If homosexuality is contrary to natural law, then why did God create people that way?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WannabeSaint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gay people don’t have to choose the threads about homosexual behaviour. Everybody respects the gay people themselves; it’s their sexual behaviour that conflicts with Church teaching. Every gay person knows the Church’s teachings. They don’t agree with it, yet they somehow want to educate Catholics on this site (undermine the Church from within). Why not just respect the Church’s teachings to stop homosexual behaviour?

Do you back your car up on a fast highway which states 100 km per hour? No. You make a swift decision to do what is right. You don’t question it many times or read threads about how the rule should be changed to permit backing up on all fast highways. If a gay person keeps coming back to these threads, they can have but two reasons for doing so: to try and change Catholic opinion or because they need good reasons to stop behaviour for which they feel guilty.
 
Last edited:
Lara said:
Gay people don’t have to choose the threads about homosexual behaviour. Everybody respects the gay people themselves; it’s their sexual behaviour that conflicts with Church teaching. Every gay person knows the Church’s teachings. They don’t agree with it, yet they somehow want to educate Catholics on this site (undermine the Church from within). Why not just respect the Church’s teachings to stop homosexual behaviour?

Do you back your car up on a fast highway which states 100 km per hour? No. You make a swift decision to do what is right. You don’t question it many times or read threads about how the rule should be changed to permit backing up on all fast highways. If a gay person keeps coming back to these threads, they can have but two reasons for doing so: to try and change Catholic opinion or because they need good reasons to stop behaviour for which they feel guilty.
Click to expand...
I have been on this forum for a number of years and I have never read any post by anyone who identifies as being gay that seeks to undermine the church and what it teaches. So your argument is rejected and does absolutely nothing to justify the demeaning language being used.

You seem to have difficulty in coming to terms with the dichotomy represented by your insistence that they are perverts and your claim that you respect them.
 
Last edited:
Did you look at that list of nation’s whose organizations were cited? How can you offer that closed list as some sort of credible list?
 
Their behaviour is perverted. They are separate from their behaviour. Just as I’m loved by God, I could still go to hell for my behaviour, which is separate from who I am.

Gays feel hurt whenever you try to point out their behaviours are wrong because they take it to heart, which they should not, knowing the Church’s teachings.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
Did you look at that list of nation’s whose organizations were cited? How can you offer that closed list as some sort of credible list?
Click to expand...
Look at it? I posted it. Please feel free to find some enlightened country that thinks homosexuality is a psychological problem. Even, as I said, China - that bastion of human rights, acknowledges that it isn’t. I posted that short list (there are a lot more countries that think it’s a problem) to illustrate the company you keep.
 
We all must be mindful of our behavior.
That said, I reflect on an issue that troubles me.
There is the issue of who we are attracted to. I have experienced this. It isn’t a choice that it is a woman.
There is a corresponding issue. WHO WE LOVE. This is tied to attraction, although attraction need not also include love.
I cannot help but empathise with a homosexual claiming feelings of attraction and love because there are no grounds to believe a homosexual cannot experience these physical and conscious states just as anyone else can.
My attraction and my love has all of the churches blessing.
When a Homosexual experiences love, he/ she experiences that which his Church disparages every day of his/ her life. Calls their LOVE disordered.( If not directly, certainly by implication).
If he feels deep love for his Church as well, and his faith, I cannot imagine the pain such a person must feel when the love he knows is authentic is not acceptable to the church he or she loves as well.
I feel fortunate and I know I am. I know what authentic love feels like. It is not an exercise in the rational when experienced. It possesses a mystical component which personalizes it.
My sense of empathy compelles me to avoid making that individuals life more difficult. How we act on impulse is a Catholic subject. How we feel love between two consenting adults seems quite distinct. After all God is love and love remains a mystery for everyone.
 
Last edited:
Lara said:
Their behaviour is perverted. They are separate from their behaviour. Just as I’m loved by God, I could still go to hell for my behaviour, which is separate from who I am.

Gays feel hurt whenever you try to point out their behaviours are wrong because they take it to heart, which they should not, knowing the Church’s teachings.
Click to expand...
They take it to heart? You call them perverted. You accuse them of obscenity. You say they denigrate themselves. And then find it puzzling that they ‘take it to heart’? That they feel hurt?

I simply can’t fathom this.
 
“They take it to heart”
The fact that the church takes a position does not affect a person taking it to heart. You are literally talking about how a person perceives how God made them.
When Genesis 1 recites:
And it was good
And it was good
And it was good
And it was very good
Somehow their inclusion in God’s creation can feel brought into question.
This makes HOW THEY FEEL decoupled from a third person observation of a church teaching.
 
Sorry, it is early, and I thought I read someones post who didn’t appreciate that list. It actually compelled me to comment.
 
Maximus1 said:
“They take it to heart”
The fact that the church takes a position does not affect a person taking it to heart. You are literally talking about how a person perceives how God made them.
Click to expand...
No I’m not. Which posts can you possibly be reading that gives you that idea? I’m talking about how people in this thread refer to gay people.
 
The real scientific fact is that, although every study found there is no gay gene, they also found there is also no straight gene. The same studies also showed it is totally unclear as to why someone is gay because they also found absolutely no link in the biology, sociology, psychological, nor life experience in those who seem to be born that way at birth. So there still is no scientific proof of neither “born that way” nor “not born that way”.

