How is Homosexuality Wrong, by Reasoning?

[Soetje]

– Reply to the article posted by buffalo

Stand firmly on the truth that homosexuality is an objectively disordered condition deserving of social disapproval because it spreads disease and dysfunction. You will be aggressively attacked for this position, because your opponents know that it is the only position from which you can successfully defeat all of their arguments. < end quote>

I’m sorry, how does this have anything to do with the Catholic view? And how does this defeat the so-called “gay argument”? If you want to post an essay, at least make sure its a good one, one without philosophical holes and at least some mesure of credibility aka references.

Objectively disordered? Seriously? At the begining of the article he was adamant about the homesexuals NOT having a medical issue, which would exclude them from the “minority protection” law.

And I’m sorry, but pedophilia is more akin to a mental disorder than to a form of “love”. I would hit someone who would compare a pedophile to a homosexual.

That means that we who have learned how to defeat “gay” sophisty must actively compete for influence in those institutions and to persuade others who share our love for the truth to do the same.< end quote>

This is an all out attack on homosexuals! I can understand and respect someone who believes homosexuality is wrong, I can accept that many Catholics do not wish homosexuals to marry, and I can even understand people feeling disgusted by homosexuals. But all these things, are things you should keep inside yourself. What people choose to be, whether homosexuals or heterosexuals, is of no one’s business.

This article does not, first of all, hold any religious facts of any kind. It is simply an essay written to insult gay people and encourage descrimination. We’ve had speaches like these against, women, against black people and now we have them agains the homosexuals.

The only thing this poor soul of an author says in the end, is that he is angry about the fact that homosexuals have minority rights. Yes, how aweful that those descriminated and hated people have found a way to legally protect themselves…terrible.

 

[buffalo]

– Reply to the article posted by buffalo

Stand firmly on the truth that homosexuality is an objectively disordered condition deserving of social disapproval because it spreads disease and dysfunction. You will be aggressively attacked for this position, because your opponents know that it is the only position from which you can successfully defeat all of their arguments. < end quote>

I’m sorry, how does this have anything to do with the Catholic view? And how does this defeat the so-called “gay argument”? If you want to post an essay, at least make sure its a good one, one without philosophical holes and at least some mesure of credibility aka references.

Objectively disordered? Seriously? At the begining of the article he was adamant about the homesexuals NOT having a medical issue, which would exclude them from the “minority protection” law.

And I’m sorry, but pedophilia is more akin to a mental disorder than to a form of “love”. I would hit someone who would compare a pedophile to a homosexual.

That means that we who have learned how to defeat “gay” sophisty must actively compete for influence in those institutions and to persuade others who share our love for the truth to do the same.< end quote>

This is an all out attack on homosexuals! I can understand and respect someone who believes homosexuality is wrong, I can accept that many Catholics do not wish homosexuals to marry, and I can even understand people feeling disgusted by homosexuals. But all these things, are things you should keep inside yourself. What people choose to be, whether homosexuals or heterosexuals, is of no one’s business.

This article does not, first of all, hold any religious facts of any kind. It is simply an essay written to insult gay people and encourage descrimination. We’ve had speaches like these against, women, against black people and now we have them agains the homosexuals.

The only thing this poor soul of an author says in the end, is that he is angry about the fact that homosexuals have minority rights. Yes, how aweful that those descriminated and hated people have found a way to legally protect themselves…terrible.

You will note that its purpose is to defeat the gay argument without using religious arguments. Duh.

And you are right - it is an attack on the gay lifestyle. So?

 

[Scottgun]

What people choose to be, whether homosexuals or heterosexuals, is of no one’s business.

When crooks start having Thieves’ Pride Parades, I’ll believe that. That fact is there is a real agitprop movement to bully everyone into confessing that homosexual acts are morally acceptable.

 

[Soetje]

When crooks start having Thieves’ Pride Parades, I’ll believe that. That fact is there is a real agitprop movement to bully everyone into confessing that homosexual acts are morally acceptable.

Sort of the same agitprop people used to teach the population that women had equal rights? Or that black people were the same as white people? You know the Catholic church use to frown on marriages of different coloured people.

Why is it so difficult for Catholics to find humility? Does God not teach us that we are not perfect? If it so difficult to admit that we are wrong? We have done it before, for countless things, that is how our society has evolved. Even the Church is able to admit and correct its wrongs once every hundred years

 

[Scottgun]

Sort of the same agitprop people used to teach the population that women had equal rights? Or that black people were the same as white people? You know the Catholic church use to frown on marriages of different coloured people.

Why is it so difficult for Catholics to find humility? Does God not teach us that we are not perfect? If it so difficult to admit that we are wrong? We have done it before, for countless things, that is how our society has evolved. Even the Church is able to admit and correct its wrongs once every hundred years

Because we are not wrong on homosexual acts. It’s dehumanizing and destructive and you know that. If not, repent.

 

[jmcrae]

Sort of the same agitprop people used to teach the population that women had equal rights? Or that black people were the same as white people?

