How did you react when same sex marriage became legal?

[Rau]

Exactly. So anyone who is not a Catholic would use his freedom of conscience as he is not constrained by the morals of the Catholic Church.

The point is Civil Union or marriage makes no difference to that point. Civil unions can only be acceptable to Catholics when they are not sexual unions. Were they merely about asset sharing, mutual care and the like, that would be fine. Two elderly sisters could enter one.

I don’t want the State endorsing the sexual relationship of two men or two women - my right to oppose that is the same as yours to support it.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I understand this point and have made it myself when making the point that SSA is not morally wrong. But the contrary view is that the sexual orientation “ought” be part and parcel of the sex of the person - that ought to be its source. Thus, when it is, no choice is involved or required. A man “should” be attracted to a woman because he is a man, and it is the attraction to the opposite sex that is consistent with the reproductive potential and “equipment” of the man. My explanation for SSA is to conclude that there is something “amiss” in the makeup of the man if the attractions aren’t consistent with his maleness, whereas Zoltan wishes to assume the man chooses this attraction or “learns” it through some life experience(s).

Zoltan does not assume.

“…the attraction to the opposite sex is consistent with the reproductive potential and “equipment” of the man…” Zoltan agrees.

But your premise is “that there is something “amiss” in the makeup of the man if the attractions aren’t consistent with his maleness…” So…would it not be up to you to discover what this “something amiss” really is before you assume explain SSA?

One other point.

You and others, including the Catholic Church are quick to point out that SSA is not morally wrong. But is it a “good”? Is it a normal condition? Is it a proper attraction? The Catechism says that it is objectively disordered.

I don’t think we are helping anyone if we let our pastoral zeal minimize something that can lead to serious problems by NOT focusing on the downside of something that is not morally wrong.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

“Same” is so imprecise. People can be so extraordinarily different through we don’t necessarily observe the biological differences that account for that.

But Rau…

That is what we are doing here…observing biological differences. I see none. For homosexuals to be different they would need their very own physiology.

 

[Thorolfr]

The homosexual is therefore a heterosexual who is attracted to the same sex. (For whatever reason)

Your statement above is nonsensical. Homosexual, by definition, means “sexually attracted to people of the same sex,” and “heterosexual” means “sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex.” So to paraphrase your sentence above: The person who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex is therefore a person who is sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex.

Obviously, a person who is exclusively sexually attracted to people of the same sex (a homosexual as opposed to a bisexual) cannot also be exclusively attracted to people of the opposite sex. A person is either exclusively attracted to the same sex, to the opposite sex or to both sexes.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Your statement above is nonsensical. Homosexual, by definition, means “sexually attracted to people of the same sex,” and “heterosexual” means “sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex.” So to paraphrase your sentence above: The person who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex is therefore a person who is sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex.

Obviously, a person who is exclusively sexually attracted to people of the same sex (a homosexual as opposed to a bisexual) cannot also be exclusively attracted to people of the opposite sex. A person is either exclusively attracted to the same sex, to the opposite sex or to both sexes.

"They look the same and are the same both physically and biologically. The homosexual is therefore a heterosexual who is attracted to the same sex."

You missed the point.

 

[Thorolfr]

"They look the same and are the same both physically and biologically. The homosexual is therefore a heterosexual who is attracted to the same sex."

You missed the point.

Of course we don’t know that they are the same physically and biologically. Even if it is assumed that the differences between a person who becomes homosexual and one who becomes heterosexual were originally totally environmental in origin, those environmental influences could have changed the person physically and biologically by changing the neural pathways in their brains. So the two would in fact not be the same physically and biologically.

 

[AyJSimon]

No two humans are the same physically and biologically, much less any two men or women, much less a heterosexual and a homosexual.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Of course we don’t know that they are the same physically and biologically. Even if it is assumed that the differences between a person who becomes homosexual and one who becomes heterosexual were originally totally environmental in origin, those environmental influences could have changed the person physically and biologically by changing the neural pathways in their brains. So the two would in fact not be the same physically and biologically.

So abnormal sexual behavior can be attributed to environmental influences?

 

[Thorolfr]

So abnormal sexual behavior can be attributed to environmental influences?

I never said that homosexuality is abnormal, but most scientists believe that a person’s sexual orientation is due to varying degrees to both environmental and biological causes.

 

[Rau]

…But your premise is “that there is something “amiss” in the makeup of the man if the attractions aren’t consistent with his maleness…” So…would it not be up to you to discover what this “something amiss” really is before you assume explain SSA?

