Is heterosexuality a disorder?

[chrysostim83]

The question may seem a little strange, but let me develop a couple arguments on behalf of the prosecution:

1. As God intends sexuality only for marriage, we must count as a disorder any desire for another person who is not here-and-now one’s spouse. But since heterosexuality is marked by a tendency to experience sexual attractions towards members of the opposite sex, there is nothing in the heterosexual condition itself that limits the desires it gives rise to to one person. Therefore, heterosexuality is at odds with God’s plan for sexuality, i.e., it is disordered.
2. The heterosexual condition gives rise to sexual attractions which in turn give rise to sexual thoughts. Now, sexual thoughts, if consented to, are sinful unless they arise at the proper time and place and concern only one’s spouse. Since, again, there is nothing in the heterosexual condition itself that limits these thoughts to the proper time and place and to being about one’s spouse alone, it follows that the heterosexual condition is marked by a tendency to experience thoughts which, if consented to, are sinful. Therefore, heterosexuality is disordered.

So much for the arguments. I’m posting them here because they’ve come up a few times on these forums, but never in a context where it would have been appropriate to discuss them much. What do you think of them?

 

[Hail_Linus]

Man’s nature is disordered. This is why marriage is needed. Marriage is necessary to make sex holy. Thoughts are just thoughts. What we need to do is avoid obsessing and lusting.

 

[1ke]

The question may seem a little strange, but let me develop a couple arguments on behalf of the prosecution:

1. As God intends sexuality only for marriage, we must count as a disorder any desire for another person who is not here-and-now one’s spouse.

The Church does not teach this at all. Your premise is entirely off-base.

But since heterosexuality is marked by a tendency to experience sexual attractions towards members of the opposite sex, there is nothing in the heterosexual condition itself that limits the desires it gives rise to to one person. Therefore, heterosexuality is at odds with God’s plan for sexuality, i.e., it is disordered.

This is completely untrue.

What do you think of them?

I think you need to go back to square one and read what the Church actually teaches on the subject.

 

[Barbkw]

God blesses the marriage covenants created when a man and a women recite their vows before Him.

Having sexual feelings are normal and natural - an enticement “to be fruitful and multiply.”

God did not create disordered sexual desires.

We however battle with concupiscence.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a9.htm

ARTICLE 9
THE NINTH COMMANDMENT

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ***, or anything that is your neighbor’s.299
Every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.300

2514 St. John distinguishes three kinds of covetousness or concupiscence: lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life.301 In the Catholic catechetical tradition, the ninth commandment forbids carnal concupiscence; the tenth forbids coveting another’s goods.

2515 Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the “flesh” against the "spirit."302 Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.303

2516 Because man is a composite being, spirit and body, there already exists a certain tension in him; a certain struggle of tendencies between “spirit” and “flesh” develops. But in fact this struggle belongs to the heritage of sin. It is a consequence of sin and at the same time a confirmation of it. It is part of the daily experience of the spiritual battle:

For the Apostle it is not a matter of despising and condemning the body which with the spiritual soul constitutes man’s nature and personal subjectivity. Rather, he is concerned with the morally good or bad works, or better, the permanent dispositions - virtues and vices - which are the fruit of submission (in the first case) or of resistance (in the second case) to the saving action of the Holy Spirit. For this reason the Apostle writes: "If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit."304

I. PURIFICATION OF THE HEART

2517 The heart is the seat of moral personality: "Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication. . . . "305 The struggle against carnal covetousness entails purifying the heart and practicing temperance:

Remain simple and innocent, and you will be like little children who do not know the evil that destroys man’s life.306

2518 The sixth beatitude proclaims, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."307 “Pure in heart” refers to those who have attuned their intellects and wills to the demands of God’s holiness, chiefly in three areas: charity;308 chastity or sexual rectitude;309 love of truth and orthodoxy of faith.310 There is a connection between purity of heart, of body, and of faith:

The faithful must believe the articles of the Creed "so that by believing they may obey God, by obeying may live well, by living well may purify their hearts, and with pure hearts may understand what they believe."311

2519 The “pure in heart” are promised that they will see God face to face and be like him.312 Purity of heart is the precondition of the vision of God. Even now it enables us to see according to God, to accept others as “neighbors”; it lets us perceive the human body - ours and our neighbor’s - as a temple of the Holy Spirit, a manifestation of divine beauty.

II. THE BATTLE FOR PURITY

2520 Baptism confers on its recipient the grace of purification from all sins. But the baptized must continue to struggle against concupiscence of the flesh and disordered desires. With God’s grace he will prevail

 

[porthos11]

The two premises are false.

The question may seem a little strange, but let me develop a couple arguments on behalf of the prosecution:

1. As God intends sexuality only for marriage, we must count as a disorder any desire for another person who is not here-and-now one’s spouse.

False premise. It may be sinful, but it’s not a natural disorder. Such heterosexual desires are completely ordered because the natural attraction God ordained is between man and woman. If a non-married couple were to give in to their attraction and have sex, it could very well give rise to new life, exactly what sex does in the natural order.

They may have committed mortal sin by having sex outside of marriage, but they committed no act against nature.

But since heterosexuality is marked by a tendency to experience sexual attractions towards members of the opposite sex, there is nothing in the heterosexual condition itself that limits the desires it gives rise to to one person. Therefore, heterosexuality is at odds with God’s plan for sexuality, i.e., it is disordered.

Subpremise remains false. Sexual attraction between sexes is not disorderd, but man’s nature has been weakened by original sin. If this is to be rephrases more accurately, man has a disordered tendency to sin, sexual sin included, but the object of that sin is itself not disordered.