People who choose to do homosexual behaviour are not in the same situation as people who are born into circumstances beyond their control. Nobody is required to have gay sex. (In fact, it’s difficult to think of a more pointless waste of time.)

You know the Catholic church use to frown on marriages of different coloured people.

Because of differences in culture and social expectations; not because of colour in and of itself.

The Church still strongly recommends that people marry into the same cultural background, and share the same social expectations.

 

[Soetje]

People who choose to do homosexual behaviour are not in the same situation as people who are born into circumstances beyond their control. Nobody is required to have gay sex. (In fact, it’s difficult to think of a more pointless waste of time.)

No, nobody is required to have homosexual sex. I’m not going to give them any genetic reasons for their “sexual orientation”. But say, hypothetically, and I mean VERY hypothetically. If two women fell in love with each other, because of their personalities, hobbies, etc…and never had sex. Are we now in a different ball game?

And when you say “waste of time”. You mean the fact that they will no procreate…do you then only have sexual relations with your spouse when you plan to concieve?

Because of differences in culture and social expectations; not because of colour in and of itself.

The Church still strongly recommends that people marry into the same cultural background, and share the same social expectations.

Alright. I have to give you the benefit of the doubt for that one. Today the church most probably recommend same-culture marriages because they do last longer, less chances for divorce. And I do agree with that point of view. Though, of course, many exceptions are happily made.

But I’m sure you can imagine that a few hundred years ago, cross-culture marriages were frowned upon for more than simple difference of uprising.

 

[Polaris]

Who said anything about a woman being hurt?

Please tell me…where is this ‘natural law’ written down?

Please explain how prostitution ‘empowers’ women and men.

Why are incest and rape the same? Rape is always against one’s will. Incest can be consensual

BTW, I’m opposed to all these things. But since the OP gave ‘mutual consent’ as the basis for advocating homosexuality it must also be a valid excuse for incest, prostitution and polygamy.

First the natrual law on poygamy. You can look on new advent or in Good old aquinas. It does say that it can cause disunity but this is why Polygamy (single male with multiple female) is ok according to natural law from newadvent:

The classic instance alleged as an example of (b) is the legalization of polygamy among the Hebrews. Polygamy, however, is not under all circumstances incompatible with the essential principles of a rationally ordered life, since the chief ends prescribed by nature for the marital union–the propagation of the race and the due care and education of offspring–may, in certain states of society, be attained in a polygamous union.

Classically multiple male, single female was never acceptable because the child could not know who his father was, however in this day an age that can be known so it will not hurt the child.

(translation to modern ears the church is classically sexist)

incest is similiar to rape because your judgment is seriously impaired. Usually the “father” will molest his own daughter before the age of reason it attained. (More proofs of the evils of heteosexual marriage. ) However if it is after that age, Im fine with it. God did it in the past and his law does not change.

How does prostitution empower. It gives them a steady income where they do not have to be supported by a man to survive. It is when it is illegal that more problems with abuse and drug use come into play by pimps. In Argentina it is legal and they do quite well and are protected by the government from pimps and operate safely.

(note parts I believe parts I dont, Im trying to get to truth without a Christian basis and “pure logic”…(You should see a problem and that is what Im trying to get people to see)

 

[buffalo]

No, nobody is required to have homosexual sex. I’m not going to give them any genetic reasons for their “sexual orientation”. But say, hypothetically, and I mean VERY hypothetically. If two women fell in love with each other, because of their personalities, hobbies, etc…and never had sex. Are we now in a different ball game?

.

Then they would be living chastely as siblings would.

 

[jmcrae]

But say, hypothetically, and I mean VERY hypothetically. If two women fell in love with each other, because of their personalities, hobbies, etc…and never had sex. Are we now in a different ball game?

Absolutely - now we have “best friends,” rather than “lovers”.

And when you say “waste of time”. You mean the fact that they will no procreate…do you then only have sexual relations with your spouse when you plan to concieve?

I mean that not only can they not procreate, but what they do has got to be painful and totally not-fun. I think even Torquemada would have rejected such activities in his torture chamber for being “too much.”

 

[Soetje]

Absolutely - now we have “best friends,” rather than “lovers”.

I see. Thank you.

I mean that not only can they not procreate, but what they do has got to be painful and totally not-fun. I think even Torquemada would have rejected such activities in his torture chamber for being “too much.”

Ah, but that is one things we do too often. When thinking of homosexual sex, we think two men. Probably because it is the most visually shocking of the two. But you know, sodomy is also practiced between heterosexual couples.

But that does leave the procreation factor. Which I only give little value since I know heterosexual couples who are infirtile (God bless science and in-vitro, they shall soon be happy parents and how they deserve to have their bundle of joy) But that is not the problem is it? Many people like to throw in “procreation” in homosexual discussions, but it only holds up for so long.

I admit, it is difficult to get pass the “men and women were made for each other” factor.

I do belive that unless someone was raised in a religion in which homosexuality is believed to be morally wrong, it is impossible to logically convince them that it is. Like many things in this life, it is one of the things that you just “know”.

