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

[Lara]

Lara:

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.

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.

Because you don’t believe the Church’s teachings on homosexuality. Because you are not afraid to go to hell and are not concerned that your beliefs conflict with the Church established by Jesus Christ. You feel you know better than Jesus, who is all merciful, but who is also going to be judging us on Judgement Day, and find most of us wanting. The road is narrow. But that doesn’t matter. What matters is that a few gay people “can’t get no satisfaction.” You look at your relationship with your wife and figure they want the same thing. Then you discard objective truth, running with these sentiments.

You claim nobody’s undermined the Church’s teachings on these threads, as you undermine the Church’s teachings relentlessly.

 

[lelinator]

I am not against sinners. I am against those who sin, and yet want others to think they are innocent.

So you’re fine with me pointing out that in Augustine’s view you may well be described as a pervert, by corrupting through concupiscence the true nature of the union between a man and wife. It would seem that to Augustine, sex for the sake of pleasure is perverse no matter the partners.

 

[rom]

So you’re fine with me pointing out that in Augustine’s view you may well be described as a pervert, by corrupting through concupiscence the true nature of the union between a man and wife. It would seem that to Augustine, sex for the sake of pleasure is perverse no matter the partners.

The answer is YES. For, St. Augustine was right. If a man makes love with his wife only for the sake of the pleasure and not also for the sake of love, then it is a perversion of nature. God gave us sex to express our love and to propagate the species (that is, by keeping the sexual act open to the transmission of new life or the production of an offspring).

Note that although someone might be guilty of perversion, you still shouldn’t start calling him a pervert unless you have evidence that he made love only for the sake of pleasure and not also for the sake of love.

Yes, I am making the assumption that he has a normal conscience. But if he has a sick or callous conscience, and his conscience does not indict him for pervert acts, then he does not need our approval either. What he needs is God’s grace and our prayers.

 

[Freddy]

rom:

I am not against sinners. I am against those who sin, and yet want others to think they are innocent.

So you’re fine with me pointing out that in Augustine’s view you may well be described as a pervert, by corrupting through concupiscence the true nature of the union between a man and wife. It would seem that to Augustine, sex for the sake of pleasure is perverse no matter the partners.

A very good point. And one which I guess had to be carefully worded. The use of the passive voice is required to avoid the accusation that you are actually suggesting that any given Catholic is as you suggested Augustine might have viewed them (and I’m being careful with my words myself). Any direct suggestion would have seen you banned.

But it seems that any accusation can be thrown at gay people. And then we get astonishment that they ‘take it to heart’ and might feel insulted. Notwithstanding the laughable defence for not using the terms directly to someone - ‘well unless they actually admit to having sex then who am I to cast aspertions’.

Maybe I should ask various people what they do in bed so I can decide whether they are perverted or not. How do you think that might go? I think the universal answer might be: ‘None of your **** business, buddy’. And rightly so.

 

[Nonatheist]

l don’t see how that is a logical fallacy. Example you gave isn’t even comparable to the original question.
Homosexuality exists, it’s a mix between biological factors and social upbringing. It’s not set in stone, but it can change only slowly over time, forcing it to change doesn’t work.
One of the biggest problem of natural law is that not everyone has the same nature.
People don’t think homosexuality is wrong naturally, so your argument sounds more like
‘If God created people to know that homosexuality is wrong, why are there people who desire homosexual activities’. Which is both wrong and doesn’t apply to this initial question

 

[Neithan]

So you believed Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, Who rose bodily from the dead and will judge our eternal destiny… but a lace curtain mentality from other Christians made you decide he’s just a dead Jewish man and it’s all a hoax after all?

Don’t make your faith contingent on the behaviour of the average believer. That will never last.

 

[Freddy]

So you believed Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, Who rose bodily from the dead and will judge our eternal destiny… but a lace curtain mentality from other Christians made you decide he’s just a dead Jewish man and it’s all a hoax after all?

Don’t make your faith contingent on the behaviour of the average believer. That will never last.

Maybe you aren’t aware that a belief in God and religion (Christianity in this case) are not the same thing.

 

[Neithan]

What is God without religion? A vague metaphysical necessity. But that’s a different discussion.

 

[Freddy]

What is God without religion? A vague metaphysical necessity. But that’s a different discussion.

God existed long before religions did. Was He then a ‘vague metaphysical necessity’? If religions cease, does He then become a ‘vague metaphysical necessity’?

Christianity is not the only path to God.

 

[lelinator]

Note that although someone might be guilty of perversion, you still shouldn’t start calling him a pervert unless you have evidence that he made love only for the sake of pleasure and not also for the sake of love.

I’m sorry, but in a sense this can make someone seem a bit like a schoolyard bully, who belittles the child who’s obviously different then everyone else, overlooking the fact, that they themselves are just as flawed, only in a less obvious way. It seems to me, that just because someone’s flaws are less easily detected doesn’t give them carte blanche to openly and cruelly judge others, even if they deem such judgment to be true.

In judging others, we sometimes inadvertently judge ourselves.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Sure. I mean, we’re all “social distancing” now, so I can’t just invite him over and ask to scan his gay ID card to show you, but yes. Your point?

