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

[HarryStotle]

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.

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”?

Could it be because heterosexual sex actually and objectively has the possibility of bringing about a new human being, i.e., a real and embodied expression of the love of the couple that takes on a life of its own (a child) that lives on beyond each of them, whereas gay sex has only expression of affection as its outcome?

 

[JMMJ]

I must weigh in here. That is a pretty narrow definition of love, wouldn’t you say?

 

[HarryStotle]

I must weigh in here. That is a pretty narrow definition of love, wouldn’t you say?

Perhaps.

However, if love is (stated as simply as possible) “willing the good of the other, as other” then promoting homosexuality as a legitimate alternative to heterosexuality would be to refocus the creative potential of a human being from a person who is willing to propagate and care for his/her progeny (as a fully human and potentially ongoing line of descendency by bringing to a terminus the human lineage that has worked so hard to propagate itself to that point in history.

Seems that love would be sufficiently robust to see beyond itself and its own immediate affections to the enduring repercussions of its choices on all significant relations (both past, present and future) – rather than on the one same-sexed individual who merely mirrors back one’s own immediate affective or physical satisfaction.

It would appear that homosexual “love” has its own difficulty with “narrowing” what love entails, no?

 

[JMMJ]

It would appear that homosexual “love” has its own difficulty with “narrowing” what love entails, no?

Not the way I see it. I guess I have a broader sense of what it means to love someone.

 

[Freddy]

Thorolfr:

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.

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”?

Could it be because heterosexual sex actually and objectively has the possibility of bringing about a new human being, i.e., a real and embodied expression of the love of the couple that takes on a life of its own (a child) that lives on beyond each of them, whereas gay sex has only expression of affection as its outcome?

You slipped in a change there. You went from a desire to conceive to the possibility of conception. And we can all come up with examples of heterosexual couples that don’t fulfill either criteria.

Oh you DO love me dear.
Well, actually I’m just showing affection…

 

[Freddy]

JMMJ:

I must weigh in here. That is a pretty narrow definition of love, wouldn’t you say?

Perhaps.

However, if love is (stated as simply as possible) “willing the good of the other, as other” then promoting homosexuality as a legitimate alternative to heterosexuality would be to refocus the creative potential of a human being from a person who is willing to propagate and care for his/her progeny (as a fully human and potentially ongoing line of descendency by bringing to a terminus the human lineage that has worked so hard to propagate itself to that point in history.

Seems that love would be sufficiently robust to see beyond itself and its own immediate affections to the enduring repercussions of its choices on all significant relations (both past, present and future) – rather than on the one same-sexed individual who merely mirrors back one’s own immediate affective or physical satisfaction.

It would appear that homosexual “love” has its own difficulty with “narrowing” what love entails, no?

If the woman would be in serious medical trouble if she conceived then ‘willing the good of the other’ would be to avoid the possibility of her getting pregnant. And henceforth only being able to show her affection I presume.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

It would appear that homosexual “love” has its own difficulty with “narrowing” what love entails, no?

Not the way I see it. I guess I have a broader sense of what it means to love someone.

A “broader” sense is unclear. To will the good of the other means not only that you have a clear and correct view of what that good is, but also that you have a clear, correct and complete view of what it means to be a human being to begin with.

It is certainly possible to have a “broad” view of what the actual good of the other entails, but to still be mistaken about that, which might mean that in willing what you suppose is to their good you might not actually be doing anything to assist them to attain that good, but actually be thwarting it.

 

[Freddy]

JMMJ:

HarryStotle:

It would appear that homosexual “love” has its own difficulty with “narrowing” what love entails, no?

Not the way I see it. I guess I have a broader sense of what it means to love someone.

A “broader” sense is unclear. To will the good of the other means not only that you have a clear and correct view of what that good is, but also that you have a clear, correct and complete view of what it means to be a human being to begin with.

It is certainly possible to have a “broad” view of what the actual good of the other entails, but to still be mistaken about that, which might mean that in willing what you suppose is to their good you might not actually be doing anything to assist them to attain that good, but actually be thwarting it.

Like preventing her death you mean.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

JMMJ:

HarryStotle:

It would appear that homosexual “love” has its own difficulty with “narrowing” what love entails, no?

Not the way I see it. I guess I have a broader sense of what it means to love someone.

A “broader” sense is unclear. To will the good of the other means not only that you have a clear and correct view of what that good is, but also that you have a clear, correct and complete view of what it means to be a human being to begin with.

It is certainly possible to have a “broad” view of what the actual good of the other entails, but to still be mistaken about that, which might mean that in willing what you suppose is to their good you might not actually be doing anything to assist them to attain that good, but actually be thwarting it.

Like preventing her death you mean.

Your comments are not worthy of response by any standard. This will be my last to you on this thread.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

If your argument is primarily gay sex is not what God wants then there was no real need to bring up medical problems.

