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

[VanitasVanitatum]

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

That’s wrong, he said gay people here don’t and for the most part it is true.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Everyone is obssessed with it.

 

[Freddy]

[Click your name in the top right and your post should pop up.]

Well, I’ll be…

All this time and I never knew you could do that. Thanks.

 

[Nonatheist]

The biggest problem l have with natural law theory is it’s definition of ‘good’ is aristotelian, which is not suposed to be used for morality especially when talking about issues of homosexuality for example.
Sexual acts exist for two main reasons, procreation and bonding. That bonding part is very important.
l will give you an example for both old and new civilizations, in much older human societies, homosexual pair could just work to better the community, while heterosexual pair would have to take care of the children. Today, not as big of a role, still the lack of child involved gives homosexual pairs an advantage in terms of production. Another point, is that having less children is beneficial to the world, so 5-10% of people of the world who are homosexuals are helping it. This is an odd point but should be taken into consideration.

Another problem of natural law theory is the idea that ‘all humans share one nature’, in that case homosexuality shouldn’t really exist. If all humans are suposed to only have sex for procreation.

As for source,
https://theconversation.com/homosexuality-may-have-evolved-for-social-not-sexual-reasons-128123.

 

[Maximus1]

I think what you are saying is blind to the ear that hears anger, disapproval, negative judgements.
Those things manage to come to the forefront for obvious reasons.

 

[Nonatheist]

How Sexual Selection Drove The Emergence Of Homosexuality

Yale biologist Richard Prum argues that sexual selection is too often overlooked as a major driving force of evolution, including the emergence of same-sex behavior in humans.

www.forbes.com

 

[Nonatheist]

https://www.rmnetwork.org/newrmn/wp...ut-Homosexuality-and-the-Bible-Sept.-2016.pdf
Abomination back than didn’t mean what it means now.
It means something on the lines of ‘unusual’

 

[Maximus1]

Please don’t take this the wrong way. What you wrote is consistent with Catholic teaching. It reminds me how many things didn’t sit right, and alternatives within the tradition I found over time.
You write," God gave suffering." You describe why. And clearly nobody spoke to him to get an answer. We have suffering no doubt. All of us ask, “but why Lord?” Answers like yours try to make sense.
As I get older I don’t know that we can rely on a construct of why. It tends to send us into a direction maybe we should not be in. Maybe it identifies attributes of God that aren’t there.
Suffering is a reality for certain but I don’t accept it is a part of a reality created just to test us. That intentional construct seems cruel to me. God is love.
The notion of God generating “tears and groans” so we will draw close to him, sounds to me like the thinking of abused children. You didn’t intend that impression obviously, but it is a reasonable one to draw.To me, we don’t feel intimacy with what we fear and what we think seeks to elicit pain.( And can. Including " eternal suffering") Lack of intimacy defeats the very purpose of Divine union.
To me the prodigal son, if anything , has a God of restorative justice not retributive. It was the obedient son that had the problem with this
justice.
Ultimately there is always a tension among believers views. In history the resolutions have been especially brutal. You look at the whole and it is hard to identify the trajectory

 

[Neithan]

Those overtones are projected when it’s just written text. I don’t feel angry about this at all; we’re in a society that is profoundly confused about sexuality, where people actually define their lives and self-identity around a sexual temptation. There is a better way to be.

 

[rom]

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.

The reason, Codex, is because we are in a philosophy forum where we are supposed to discuss the pros and cons, and opposite views regarding homosexuality. It would indeed be great if we end up in a consensus, but that is very hard to attain in a group where participants are coming from different ideologies and beliefs. The problem I see is that there are people here who do not know how to focus on philosophical issues, and who think that any expression of an opinion against homosexual acts is an attack against the homosexual as a person, which is incorrect.

I’m a homosexual who is choosing a path of celibacy for God and his love.

I rejoice in your decision to remain celibate for God and His love.

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

And how do you propose should I express my view that homosexual acts are not normal? Do you want me to dilute my moral principles and just say that homosexual acts are morally “neutral”, instead of “not normal”? Or do you propose that I just remain silent? In either case I would be guilty of allowing the truth to be distorted while trying to please people. Actually, I think I worded my posts properly. That readers take it the wrong way is something I can’t help anymore without doing injustice to the truth.

I don’t recall that I’ve expressed my views on homosexual acts, I’m much more concerned with what I see as the hypocrisy of judging others by failings, that in one way or another, we all share. I can imagine that there are some homosexuals who are in most ways fine and decent people, and that the world is a better place for having them in it. But I do know that their homosexuality isn’t the standard by which I should choose to judge them, even though it may be the easiest thing by which to judge them. After all, if I were to judge people by how sinless they are, or how holy they are, you too might well fall short. But show me a person who loves their neighbor. Who’s compassionate, and forgiving, and humble…and their flaws will seem much less important to me.

