God creates all of us, and he is Love, asking what’s up with that is a good question.

Nothing is “up” with persons who experience sexual attraction to the same sex (aside from the fact that their situation is not the norm). No criticism of them on that account is warranted. The only matters in debate are actions.

 

[o_mlly]

My struggle is why your condemnation should have any weight at all.

Our struggle to find moral purpose in our lives condemns the utilitarian philosophy. We pray for its adherents for they will find no happiness in its prescripts.

 

[o_mlly]

But for some reason, there are homosexuals who were clearly born that way. Since God creates all of us, and he is Love, asking what’s up with that is a good question.

We are all born under Original Sin. While some are not born with L, G ,B, T or Q disorders, we have other letters, e.g., 7 capital sins, that describe our perverse inclinations with, for many, pride topping the list. We need not bear our crosses alone but until we recognize our disordered inclinations as crosses and fight against them we are lost.

 

[niceatheist]

Of course, each of us has our own life to live. My life, or in the case of my gay daughter’s life, it is not for you to dictate. Pick the rafter from your own eye, and worry less about the needle in someone else’s.

 

[o_mlly]

Of course, each of us has our own life to live. My life, or in the case of my gay daughter’s life, it is not for you to dictate. Pick the rafter from your own eye, and worry less about the needle in someone else’s.

This is the Philosophy forum. We debate ideas about the nature of reality as did the ancient Greek philosophers argue about the manner of the “life well lived”. I did not, nor do I believe anyone else has, commented on you or your family’s lifestyle choices. Why did you disclose such personal information on a public forum? If you have no more arguments then just stop posting but do not attack me as being uncharitable for something I have not done.

Some atheists deny free will, an individual’s autonomy to choose. Catholics do not deny free will. Believing in free will and recognizing the autonomy of every one made in God’s image, we only propose and do not impose, i.e., “dictate”.

If I have misrepresented the Catholic viewpoint, please correct me. If not then what else did you expect to read by participating on Catholic Answers?