No. It’s less a premise that it’s a conclusion. I guess you can say that that conclusion forms a premise which justifies a search for the cause…

I accept the testimony of (at least some of) those who assert that attraction is not chosen or learned, but simply arose. Including Catholics distressed by the condition, at a loss to explain it, but who seek to remain chaste. Given I accept that, it follows that something is “amiss”. The next step is to understand how. That takes time. But logic and reason do not need to be suspended awaiting the “how”.

You and others, including the Catholic Church are quick to point out that SSA is not morally wrong. But is it a “good”? Is it a normal condition? Is it a proper attraction? The Catechism says that it is objectively disordered.

Is love of debating a good or a bad? Probably depends on how you use it! It is good to care deeply for another. That such may be bound up with a desire for sexual engagement is indeed a corruption, but no fault lies in it. It is not the “norm” - no. By “proper” - I assume you mean some blend of “good” or “normal”.

I don’t know what you are really getting at with these questions Zoltan. Think about this - if your son had/were to confide to you that he experiences SSA, but he knows the acts that he might feel drawn to are wrong, and he seeks to avoid them…would your son be any less a good person than were he absent SSA? Clearly not. You wold be proud of him, though quite likely tinged with sadness and compassion.

The meaning of “objectively disordered” is not real clear to me. I think it occurs nowhere in the Catechism but in this one section on homosexuality. Intrinsically disordered however appears in numerous sections.] It may mean it is disordered “as a matter of objective fact” (not opinion / without doubt - though that seems an unlikely explanation) or it may mean it is disordered by virtue of the object of the attraction - which is not unlike the arguments I have made in regard to the incongruity between body and attraction). So, boy meets girl and sexual attraction ensues - that’s a good; boy meets boy and sexual attraction ensues - hmmmm…well sexual attraction is not in itself a problem - but to another boy, it is…hence “objectively disordered”. Frankly - I don’t know what exactly is meant, and I’ve searched and never uncovered a clear explanation.

I don’t think we are helping anyone if we let our pastoral zeal minimize something that can lead to serious problems by NOT focusing on the downside of something that is not morally wrong.

Acknowledge the downside by all means, recognise the risks, but to continually focus on it as a “bad” would risk the sufferer believing he is condemned for something he has not chosen. Great care is needed.

 

[Rau]

I never said that homosexuality is abnormal, but most scientists believe that a person’s sexual orientation is due to varying degrees to both environmental and biological causes.

Which is an eminently reasonable hypothesis (absent an unequivocal answer) in light of the spread of individuals and their personal circumstances.

 

[Rau]

But Rau…

That is what we are doing here…observing biological differences. I see none. For homosexuals to be different they would need their very own physiology.

You have no idea what differences it would take, biologically, to influence sexual attraction, or what drivers of those differences might be required. Don’t assume it is something grand.

The point is that our powers of observation in this space are exceeding limited. How little the brain is understood!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

The meaning of “objectively disordered” is not real clear to me. I think it occurs nowhere in the Catechism but in this one section on homosexuality. Intrinsically disordered however appears in numerous sections.] It may mean it is disordered “as a matter of objective fact” (not opinion / without doubt - though that seems an unlikely explanation) or it may mean it is disordered by virtue of the object of the attraction - which is not unlike the arguments I have made in regard to the incongruity between body and attraction). So, boy meets girl and sexual attraction ensues - that’s a good; boy meets boy and sexual attraction ensues - hmmmm…well sexual attraction is not in itself a problem - but to another boy, it is…hence “objectively disordered”. Frankly - I don’t know what exactly is meant, and I’ve searched and never uncovered a clear explanation.

Re: “objectively disordered,” it does indeed refer to a specific object that, in the context of the catechism, has been described as “intrinsically disordered.” Which is to say, the object of the objectively disordered inclination is an intrinsically disordered act. Why insist that it’s an act, not a person a gender or a biological sex that’s the wrong object here? Because it is impossible to characterize a human being as “intrinsically disordered” without doing damage to their basic humanity–in fact, it’s impossible to describe any actually existing thing as intrinsically disordered, if only because the being of anything and everything that is is itself a good that is not susceptible to disorder. Actions, however, are a different story entirely.

This is why the discussion of homosexuality in the catechism focuses exclusively on acts, not the appropriateness or inappropriateness of being attracted to a male or a female given one’s own maleness or femaleness.

Furthermore, there’s no such thing as an attraction without an object. I.e., there is no such thing as “sexual attraction in itself” absent an object of attraction. So, according to the catechism, the wrong sort of attraction, the objectively disordered sort of attraction, does not occur when a woman looks at another woman and says, “I’m really attracted to her!” The wrong sort of attraction occurs when a woman looks at another woman and says, “I’m really attracted to having sex with her!” The difference is subtle, but important. We often believe that the the former is shorthand for the latter and often, in popular / colloquial discourse, that can be the case. But they’re not, in fact, the same, and (whether one is heterosexual or homosexual) knowing the difference is important to actually learning to deal in a healthy way with our desires and attractions, which is just another way of saying: learning how to healthily practice the virtue of chastity.

