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

[rom]

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.

No I don’t agree. Actually, many gay professionals will disagree with you. They (the gays themselves) admit and say that nobody is really born gay. I know you came late in the thread, but I gave a link in my early post (Post # 16 ) Go check it out.

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?

Because feelings and sexual preferences are not what constitute human nature. Your human nature consists, not in whether you prefer male or female partners, but in the fact that you are an intelligent, rational being with a homo sapiens body. Your sexual preference may be your attribute as an individual, but it is not what constitutes you as a human being. In other words, both homosexuals and heterosexuals are simply different individuals of the same human nature. Heterosexuals are human. And so are homosexuals. They are both human because they have the same human nature, although different individuals.

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.

Aristotle was not a Catholic, but he follows natural morality. Many non-Catholics also follow natural law ethics, although they don’t call it by that term. Without their realizing it, many ancient philosophers (e.g. Confucius) have developed a system of natural morality because they figured what is right and wrong, what is just and unjust, simply by the aid of natural reason, without the aid of the Bible or divine revelation. So, your contention that only Catholics subscribe to natural law morality is wrong.

Yeah, l am aware that animals are generally only Bisexual.

Be careful about what you read in many magazines regarding the prevalence of homosexuality among animals. The observed “homosexual” behavior in many species of animals do not necessarily indicate homosexuality, and we should refrain from injecting our own motivations and behavior to other species of the animal kingdom, or else we might misinterpret even our pet dog or pet cat as gay. Yes, both male and female dogs will mount other dogs, but they don’t necessarily do this to engage in sexual activities. The ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) seems to say that this behavior is more about playing and releasing stress, or showing dominance, rather than about sex. In fact, dogs will sometimes mount on humans and furniture, too.

 

[rom]

Yet the current view from the Catholic church on homosexuality and any other sexual act that doesn’t result in reproduction is immoral.

It is not that every sexual activity must result in an offspring to be moral, but at least the sexual act must be naturally suited for that purpose. And that is where the homosexual act is problematic, because by nature they are not suited to the production of an offspring.

Did you check me second link?

I just did. Again, this professor is only giving his opinion, and it is NOT fact. Animals will exhibit apparently “homosexual” behavior to protect a group, or to gain dominance, but that is hardly a gay motive.

In the link that I gave you earlier (Post # 271), a female bird will mount or engage another female, not exactly for gay reasons, but in order to make itself more attractive to a male bird. In that case, it is not a gay female, but a smart animal that pretends to be gay in order to be attractive to the opposite sex. This has been observed with Japanese Macaques and other birds. Once you apply critical analysis to the evidences being presented by these “professors,” you will see that “homosexual” activity among animals is more apparent than real.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

That’s mostly because of a few select people here who start similar topics over and over again.

 

[Thorolfr]

we’re in a society that is profoundly confused about sexuality, where people actually define their lives and self-identity around a sexual temptation.

I frequently see the claim here on CAF that gay people define their lives and self-identity around their sexuality. It’s a rather simplistic claim, however, because for most gay people I know, their sexuality is only one of many things with which they define themselves. It’s not the only thing. Just like most people, gay men sometimes define themselves by their profession, their religious affiliation, the university they attended, their nationality, their hobbies, and, yes, their sexuality. But even in the case of their sexuality, it’s something that they use to define themselves only in certain circumstances. A gay man, for example, might wear a pride T-shirt at an LGBT pride parade, but he probably wouldn’t wear it to work or at church if he attends one. On the 4th of July, on the other hand, he might put an American flag outside his home to celebrate his nationality. At other times, he might put on a T-shirt with the name and emblem of his university. From a political perspective, gay men’s sexuality is probably a more important part of their identity than it is for straight men, probably because they’ve had to struggle against oppression because of it.

 

[Thorolfr]

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.

No I don’t agree. Actually, many gay professionals will disagree with you. They (the gays themselves) admit and say that nobody is really born gay. I know you came late in the thread, but I gave a link in my early post (Post # 16 ) Go check it out.

Who exactly are “the gays” who admit and say that nobody is really born gay? Surely, you’re just talking about a few specific gay people who have said this (or have been misrepresented or misinterpreted as having said this), not all gay people or even most gay people. I’m gay, and I’ve never admitted or said that. And “gay” is an adjective, not a noun.