Exactly! That’s why, as I already said, in this forum we should NOT be passing judgment on PEOPLE, but discussing issues about actions. Without evidence I would never call anyone a pervert, but there certainly is no hypocrisy in saying that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered or perverted, anymore than there is hypocrisy in saying that murder is a heinous crime.

 

[rom]

The biggest problem l have with natural law theory is it’s definition of ‘good’ is aristotelian, which is not suposed to be used for morality especially when talking about issues of homosexuality for example.

I do not think you should arbitrarily reject Aristotle’s definitions just because they do not support your ideas. Why, what do you think was his definition of “good”?

Sexual acts exist for two main reasons, procreation and bonding. That bonding part is very important.

Agreed. Actually, the intrinsic natural purpose of the sexual act is propagation and bonding. Although in my previous post I only mentioned propagation in order to emphasize it, the truth is that sex in humans and some animals has a double purpose: propagation and bonding.

l will give you an example for both old and new civilizations, in much older human societies, homosexual pair could just work to better the community, while heterosexual pair would have to take care of the children. Today, not as big of a role, still the lack of child involved gives homosexual pairs an advantage in terms of production.

Sure, children is a burden to families. But it is a necessary burden. Without children humanity would soon be extinct. The idea that the lack of a child is an advantage toward production is a very short-sighted view of the situation. In the long run, the child will also be a help to the family and, therefore, an advantage to the over-all economy.

Another point, is that having less children is beneficial to the world,

That is an unproved assertion. Having less children may benefit some families, but not the world at large. In fact, the stagnant population in Europe during the Dark Ages (5th to 10th centuries) was characterized by low productivity, whereas the strong population growth in the 11th and 12th centuries AD showed a flowering of commerce and industry.

 

[rom]

Another problem of natural law theory is the idea that ‘all humans share one nature’, in that case homosexuality shouldn’t really exist.

That is a perfect non-sequitur. When we say that Peter and Paul have the same nature, we mean among other things that they were both born with the same natural abilities. It does NOT mean that they have they would have equal abilities, nor that they will use their abilities the same way. Thus, while Peter and Paul are both born with human intelligence, Peter might be more intelligent than Paul. And while Peter might use his intelligence for good purposes, Paul might use his intelligence for evil purposes. Keep that in mind when thinking about homosexuality. The homosexual and the heterosexual have the same nature because they are both born with the same sexual abilities. But the heterosexual person is using his sexual powers properly, that is, for propagation and bonding; whereas the homosexual is using it improperly, that means, he is using it exclusively for bonding without the propagation.

As for source,
https://theconversation.com/homosexuality-may-have-evolved-for-social-not-sexual-reasons-128123.

The author of the referenced article presents his view as a “sociosexual hypothesis,” not as proven fact. And one question not addressed by the author is this: how could homosexuality be a product of evolution when homosexuals are not producing offspring to pass them on? Can you explain that? Actually, there are many other reasons (besides social bonding) why animals seem to exhibit homosexual behavior, and they do not necessarily indicate that they are truly homosexuals.
Look: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animals

 

[Nonatheist]

l do reject his idea of ‘goodness’ because it is so different from current view of ‘goodness’.
For Aristotle, ‘good’ being/object was the one that confronts to it’s nature.

There is also a good theory that homosexuals were better as a secondary family roles, helping the children in the process. l think it’s not a bad assumption to make, that existence of homosexuals made a fine balance between making offsprings, and helping the community in which they are supposed to grown in.

For the same of this l would assume you agree with Climate change, and existence of more humans in first world countries is not helping the problem, on the contrary

 

[Nonatheist]

l don’t know if you got my point, or if l expressed it clearly enough. Homosexuality is not a choice, l hope we can agree on that. And that fact that some people exist who don’t feel any need or desire for reproduction, that’s not only limited to homosexuals. So, if they don’t have any need or any reason to reproduce, why would they share the same nature as heterosexual people?

The entire idea of natural law is that people deep down natural morality.
Which can be proven to be false by the fact that only people who actually follow natural morality are Catholics, and not before Aquinas made his version of it from Aristotle.
If natural law always existed, it would follow that some people followed it before Aquinas, which they didn’t.

Yeah, l am aware that animals are generally only Bisexual. Yet the current view from the Catholic church on homosexuality and any other sexual act that doesn’t result in reproduction is immoral.
So even if people who had homosexual activity had children it wouldn’t matter.

Did you check me second link?