What argument? Like I said, I just presented the medical facts of anal sex.
It seems your trying to strawman me because u can’t justify anal sex from a medical or even a moral standpoint.
Try and justify the act of anal sex, im interested to see how you do that.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If your argument is primarily gay sex is not what God wants then there was no real need to bring up medical problems.

What argument? Like I said, I just presented the medical facts of anal sex.
It seems your trying to strawman me because u can’t justify anal sex from a medical or even a moral standpoint.
Try and justify the act of anal sex, im interested to see how you do that.

If you are concerned with certain sexual acts performed by gay men I asked you if you had concerns about two women having sex. Your reply was that you are ok with what God is ok with. That’s fine.

But if your argument has changed from pointing out possible medical problems to being aligned with what God wants then there is no need for anything else. Especially if someone could show that certain acts performed by some people cause no medical problems at all. In which case your original argument says nothing more than ‘avoid certain acts’.

Do you follow what I mean?

 

[Pai_Nosso]

If you are concerned with certain sexual acts performed by gay men

My original post addressed anal sex not just in gay men but hetro marriage as well. There is a recent thread where i talk about the error of anal within marriage of a man and woman.

I asked you if you had concerns about two women having sex. Your reply was that you are ok with what God is ok with. That’s fine.

My argument was never about gay people just anal sex but seing u asked i gave my moral position.

But if your argument has changed from pointing out possible medical problems to being aligned with what God wants then there is no need for anything else

My argument never changed. Beside why can’t someone have a scientific argument that backs up their moral position? It only makes it stronger. For me I don’t need anything else but the word of God but for people who don’t believe in the Word as I suspect you don’t it is a line of reasoning that is free of religion and is based only on medical science.

In which case your original argument says nothing more than ‘avoid certain acts’.

Thats exactly what it says. Avoid anal because of the medical dangers. Nothing more.

So seeing your keen on being an advocate for gay people u should have some argument for the justification of anal sex given that is the practice most commonly used in male homosexuality. Stop trying to deflect the question or introduce lesbian acts, just justify anal sex.

Cos if u can’t justify anal sex then your whole argument for gay people collapses

 

[Rau]

So seeing your keen on being an advocate for gay people u should have some argument for the justification of anal sex given that is the practice most commonly used in male homosexuality.

Do you have a basis to claim that as fact?

 

[Freddy]

So seeing your keen on being an advocate for gay people u should have some argument for the justification of anal sex given that is the practice most commonly used in male homosexuality. Stop trying to deflect the question or introduce lesbian acts, just justify anal sex.

Cos if u can’t justify anal sex then your whole argument for gay people collapses

To tell you the truth, I am up to the back teeth with people reducing gay people to nothing more than sexual objects. Your last sentence sums that up perfectly. Ask someone else. I’m not the slightest bit interested.

 

[Rau]

If you are convinced oral sex and masturbation are immoral activities, even between heterosexuals, that’s great. If you think condoms are immoral, fine. Don’t use them. But when you FORCE your morality on others, and prevent them from exercising their rights, then you are the one in the wrong.

How could he “force”? Has he done more than “propose”, “suggest”, “claim”?

Why do you consider sexual acts that are not done for procreation immoral?

He does not. They are not.

 

[Freddy]

jan10000:

Why do you consider sexual acts that are not done for procreation immoral?

He does not. They are not.

The devil is in the detail. The act has to be open to conception (I think that’s the term without looking it up). Even to the point that people will argue that a miracle might happen even if the woman is post menopausal and is in her nineties.

This tab has to go in that slot and you can’t manually prevent possible conception. I think that sums it up. Everything else is verbotten. Seems like a religious interpretation of natural law to me.

 

[Freddy]

…just as sodomy doesn’t make heterosexuality immoral when a straight couple does it.

It is an immoral act as far as most people here are concerned. See the post above. But playing the devil’s advicate, the argument is not that homosexuality is wrong (though you’d be hard pressed to come to that conclusion reading through this thread), but sexual acts performed by homosexuals are wrong.

 

[Rau]

The devil is in the detail. The act has to be open to conception (I think that’s the term without looking it up). Even to the point that people will argue that a miracle might happen even if the woman is post menopausal and is in her nineties.

No. You should have looked it up . All that is required in the physical factors is the act is “ordered” to procreation. This means sterility, menopause etc - none of these are an obstacle.

 

[Rau]

the argument is not that homosexuality is wrong

There is sometimes misunderstandings of the meaning of that word. Is homosexuality the state of experiencing a certain sexual orientation, or is it living it out by way of acts.

 

[Rau]

But what acts do homosexuals do that heterosexuals do not do?

They are inclined to, and some do, choose a sexual partner of the same sex.

A male does act “A” to a female = OK.
A male does act “A” to a male = not OK.
A female does act “A” to a female = not OK.

The first OK should be replaced by “depends on the act”.