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

[Zaccheus]

And that would be it?

I think you’re playing word games. The definition of ‘sex’ is not the same as the definition of ‘morally permissable sex’.

So if a close friend told you that her daughter was gay then you’d have no problem in referring to her as ‘perverted’.

Or maybe she’d be courteous enough to not use such language to her friend or to the daughter.

There is a difference between saying that during a casual conversation and using the term during a discussion in which we’re challenged to explain and justify our beliefs.

 

[Neithan]

Yes but our courts aren’t going to think that’s a good enough argument, sadly.

 

[Vico]

…
So how would it be possible for him to create homosexuality without violating his nature?

Since only God is absolutely perfect, all that is created is less than perfect, yet has what is called “proper perfection” but not initially so.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call “divine providence” the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection:

By his providence God protects and governs all things which he has made, “reaching mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and ordering all things well”. For “all are open and laid bare to his eyes”, even those things which are yet to come into existence through the free action of creatures.161

1618 … "For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it. …

2347 The virtue of chastity blossoms in friendship. …
2348 All the baptized are called to chastity. …
2349 … Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence …
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. …

 

[EndTimes]

Yes but our courts aren’t going to think that’s a good enough argument, sadly.

Largest Sadly, ready or not, all shall stand before The Judge Jesus - One Fine Day

_

 

[EndTimes]

I think you’re playing word games. The definition of ‘sex’ is not the same as the definition of ‘morally premissable sex’.

Don’t feed trolls…

 

[Freddy]

As a heterosexual man, afflicted with SSA, I would not have the option of marriage. This also is not a tyrannical demand by the Church. It is simply how sex is meant to work.

But it IS a demand by the church. It actively tried to prevent gay people getting married. And what people do in the privacy of their own homes has literally nothing whatsoever to do with anyone else at all.

Sex is not just for procreation. It is not the case that tab A always has to go into slot B. And that’s whether you are straight or gay.

 

[Thorolfr]

WannabeSaint:

So how would it be possible for him to create homosexuality without violating his nature?

Homosexuality is a disorder. The same as transgenderism, or anorexia. Most homosexuals have some issues with either mom or dad, for a start. It actually used to be treated as a psychological issue. I believe it is that. We only see it as normal because modern secular society has conditioned the way you think about it.
God doesn’t create people this way. People get same sex attracted due to childhood experiences or trauma, or a feeling of having missed out on the love of a father etc. Many gay men are simply seeking the masculinity that they didn’t have in childhood.

The problem with the theories you mention about people being gay because they “missed out on the love of father,” etc. is that there are plenty of gay men who don’t fit any of those theories and grew up in perfectly normal families with loving parents, had normal childhoods with no known traumatic events and don’t have problems with their parents. Also, there is evidence that homosexuality could be due in some people to conditions that occurred in the womb which would mean that they were born with a predisposition to homosexuality even if it isn’t genetic.

 

[Neithan]

Amen.

Homosexuality was originally called homophilia, but that was considered somehow not nice. It’s a much more accurate term, however. Homosexuality is not some kind of alternative sexuality; there is no such thing. It’s a paraphilia like many of the other paraphilias, and only politics has decided it’s different.

Clarity of language leads to clarity of thought, and when there’s a lack of clarity in one there’s a lack of clarity in the other.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And that would be it?

I think you’re playing word games. The definition of ‘sex’ is not the same as the definition of ‘morally premissable sex’.

And what is defined as morally permissable sex is a religious argument. It carries no weight if you aren’t a member of that religious group. Actually, it carries very little weight if you are.

 

[Lara]

If the shoe fits, wear it. Yes, that daughter is perverted. She deviates from what is right and correct, distorts the purpose of the sex act, and exhibits deviant behaviour.

As to how I deal with it, I would tell my close friend that it’s not good. If she countered with the usual anger that I could be so judgemental, I would distance myself from her. If she asked me to pray for her daughter, I would. In both cases, I would pray for the girl. Usually, I pray the relationship ends for the gay person and that they come to know the truth and live it. I would try very hard not to see the daughter anymore.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So if a close friend told you that her daughter was gay then you’d have no problem in referring to her as ‘perverted’.

Or maybe she’d be courteous enough to not use such language to her friend or to the daughter.

There is a difference between saying that during a casual conversation and using the term during a discussion in which we’re challenged to explain and justify our beliefs.

Courteous enough? Now why would that be? Do you think she might be offended by the term? Do you think that any young gay person browsing this forum would be offended?

Stupid question really. Being called a pervert in a public forum? It’s only being used while explaining why we think they are perverts.

 

[Freddy]

If the shoe fits, wear it. Yes, that daughter is perverted. She deviates from what is right and correct, distorts the purpose of the sex act, and exhibits deviant behaviour.