How Sexual Selection Drove The Emergence Of Homosexuality

Yale biologist Richard Prum argues that sexual selection is too often overlooked as a major driving force of evolution, including the emergence of same-sex behavior in humans.

www.forbes.com

 

[billcu1]

What one is sexually attracted to is not a sin. One’s actions are a sin. I am attracted to women. So what? Is that somehow different than being attracted to a man? In the view of holiness? I don’t think so. The sins are in DOING things. I think the error here is in a assumption that “God created people that way”. But to make my point and not get into politics I say being attracted to a woman can cause all kinds of sin. Best thing to do is go to the Mass. Or we will fall. Whatever we look at or have an issue with. The thought “I am bored, I am going to go eat.” is not the natural God meant reason to eat? but easy to fall into. Because one man chooses, to kill another is not God made and God willed violence. many things go on that are not God’s will or God made. HTH God Bless.

 

[Nonatheist]

It’s sin according to the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, which the Catholic Church adopted.
While in the Bible, it was not mentioned as Sin.

 

[rom]

l do reject his idea of ‘goodness’ because it is so different from current view of ‘goodness’.

So what if it’s different? Truth is always different from falsehood, isn’t it? There was a time when the current view of most people was that the sun moved around the earth. And Copernicus was among the very few who believed otherwise. Yet he was right. Truth is not a numbers game. Aristotle and his followers may be greatly outnumbered, but like Copernicus, they could be the ones who are right. The bottom line is that you have to figure out what the true opinion is, not by counting how many people believe in it, but how good are the evidences that support it.

For Aristotle, ‘good’ being/object was the one that confronts to it’s nature.

What you mean is, for Aristotle the good of any object is what conforms to its nature. So, what is wrong with that? Isn’t it good for birds to fly, and for men to behave like men and not like beasts? Isn’t it a good thing for anything to act according to its nature?

There is also a good theory that homosexuals were better as a secondary family roles, helping the children in the process. l think it’s not a bad assumption to make, that existence of homosexuals made a fine balance between making offsprings, and helping the community in which they are supposed to grown in.

It is not a theory but an unproved assumption, and a bad one, too. I can agree that some homosexuals are better parents that bad heterosexual parents. But you need to prove to me that homosexuals are better parents than good heterosexual parents. Also, I do not deny that some homosexuals can be good parents. However, you have to prove to me that the reason they are good parents is because they are homosexuals.

For the same of this l would assume you agree with Climate change, and existence of more humans in first world countries is not helping the problem, on the contrary

I do not agree with Climate change, but this is irrelevant. It is off-topic, so I’d rather talk about it in another thread.

 

[billcu1]

Humm. I am unaware of Thomistic beliefs here concerning this. Where exactly can I find these teachings? Would this have made it into Humana Vitae? How did the church adopt this? This will be quite a struggle for gay bro and sis. I believe that one is definitely transformed by the host. But they will have to decide which is more important a life of holiness or living in sin. I know myself, having been in grace, sin is not worth it. Only partial enjoyment. So what does Thomas have to say?

 

[Nonatheist]

l will give you two cases, one is secular and the other is Christian.
For Christian morality, it is in the Bible, even if the Bible agrees on some points with natural law theory(murder, rape, theft, ) it doesn’t line with it, as the answer in Bible is that they are immoral because God said so.
For secular morality, natural law theory will not produce the greatest happiness or prosperity for humankind, which should be its main goal. The question here is could natural law make our existence objectively worse if we follow them. Aquinas and Aristotle have a view that objects move towards the purpose. Both have different views on what that purpose is, that view of motion is not as valid in today’s world, as science shows that the end purpose of an object is not set in stone, and is changed through the circumstance of that object. Example, (nature of seed being to grown into a tree in one case, while being food for a bird in another)

it’s good according to the one observing, it’s ‘good’ for a tiger to eat the human, but from the perspective of the human being eaten, that’s a bad thing. Beasts and man are terms that change, oldest human civilizations which may be called today as ‘beastly’ didn’t think themself as beastly.
They thought they were above other animals. Same as we do today.
Intellect changes over time, we went from being borderline apes, to what we are now, our intellect didn’t just explode at once. Another problem with natural law, how could people even follow it if they had no understanding of what so ever. Natural law by its definition couldn’t just start working at one point in human development
l am talking about secondary family roles as, uncle and aunts, although it’s not a scientific fact it’s very possible
l would recommend

Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality

There are numerous evolutionary mechanisms that might explain homosexual behaviour, which is common in many species of animals

www.newscientist.com

If climate change is real and as problematic as scientists say, would it be moral not to have children for the benefit of society?

 

[Nonatheist]

Oh, l am sorry. l was not clear enough.
l didn’t mean as ‘having Homosexual feelings’ is a sin.
l am just stating that morality related to sexual activity was taken from natural law theory.
Catholic church adopted a philosophy as their moral stance