F
fix
Guest
Many things, which we can state, but I am wondering why a so-called biologic basis for same sex attraction has any bearing on the moral correctness of such things?
- Status
J
Jermosh
Guest
Then why am I not dead yet? I am not saying that you or others are guilty of that long list of sins, but I certainly am, I am a sinner. Why only pick out one sin?
L
larkin31
Guest
Biological need/inclination is a mitigating factor in most systems of judgment and justice. It is not irrelevant nor exculpatory.
If we argue that consensual heterosexual sex among adults is moral in part because we are biologically inclined that way, then the same reasoning in part must be allowed for homosexuality. Morality does not come from simply the numbers of those inclined a certain way. It matters not in morality that a minority of humans are gay.
O
o_mlly
Guest
I don’t think so but there is irrefutable proof that all are born “fallen” with some inordinate desires that with grace we overcome in the course of a lifetime.
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
I often wonder “How free is free will?” What are the determinants of an action given interdependence has some validity?
No-one acts, or very few act, independently of their environment, and none come into this world carte blanche as was confirmed in St. Augustine’s Confessions
Behaviour may be a choice, but whose?
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
Your sexuality is irrelevant. Your supposition is speculative. Or is it rhetorical? Gen 1:2-4
F
fix
Guest
This:
**1956 **The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties: For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.
F
fix
Guest
Ok, then you agree claiming a biologic basis for any particular inclination is not justification for acting on such inclination without evidence it is consistent with our nature.
No, that is not the reasoning. We do not say it is moral because it is biological. We are not physicalists. The truth of human sexuality is that God has will complementarity.
That is correct. I have not argued such.
F
fix
Guest
Sure, I have many times, but that is not part of this thread. This thread is asking about proof against being born gay. And I have asked, several times now, why such proof matters?
F
fix
Guest
If you are asking if things like a habit can lessen our voltion then I would say yes in certain circumstances that may be. But, why does that matter?
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
Unfortunately I fail to fully comprehend your remark and therefore what implication I give it is invalidated.
The debate about homosexuality reminds me of the debate about women’s equal rights with men. Throughout history the Church has taught they are: an instrument put on earth to tempt man; a plaything of the devil; being created without a soul; deformed male; 19th century they were still considered to be without a brain, unable to rationalize without the aid of the male, and in society didn’t get the vote until the 1950’s.
The Church remains the bastion of the male, and struggles with the concept of sexuality. A bastion of the male supported by the female.
L
larkin31
Guest
I do not ever state or imply that last part. It is meaningless to me, and as such has nothing to do with morality. Please explain what you mean by it, and do not ascribe that thinking (whatever it means) to me.
“The truth”? As in “only truth”? What does “the truth” mean? You tend to write in imprecise generalities here.
P
Penser
Guest
As with Copernicus (scientific revelation)…the Church might have to take another look at their conclusions they have drawn concerning those who are born homosexual and desire to live out their nature in the loving and nurturing relationships that heterosexuals have - without condemnation.
I suppose I need to read more and appreciate some of the references that have been cited. I have a hard time with putting a period on the sentence. If one is born gay (which for the moment it cannot be proven) and desires to be loved, held and express their loved in a caring and committed relationship - we, as Catholics would condemn this? Tough.
Appreciate the responses - serious.
P
Penser
Guest
**
Loved it! Thanks…**
K
Kevin54
Guest
The question is not whether a person (male or female) can have heterosexual sexual, as it is not a question of plumbing (so to speak), but the intrinsic feelings of greater love for one’s own same sex partner. Gosh knows, even Oscar Wilde married and had two sons. Just one of many gays and lesbians, who have done so to quench a thrist for “normalacy.” Afterall, who would choose to be hated, discriminated against, judged, and killed. Perhaps, only the strong survive the journey to become fully human as a gay or lesbian person.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
There is so much misunderstanding in post 214 that I don’t know where to begin.
(1) There are numerous reasons for SSA and origins of it
(2) There are also numerous reasons for the illusion of SSA
(3) Deciding to take refuge in “the love of one’s own sex” is not necessarily “normalcy” when it comes to relationships. Many people would argue just the opposite: that it is “safer” because of less difficulty with communication, while not “normal” at all.
(4) Aberration is not the definition of “strength,” let alone of courage.
I also question the frequent acquisition on CAF of new usernames by those hoping to provoke & prolong debate, interminably, over an issue they cannot win but hope to sabotage.
(1) There are numerous reasons for SSA and origins of it
(2) There are also numerous reasons for the illusion of SSA
(3) Deciding to take refuge in “the love of one’s own sex” is not necessarily “normalcy” when it comes to relationships. Many people would argue just the opposite: that it is “safer” because of less difficulty with communication, while not “normal” at all.
(4) Aberration is not the definition of “strength,” let alone of courage.
I also question the frequent acquisition on CAF of new usernames by those hoping to provoke & prolong debate, interminably, over an issue they cannot win but hope to sabotage.
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
Reading your post I am reminded of a pertinent statement made in the film *“Torch Song *Trilogy” spoken by one of the homosexual characters, “Gay, who would choose to be gay?”
‘Normalcy’? - define “normal”.
Pope Benedict XV1 has warmly embraced Oscar Wilde as a true son of the Church. A case of hate the sin, love the sinner?
O
o_mlly
Guest
From Fr. Charles Irvin’s homily for the 1st Lent [C] 2010. The readings for next Sunday, Deuteronomy 26:4-10; Romans 10:8-13; Luke 4:1-13, may be illuminating on this topic.
Oscar Wilde was a much-celebrated Anglo-Irish literary figure, very witty… and very worldly. He once wrote: “I can resist everything but temptation.” He lived in total self-indulgence, ridiculed Victorian moral norms and died in Paris of meningitis in the year 1900. His view of life aptly ushered in the 20th century, particularly the cultural rebellions of the 1960’s and 1970’s.
There are many today who live as Oscar Wilde lived. They regard temptations as irrelevant, things representing what they regard as hypocritical middle class moral norms, norms that constrict us and deny us our freedom. We are to live, many claim, with only one self-indulgent moral norm: “‘f it feels good, do it. Anything is all right so long as it doesn’t hurt anybody.’
We could spend hours talking about questions dealing with the nature of evil. What is evil? What is the essence of evil? Why is there evil, anyway? My summary view is that evil is the corruption of what is good. …
catholicweb.com/media_index.cfm?fuseaction=view_partner&id=40
- Status