As to how I deal with it, I would tell my close friend that it’s not good. If she countered with the usual anger that I could be so judgemental, I would distance myself from her. If she asked me to pray for her daughter, I would. In both cases, I would pray for the girl. Usually, I pray the relationship ends for the gay person and that they come to know the truth and live it. I would try very hard not to see the daughter anymore.

But you didn’t say that you’d use that word. Seems you might baulk at that. And that you wouldn’t want to see her daughter any more seems like an excellent idea. Not that you’d probably have a choice.

 

[Thorolfr]

Zaccheus:

Freddy:

So if a close friend told you that her daughter was gay then you’d have no problem in referring to her as ‘perverted’.

Or maybe she’d be courteous enough to not use such language to her friend or to the daughter.

There is a difference between saying that during a casual conversation and using the term during a discussion in which we’re challenged to explain and justify our beliefs.

Courteous enough? Now why would that be? Do you think she might be offended by the term? Do you think that any young gay person browsing this forum would be offended?

Stupid question really. Being called a pervert in a public forum? It’s only being used while explaining why we think they are perverts.

It doesn’t seem very honest and genuine to talk about people one way in private or when talking in generalities and then talk about them another more polite way to their face.

 

[Lara]

Gays put us in that position. If we could say what we feel, then we wouldn’t have to put on the polite face. That daughter would never be capable of an actual conversation debating the merits of what she believes. Like Freddie says, she would end the friendship in any case. ie. I would probably not have a choice. Any person who could actually debate with me would not choose to end the friendship on the flimsy basis that I don’t agree with them, but that’s exactly what gay people do.

To Freddie,
If only I could be free to not call it marriage. Unfortunately, free speech is not so free anymore. People like you make sure people like me lose our jobs and our reputations for speaking out.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Zaccheus:

Freddy:

So if a close friend told you that her daughter was gay then you’d have no problem in referring to her as ‘perverted’.

Or maybe she’d be courteous enough to not use such language to her friend or to the daughter.

There is a difference between saying that during a casual conversation and using the term during a discussion in which we’re challenged to explain and justify our beliefs.

Courteous enough? Now why would that be? Do you think she might be offended by the term? Do you think that any young gay person browsing this forum would be offended?

Stupid question really. Being called a pervert in a public forum? It’s only being used while explaining why we think they are perverts.

It doesn’t seem very honest and genuine to talk about people one way in private or when talking in generalities and then talk about them another more polite way to their face.

Alas, I don’t have the option of avoiding that. If I was as blunt in my language on the forum to some members as other members are to the gay community (many of whom are members, yourself included) then it would be hasta la vista Freddy.

Your self control and politeness in the face of so many derogatory and demeaning comments in so many threads is a lesson to us all.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

But it IS a demand by the church. It actively tried to prevent gay people getting married.

Hardly. For the most part there is no interference.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I don’t know about playing victim. There is a tactful way to go about at the right time, but using blunt language isn’t the way to do it.

 

[Neithan]

But that horse has long bolted.

No, it hasn’t. That unicorn never existed. You can’t wave a magic gavel and change reality. It’s legal make-believe.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

The secular world is free to make definitions whatever they want because of free will. I don’t think you can really make an argument against it that they will accept.

 

[Freddy]

Gays put us in that position. If we could say what we feel, then we wouldn’t have to put on the polite face. That daughter would never be capable of an actual conversation debating the merits of what she believes. Like Freddie says, she would end the friendship in any case. ie. I would probably not have a choice. Any person who could actually debate with me would not choose to end the friendship on the flimsy basis that I don’t agree with them, but that’s exactly what gay people do.

To Freddie,
If only I could be free to not call it marriage. Unfortunately, free speech is not so free anymore. People like you make sure people like me lose our jobs and our reputations for speaking out.

None of us are entirely free in what we do. Because if we did as we chose then it may well be insulting to others. I think it’s nonsensical to take my hat off if I walk into a church. But people would be offended if I did it so I do. And I take my shoes off when I walk into a mosque. And I don’t climb Uluru. And I don’t offer pork to my Jewish friends. And I don’t tell my Catholic friends what I think of some of their beliefs.

I could, because we do have freedom of speech but I do my best to respect other people’s beliefs. If it’s not harmful then what’s the big deal. So you wouldn’t use the words pervert or deviant to a gay girl’s mother. Because you wouldn’t want to insult her and cause her unecessary anguish.

But you are still using these words in public. In a forum that has gay members. In a thread that is being read by gay people. And it seems to have you nonplussed if you are told that these are taken as being very derogatory terms. Gee, haven’t we freedom of speech!

Yes you do. You have the freedom to say things that demean others. That denigrate them. That insult them. But I don’t think you’re that type of person. You just don’t realise how hurtfull they can be.