 

[Ender]

one of my friends is asking for logical proof that homosexuality is wrong. Basically, he doesn’t want me to say it’s wrong “because the Bible says so.” He wants evidence. His main argument is "what’s wrong with a homosexual if he’s not hurting/affecting people who don’t share his beliefs?

There are a couple of ways of defining wrong; one is immoral and another is harmful. If he’s looking for a logical proof that homosexual behavior is immoral, ask him first if he can provide a logical proof that any behavior at all is immoral, that is, can he prove that immorality actually exists. You like torturing puppies, I like wearing blue suits; it’s all a matter of personal preference. The typical response will be: it’s not immoral if it doesn’t hurt anyone else. If he comes back with that you might ask him where that’s written. My own opinion is that if God does not exist then neither does morality.

If his question is really about whether homosexuality is a harmful lifestyle then there are all kinds of studies that the gay life is anything but - even if you ignore the toll AIDS has taken.

Ender

 

[jmcrae]

I admit, it is difficult to get pass the “men and women were made for each other” factor.

I suspect this is probably due to things that are obvious to the (ahem) naked eye. The vagina was created for the penis and is designed - in a way that no other part of the body is designed, either on the female body or on the male body - to receive it. Equally, the penis was designed to fit in a vagina, and doesn’t really fit correctly anywhere else. (Imagine trying to put mittens on your feet, or shoes on your hands.)

There was a time, and it’s within my own lifetime, that nobody would have thought homosexuality was “okay,” or that putting one’s body parts into places they aren’t designed for would be an issue of “equal rights.”

 

[po18guy]

Sort of the same agitprop people used to teach the population that women had equal rights? Or that black people were the same as white people? You know the Catholic church use to frown on marriages of different coloured people.

A baby has a set gender in its DNA, as well as its physiological factors. A baby has a determined race from conception. Sexual preference develops later and is a preference, a choice. As a choice can be made, it can be unmade. Such relativism obscures and leads to destruction of the truth.

Why is it so difficult for Catholics to find humility? Does God not teach us that we are not perfect? If it so difficult to admit that we are wrong? We have done it before, for countless things, that is how our society has evolved. Even the Church is able to admit and correct its wrongs once every hundred years

Because you left the church, and are a valuable teacher of humility. Seriously, you left the church that was founded by Christ. We invite you to investigate with a seeking heart, and to consider returning. Sure, we can seem arrogant, but we have no corner on it. Pray for us as we pray for you. The church needs you, especially in this age.

Christ’s peace.

 

[dp5284]

A friend of mine brought up a good point last night. Why is the pinnacle of sex childbirth? Wouldn’t it be orgasm? I mean…think about it. If sex was supposed to be strictly for childbirth…why does it feel good? The clitoris has no other function but to give the woman pleasure. Both sexes have to come to orgasm…it’s only healthy. A long time ago women who were diagnosed with hysteria were actually suffering from chronic arousal. Whether he wants it or not a man will get aroused and he will want release. If he doesn’t get that release it will be painful and if he never releases…he will have a wet-dream.

Also. If you say that homosexuals have to be chaste…how is that fair? Why can’t they have intimate relations with their chosen partner.

Convex does fit with convex…you just have to turn one of them around.

Homosexuality isn’t wrong. It’s not a lifestyle. My hair isn’t cut short. I am a Catholic…I just choose not to blindly follow what the bible tells me. The bible was written by man.

You can’t prove it’s wrong. Yes there are biological features, but people are born homosexual (sometimes). Stop trying to correct your friend.

This is my opinion.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Defeating Gay Arguments with Simple Logic

This article is trash and I can not overly denounce it publicly. It does not follow science nor the Church teachings. The article encourages bigotry and uses bigoted action to bait the very subject

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Hi dp5284

I read your posts in both threads they really just review the issue of “disordered”. People (including me) enjoy many things they should not do as drugs, alcohol, fornication, adultry, etc. When heterosexuals perform the same action as homosexuals the same rules apply. The issue is the moral opinions for sex which are marriage, and openness to life. Many heterosexuals fail to practice relations compliant with moral code. The SSA issue is the same in that SSA relation can not comply.

I hope that helps

 

[monica1950]

This reply is for dp5284 You stated in your reply " that homosexuality isn’t wrong, it’s not a lifrstyle. I am a catholic. I just choose not to blindly follow what the bible tells me. The bible was written by man". News flash Yes the bible was written by man INSPIRED by GOD and it clearly states that men who lie with other men and women who also practice this IS an abomination to God. What kind of catholic are you one in name only or one who practices out of love for God our creator. AND MEANS IT.

 

[porthos11]

Well, I’d put it this way, in a most vulgar manner, at the risk of getting suspended:

“Because it means sticking the d**k up the ss, which is designed only to expel sht.”

Gosh, I hope the moderators don’t get me for this. But I don’t see how much plainer we can get.

 

[monica1950]

Amen to that. Thats about as plain and reasonable as you can get. When you misuse your body you ARE NOT rewarded, but punished to wit: AIDS AND HIV INFECTION. DUH