My brother is gay. There’s no question there was something from birth that made him that way. He displayed actions and preferences as a toddler. It wasn’t a “choice” nor was it at all encouraged in our family. It was just something in-built in him that just made my brother “him” and it wasn’t sin when you’re a toddler and showing your preferences. He hated being gay and fought hard against it and kept seeking God for help. His life was torn and very sad. He was very sad trying to live in Christianity without love or acceptance for who he truly was, nor being able to have true love with a partner and build a life like everyone else in the world.

In my opinion, the anti-gay scriptures are speaking to those who make a conscience choice to pursue any type of sinful lifestyle. There are many gay people who have never ever done that. They had no choice; it’s just how they were since birth and science doesn’t prove or disprove that. Therefore, I believe we have to be open to the fact that we just don’t know. We have to give them the grace to not stand in judgment. Rather just to love them, accept them for who they are. Acceptance doesn’t mean you approve or are okaying it. It just means you let God judge and work it out with them. We all have something in our own closets sin wise that we struggle with and still want our brothers and sisters in Christ to show grace and love toward us.
 
Proponents that there is " choice" has always perplexed me. At my best I dismiss it as shortsighted. At my worst I admit, I see a tinge of sadism.
I range in my response this way because of something you make clear. All things being simply " choice" why would a Catholic( or anyone else) choose homosexuality. There are times and places in history more hostile towards homosexuals than today. In such times " choosing" homosexuality would have been much more akin to choosing leprosy. Still, choosing homosexuality today is to a lesser extent like choosing leprosy, only by degree.
I am sure you wish you could choose a life of less suffering for your brother.
 
karennascargo3 said:
There are many gay people who have never ever done that.
Click to expand...
Why should someone define themselves based on one of their temptations? I am sure there is a lot more to your brother than his struggle with a sexual disorientation. The whole LGBTQ+ movement is based on a reductionist idea of the human person.
 
Last edited:
I don’t understand your point. There being a lot more does not change anything said.
 
Last edited:
It’s not a contrarian point. We are in general today hyper-focused on this one aspect of someone, and that they experience one temptation does not mean that is what they are.
 
Freddy said:
Your whole post is nothing but a convoluted attempt at misdirection.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, my whole post is nothing but a noble attempt at redirecting the opinions of those whose thinking is misdirected.
Freddy said:
And really, is your only defence in demeaning so many decent people the risible: ‘Well, they’re only perverts if they actually have gay sex’. So you’re not at fault for calling them perverts. It’s their fault for being perverts!
Click to expand...
You never call a person a thief if he is merely tempted to steal. It is when he actually steals something that he becomes a thief. So, that’s the same thing. I wouldn’t call anyone a pervert unless he actually does a perverted act.
Freddy said:
Everyone seems more than happy to use such terms from behind a keyboard. But what you have to answer is this: Are you prepared to tell a woman that her son (known to be in a loving relationship with another man) is a pervert? To her face?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t tell a woman to her face that her son is a thief unless I have evidence that her son stole something. In the same way I will not tell a woman to her face that her son is a pervert unless I have evidence that her son is doing a perverted act. If her son is merely in love with another man, but I have no evidence that he engaged in a homosexual act with that man, then I won’t, and shouldn’t, call him a pervert.

Here is the reality, Freddy. Many of those who engage in homosexual acts do it in the privacy of their bedrooms. So, we have no evidence of their perverted acts. Unless they themselves confess to the world that they have engaged in such perverted acts, it would not be likely that we would call them perverts. That is the reason why people in this thread would not tell a woman straight to her face that her son, although known to have SSA (homosexual), is actually a pervert. But, once her son openly states that he engaged in such acts, then we could him a pervert, just as we could call a self-confessed murderer that he was a murderer.

By the way, on account of my multiple duties, I go in and out of this thread often. Just post more questions, or objections, and I will respond as soon as I am able.
 
rom said:
On the contrary, my whole post is nothing but a noble attempt at redirecting the opinions of those whose thinking is misdirected.
Click to expand...
And in what way are the homosexuals sins any worse than yours? Catholics would seem to be just as much slaves to concupiscence as everyone else is, no matter how hard they may try to deny it.

It would seem to be just another example of the pot and the kettle. Only that in some respects the Catholic holds a greater degree of culpability, because they should know that what they’re doing is a sin. And yet they do it anyway.
 
lelinator said:
And in what way are the homosexuals sins any worse than yours? Catholics would seem to be just as much slaves to concupiscence as everyone else is, no matter how hard they may try to deny it.

It would seem to be just another example of the pot and the kettle. Only that in some respects the Catholic holds a greater degree of culpability, because they should know that what they’re doing is a sin. And yet they do it anyway.
Click to expand...
Of course we are all sinners, and my sins could be worse, since I know better. However, if I murder someone, I’m willing to be called a murderer. If I steal something, I’m willing to be called a thief. If I do a perverted act, then I’ll accept the consequence, and be willing to be called a pervert. I am not against sinners. I am against those who sin, and yet want others to think they are innocent. I am against those who do perverted acts, and yet want us to call them normal. Anyway, this whole issue can easily be resolved, if anyone can prove that sexual acts between two persons of the same sex are normal and natural. If that can be proved, then no one would have the right to call homosexual acts as a perversion of nature, or those who engage in such acts as perverts. Do you want to try proving it? I threw this challenge to Freddy, but I didn’t get a response. PLEASE, prove to this forum that homosexual acts are normal and natural. Then the case will be closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top