That’s what the catechism appears to be saying, at any rate.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Rau]

"They look the same and are the same both physically and biologically. The homosexual is therefore a heterosexual who is attracted to the same sex."

You missed the point.

This is simply a word game, and I detest word games in debates!

The human species is heterosexual, and by and large, each member is either male or female.

In our usual sloppy evolution of language, we choose to apply the term heterosexual also to a single member of the species whose behaviour aligns with the norm, necessitating a similar word for members whose behaviour does not.

Playing with the nuanced meaning for the same word is unhelpful.

 

[Rau]

Of course we don’t know that they are the same physically and biologically. Even if it is assumed that the differences between a person who becomes homosexual and one who becomes heterosexual were originally totally environmental in origin, those environmental influences could have changed the person physically and biologically by changing the neural pathways in their brains. So the two would in fact not be the same physically and biologically.

We are not even sure of the meaning of the word “same” in this context.

 

[Rau]

So abnormal sexual behavior can be attributed to environmental influences?

Could well be - the term “environmental” is broad, and it may cause biological impacts. Consider the conditions in-utero for example.

 

[Rau]

I never said that homosexuality is abnormal, but most scientists believe that a person’s sexual orientation is due to varying degrees to both environmental and biological causes.

I think SSA has to be seen as abnormal by virtue of the “disconnection” (incongruity) with the body it entails. It may arise naturally and randomly, however.

 

[Kelfa28]

Haven’t read all 20 pages.
This is clearly a hot topic.

I’ll just answer the original question.

My state was the first to legalize it (yeah…I grew up here :roll eyes.

I wasn’t a Christian…let alone the Catholic I am today…so it didn’t bother me too much, at the time.

Now? The actual legalization of SSM doesn’t bother me as much as the fact that we didn’t get a chance to vote on it…as citizens of this state. It was just imposed upon us by the Senate.

I remember when we got the chance to vote on whether to legalize Euthanasia in our state. As liberal as we are…we voted it down. That was a pretty big win.

I’m not sure we would have voted for SSM if they gave us a chance to vote for it. SSM was a new concept that most people weren’t ready for…at the time.

 

[Rau]

Grace & Peace!

Re: “objectively disordered,” it does indeed refer to a specific object that, in the context of the catechism, has been described as “intrinsically disordered.” Which is to say, the object of the objectively disordered inclination is an intrinsically disordered act. Why insist that it’s an act, not a person a gender or a biological sex that’s the wrong object here? Because it is impossible to characterize a human being as “intrinsically disordered” without doing damage to their basic humanity–in fact, it’s impossible to describe any actually existing thing as intrinsically disordered, if only because the being of anything and everything that is is itself a good that is not susceptible to disorder. Actions, however, are a different story entirely.

This is why the discussion of homosexuality in the catechism focuses exclusively on acts, not the appropriateness or inappropriateness of being attracted to a male or a female given one’s own maleness or femaleness.

Furthermore, there’s no such thing as an attraction without an object. I.e., there is no such thing as “sexual attraction in itself” absent an object of attraction. So, according to the catechism, the wrong sort of attraction, the objectively disordered sort of attraction, does not occur when a woman looks at another woman and says, “I’m really attracted to her!” The wrong sort of attraction occurs when a woman looks at another woman and says, “I’m really attracted to having sex with her!” The difference is subtle, but important. We often believe that the the former is shorthand for the latter and often, in popular / colloquial discourse, that can be the case. But they’re not, in fact, the same, and (whether one is heterosexual or homosexual) knowing the difference is important to actually learning to deal in a healthy way with our desires and attractions, which is just another way of saying: learning how to healthily practice the virtue of chastity.

That’s what the catechism appears to be saying, at any rate.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

I believe we are consistent on this, though you are more explicit (correctly so) in expressing the attraction as being to an act as opposed to a person. Though I presume you also have no reference to where “objectively disordered” is explained by a relevant authority? I have certainly read other erudite posters on CAF who view the term as having the “ordinary language” meaning that would come to mind in a non-theological context.

 

[Thorolfr]

The human species is heterosexual, and by and large, each member is either male or female.

A member of the human species can be homosexual (sexually attracted exclusively to the same sex), heterosexual (sexually attracted exclusively to the opposite sex), bisexual (sexually attracted to both sexes) or asexual (not sexually attracted to anything). Or a member of the human species could be attracted to a non-human object or a part of a human (a foot fetish for example). The same goes for many other living species besides the human species. Only if you are talking about the the human species in some sort of idealized, abstract way which does not correspond to what actually exists in our world, can you say that “the human species is heterosexual.”