 

[billcu1]

Where and why a sexual sin or issue comes from or not is a moot point. Nor will I argue with Maxmus1 or anyone else but I will give my point of view. If you are not ready to call “sexual” urges attractions or issues a sin then so be it. We all have our individual issues. but do you want your walk with God or do you want to engage in sexual things instead. This is between you and God. The “original” sin is what caused human “corrupt” behavior. We do all kinds of things that is simply “corrupt”. That is why Catholics spend a lot of time in the act of reconciliation. Genetic theories and other things mean nothing to me. We didn’t come naturally to these things, we took them on. Anyone in a sinless state knows it’s far better than being in any kind of sin. I am not speaking of homosexuality specifically but sin in general. If homosexuality “isn’t” a sin in your opinion, perhaps you are on the wrong forum. I too suffer from sexual sin. Pornography specially, but continue the fight, go to confession. And go to Mass. this will purify you. Until the time is right, you will fall. Just get up again. Pray and pray Science theory is moot, in the eyes of the sacraments. If you are struggling with things follow the sacraments. if you would rather not and engage in any sin. Perhaps you are facing trials. Evil is only allowed to persist because it will bring about good. God bless all.

 

[Freddy]

Sure. I mean, we’re all “social distancing” now, so I can’t just invite him over and ask to scan his gay ID card to show you, but yes. Your point?

You should use the quote facility so I know to what your question refers.

 

[rom]

I’m sorry, but in a sense this can make someone seem a bit like a schoolyard bully, who belittles the child who’s obviously different then everyone else, overlooking the fact, that they themselves are just as flawed, only in a less obvious way. It seems to me, that just because someone’s flaws are less easily detected doesn’t give them carte blanche to openly and cruelly judge others, even if they deem such judgment to be true.

In judging others, we sometimes inadvertently judge ourselves.

Oh, no. I am not here maintaining a “holier than thou” attitude. I am not claiming that I am sinless. And we in this forum are not passing a judgment on any homosexual. That is not our business. But, while we do not pass a judgment on people, we can pass a judgment on the actions. Thus, we ask: are homosexual acts normal acts? That is the issue and we should focus on that. The problem with some people who participate in a philosophy thread like this, is that instead of concentrating on the main issue, the focus shifts to how our judgment hurt people’s feelings, or how insulting the language is, etc. As participants in a philosophy forum, we aim not to condemn or hurt people. If some people don’t like the conclusions that we reach, then too bad because truth hurts. Their best bet is to prove that their opposite views are the true ones. Which is why I have challenged you and Freddy or anyone else who share your views, to prove that homosexual acts are normal and natural. Do you want to try? I am still waiting.

 

[Nonatheist]

Normal’ is both hard and easy to prove depending on what you mean by ‘normal’
They are normal in a sense that society accepted it and that many people are homosexuals.
If you want to give me a better meaning of the word ‘normal’ please do so.
As for natural, it absolutely as modern research and scientific theories suggest that homosexuality started to exist for social reasons rather than purely sexual ones.
Example being, homosexual pairs were more productive to older societies than heterosexual pairs.
If humans evolved into being homosexuals than it’s by definition natural.

 

[Codex]

Instead of looking at what’s natural and unnatural. Or pointing out the sins of the “other”. Why aren’t we trying to find commonality and brotherhood in such situations. I’m a homosexual who is choosing a path of celibacy for God and his love. Had I encountered people comparing beastiality to the gay lifestyle I don’t think I would have made it into Gods arms. Instead I was lucky enough to meet Catholics who pointed out that masturbation and sex before marriage were sins they struggled with. That they too were just as lost at times. They spoke in depth about God’s love and forgiveness. They changed my life. If you only knew how many people could be saved with friendship and understanding you all would change your tune.

 

[Nonatheist]

l responed to someone else on the idea of homosexuality being ‘normal’ and natural.
As for this, l don’t buy natural law theory. l see it as flawed, non-productive and the fact that the idea rests on the totally different view of ‘good’ and ‘goodness’, it uses aristotelian idea of ‘good’ which is has little to nothing to do with morality.

 

[Freddy]

lelinator:

I’m sorry, but in a sense this can make someone seem a bit like a schoolyard bully, who belittles the child who’s obviously different then everyone else, overlooking the fact, that they themselves are just as flawed, only in a less obvious way. It seems to me, that just because someone’s flaws are less easily detected doesn’t give them carte blanche to openly and cruelly judge others, even if they deem such judgment to be true.

In judging others, we sometimes inadvertently judge ourselves.

Oh, no. I am not here maintaining a “holier than thou” attitude. I am not claiming that I am sinless. And we in this forum are not passing a judgment on any homosexual.

Yet here we have, in the post two above this one, a Catholic who is telling you that comments such as we have had in this thread would have driven him away from God had he not met people with a greater degree of empathy and understanding.

Do you not understand that the way you express your views are driving people away?

 

[EndTimes]

Homosexuality was originally called homophilia, but that was considered somehow not nice

Is that what those in Sodom and Gommorah called their unnatural sexual actions?

 

[Neithan]

Fair enough, not originally — more like in the mid to early 20th century.