 

[Nonatheist]

l am not talking about if people are born gay. Current view is that it’s a mix between genetics and social experience. This is showed in a study that found that it’s more likely for brother or a sister of a gay person to be gay as well. Is Homosexuality a Choice? - Scientific American Blog Network
Changing sexuality is possbile but not actively. Someone trying to change their sexuality doesn’t work in most cases.

That idea shares some problems first, when did homo sapians become ‘rational’?
Rationality comes into degrees, it evolves over time. And even today big rational differences exist.
If person doesn’t understand philosophy, how could that person be expected to follow the law?
Mind ultimately is linked to the brain, so it’s bound in the biological body. You can’t have sick brain and normal mind in the same time.

Yet, his natural law theory was different than what Aquinas believed in, l am not that familiar with Confucius. If you can be more specific on that l would be greatful. The idea of natural law may be shared among those two, Aquinas took the idea from Aristotle, so only people who originally held that view were Aristotle and Confucius(which l am not quite sure of).
That is correct, but true homosexual or at least bisexual animals exist in many species.

 

[Freddy]

Nonatheist:

Yet the current view from the Catholic church on homosexuality and any other sexual act that doesn’t result in reproduction is immoral.

It is not that every sexual activity must result in an offspring to be moral, but at least the sexual act must be naturally suited for that purpose. And that is where the homosexual act is problematic…

This has to be one of the more risible arguments that is put forward almost as a default. Other parts of the body are used for a variety of reasons and no-one considers them to be part of a problem.

Your lips are there to aid in suckling (and maybe to stop your mouth fraying at the edges…). They are most definately not ‘designed’ for anything to do with sex at all. But does anyone suggest that kissing is ‘problematic’? Obviously not.

Are you going to suggest that a passionate kiss is immoral?

 

[Nonatheist]

l will ask one question here, if sexual activity is there only for reproduction and not bonding, would it be immoral?
Is reproduction more important than bonding? My opinion on this is that sex has two main reasons for existing, reproduction and bonding. Neither is more important,

Cases like that exist, but real homosexuality exists in animals.

 

[Nonatheist]

To add to that, rubbing ears feels good, but nature of ear is to hear, not to be rubbed. So is it sinful?
If it isn’t, by the same logic anal masturbation shouldn’t be sinful as well.

 

[Freddy]

l will ask one question here, if sexual activity is there only for reproduction and not bonding, would it be immoral?
Is reproduction more important than bonding? My opinion on this is that sex has two main reasons for existing, reproduction and bonding. Neither is more important,

Exactly. My wife has been overseas for a few weeks and will be back in a few days. Not to go into detail but I guarantee there’ll be some ‘bonding’ when she does get home. And that is a tremendously important part of our relationship. And as she is past child bearing age, the act itself only serves that purpose. To say that the various parts must be used for conception because they are ‘naturally suited for that purpose’ isn’t relevant in cases like that. We are not using those parts for that purpose. We only ever use them to bond closer together.

And you would say that gay people are not allowed to bond in that way.

If it’s good enough for me and for almost all of the rest of the planet then it’s good enough for same sex couples as well.

 

[Freddy]

To add to that, rubbing ears feels good, but nature of ear is to hear, not to be rubbed. So is it sinful?
If it isn’t, by the same logic anal masturbation shouldn’t be sinful as well.

Indeed. But you may well find that some will say that some acts of a sexual nature are ok as long as you ‘complete the act’ in the ‘normal way’. How on earth can something be acceptable or not only depending on what you do later? It either is or is not.

And is there a time limit? Can you enjoy a certain act of a sexual nature and then say '‘I fancy a cup of tea. Let’s ‘complete the act’ later’.

 

[rom]

Who exactly are “the gays” who admit and say that nobody is really born gay?

Read the posted link (Post #16). They are the ones. Very reputable, too.

 

[Nonatheist]

Problem that l have with this is
First, sources they site are politically biased, not scientific, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/world-net-daily-wnd/
WND for example is a very bad source.
Second, science doesn’t think ‘gay gene’ exists, it’s agreed upon to be mix of environmental and biological factors.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

Who exactly are “the gays” who admit and say that nobody is really born gay?

Read the posted link (Post #16). They are the ones. Very reputable, too.

I only see two or three gay people listed. That’s not very many.

 

[rom]

Rationality comes into degrees, it evolves over time.

Nice theory, but it is off topic and irrelevant. What is relevant is this: Show me how homosexuality could be a product of evolution when homosexuals have no offspring.

Your lips are there to aid in suckling (and maybe to stop your mouth fraying at the edges…). They are most definately not ‘designed’ for anything to do with sex at all.

On the contrary, it is also used to show affection. Now, if you only use your lips to excite sexual pleasure without love, then it might be an immoral use, rather than a moral use of your lips.

To add to that, rubbing ears feels good, but nature of ear is to hear, not to be rubbed. So is it sinful?
If it isn’t, by the same logic anal masturbation shouldn’t be sinful as well.

Here is where natural law becomes useful. Let me explain.

You can use your legs for walking, running, playing soccer, etc. These are all natural uses of your legs. But when you start using your legs to kick someone, that may no longer be “natural.” You see, when we say that an act is unnatural, we do not mean to say that it does not happen in nature or that it cannot occur in nature. What it means is that the act is not in accordance with the natural moral law, that means, the act does not conform with the way that God wants us to behave. Obviously, God did not give you your legs to kick an innocent person, for example. That would be an immoral and, therefore, “unnatural” use of your legs. It is an abuse of your legs, not a natural use. But you can kick and use your legs to defend yourself when you are unjustly attacked. In that case it would be a moral and natural use of your legs.

So, how do we know what is the moral use of our faculties and organs, particularly our sexual organs? It seems obvious that our sexual organs were given to us by our Creator for the purpose of pro-creation within the context of marriage. To use it to rape someone, or to just play with someone outside of marriage, would be immoral and, therefore, “unnatural.” Equally immoral and unnatural is for you to use it with someone of the same sex, or for you to play with it yourself solely for self-gratification, because the act could not result in the pro-creation of offsprings intended by the Creator.

 

[rom]

Exactly. My wife has been overseas for a few weeks and will be back in a few days. Not to go into detail but I guarantee there’ll be some ‘bonding’ when she does get home. And that is a tremendously important part of our relationship. And as she is past child bearing age, the act itself only serves that purpose. To say that the various parts must be used for conception because they are ‘naturally suited for that purpose’ isn’t relevant in cases like that. We are not using those parts for that purpose. We only ever use them to bond closer together.

In your case it is moral, because your acts together promote the double purpose of sex, which is propagation of species and bonding. Of course, on account of your age, an offspring might not ensue (although it is possible, because Abraham and Sarah were both of age when Isaac was conceived), but even that should occur naturally. If, for example, you use a condom to ensure that you don’t beget a child, then it would be immoral.

If it’s good enough for me and for almost all of the rest of the planet then it’s good enough for same sex couples as well.

Read my response to Nonatheist above (Post 293).

I only see two or three gay people listed. That’s not very many.

I know. It is not how many who are saying it, but the credibility of the people and reasons they cite that count.

First, sources they site are politically biased, not scientific,

I can equally say that the APA is politically biased, and you are biased, and I am biased. We are all biased because we all have our opinions. So, you should not reject opinions on that basis alone. You have to present evidence. Where is the evidence that homosexuality is a product of evolution when homosexuals cannot have offspring? Why don’t you focus on that?

 

[Nonatheist]

Agree, but it’s just one of many problems l have with Natural law theory, and it should be thinked about. The natural theory was not understood before Aristotle, and could older humans have enough rationality to understand the theory, that raised another question, when did we become humans rather than animals.
Mariage has no reason to exist in a Christian way, concept of Mariage is older than Christianity, so why would Christian idea of marriage be used.
So it would not be sinful to have anal masturbation? As it’s not related to sexual organs?
This opens so many slippery slopes.
Also, it’s not obvious that they were given for the purpose of procreation, humans evolved into having more sex in general, bonding is also as important factor as procreation, bonding can serve as many
purposes outside reproduction. So, what reason l have to value reproduction over bonding?

 

[Nonatheist]

There is a difference between have a bias(having a goal) and being politically biased.
It’s common for both sides to twist or even lie, that’s why scientific papers hold more worth.
As for source, l already gave one Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality | New Scientist

 

[StudentMI]

Read the posted link (Post #16). They are the ones. Very reputable, too.

That site also promotes the idea that homosexually oriented people can change. As someone with SSA, let me assure you, it’s not as easy as all that.

 

[Nonatheist]

It’s not possible to change by force.
Change is possible slowly over time, but the idea that it can be ‘cured’ or something like that was disproven time and times again, l don’t know if a single person stoped being homosexual after conversion therapy