1. The heterosexual condition gives rise to sexual attractions which in turn give rise to sexual thoughts. Now, sexual thoughts, if consented to, are sinful unless they arise at the proper time and place and concern only one’s spouse. Since, again, there is nothing in the heterosexual condition itself that limits these thoughts to the proper time and place and to being about one’s spouse alone, it follows that the heterosexual condition is marked by a tendency to experience thoughts which, if consented to, are sinful. Therefore, heterosexuality is disordered.

Premise is false for the same reasons as above. Sexual thoughts about any person of the opposite sex are not contrary to the natural order. Such thoughts by nature lead man and woman to mate, giving rise to new life, and so is completely within nature and is not disordered. However, that sexual thoughts can be dangerous is a testament to the disordered tendencies of man, not heterosexuality itself.

The important thing to note is that God did not make us beasts; we have the power of reason to keep our desires in check. We do not live by natural law alone but by supernatural law as well. If heterosexuality were disordered in the first place, God would never have ordained its use within a Sacrament instituted by Christ.

 

[Mumbles140]

The question may seem a little strange, but let me develop a couple arguments on behalf of the prosecution:

1. As God intends sexuality only for marriage, we must count as a disorder any desire for another person who is not here-and-now one’s spouse. But since heterosexuality is marked by a tendency to experience sexual attractions towards members of the opposite sex, there is nothing in the heterosexual condition itself that limits the desires it gives rise to to one person. Therefore, heterosexuality is at odds with God’s plan for sexuality, i.e., it is disordered.
2. The heterosexual condition gives rise to sexual attractions which in turn give rise to sexual thoughts. Now, sexual thoughts, if consented to, are sinful unless they arise at the proper time and place and concern only one’s spouse. Since, again, there is nothing in the heterosexual condition itself that limits these thoughts to the proper time and place and to being about one’s spouse alone, it follows that the heterosexual condition is marked by a tendency to experience thoughts which, if consented to, are sinful. Therefore, heterosexuality is disordered.

So much for the arguments. I’m posting them here because they’ve come up a few times on these forums, but never in a context where it would have been appropriate to discuss them much. What do you think of them?

It is sexual intercourse that is intended for marriage, which is only one aspect of sexuality. It is a gift from God which has been made sinful through the lust of the flesh. Should God not have provided us food for fear that we may glutton ourselves? God does not ask us to reject our sexuality, but rather to restrain it, just as one must restrain all urges and desires. If we let our impulses run rampant, we would be animals, lacking in intellect and free will.

These other posters have it dead on - the sin is where the issue is, not the sexuality. If you start from faulty premises, you will get faulty conclusions.

 

[chrysostim83]

To keep the discussion going and to clarify the arguments from the OP, I’ll briefly comment on the replies so far.

I think you need to go back to square one and read what the Church actually teaches on the subject.

Be more specific.

Having sexual feelings are normal and natural - an enticement “to be fruitful and multiply.”

There are plenty of normal and natural tendencies that are disordered. Loving your friends and hating your enemies comes to mind as an example. Moreover, as I guess most spiritual advisers already know, marriages that come about for sexual reasons tend to be the least stable and happy.

God did not create disordered sexual desires.

From which, if the arguments I outlined are correct, it follows that the heterosexual condition does not come from God.

They may have committed mortal sin by having sex outside of marriage, but they committed no act against nature.

Being against nature is only one of many ways an inclination can be disordered. Google the distinction between desires which are contra naturam and those which are contra rationem (or something like that).

Should God not have provided us food for fear that we may glutton ourselves?

False analogy. Here’s the correct one. The human appetite for food is disordered because (this is simply a matter of observation) people have an attraction to food even when they don’t need it. To be ordered, the appetite itself would have to contain an exact reference to how much food was actually needed, because, when it doesn’t, the result is a temptation to act contrary to reason. In exactly the same way, the original arguments attempt to show that heterosexuality or, what comes to the same thing, the tendency to be attracted to members of the opposite sex including those who are not one’s spouse, is disordered because there is nothing in the tendency itself that keeps it from clashing with reason.

The last analogy should clarify the arguments a little bit. Let me add that calling heterosexuality a disorder is not at all the same thing as saying that it’s a sin or that marriage or sexuality are bad. It is only to point out how things-as-they-are-now are not ideal.

 

[Corki]

The question may seem a little strange, but let me develop a couple arguments on behalf of the prosecution:

1. As God intends sexuality only for marriage,

Right off the bat, you have a fallacy. God intends the sexual act to be only for marriage. But sexuality is a gift we receive from God before we are even born.

we must count as a disorder any desire for another person who is not here-and-now one’s spouse.

No we must not. Sexual desires serve the good of marriage, even before a person is joined to a spouse. Sexual desires are part of what drives the search for a spouse.

But since heterosexuality is marked by a tendency to experience sexual attractions towards members of the opposite sex, there is nothing in the heterosexual condition itself that limits the desires it gives rise to to one person.

Neither is their anything in the heterosexual condition that works against desires for only one person. It is the fallen nature of man that distorts those desires.

Therefore, heterosexuality is at odds with God’s plan for sexuality, i.e., it is disordered.

Since all of your above premises are false, the “therefore” falls apart too.

1. The heterosexual condition gives rise to sexual attractions which in turn give rise to sexual thoughts.

ok, so far.

Now, sexual thoughts, if consented to, are sinful unless they arise at the proper time and place and concern only one’s spouse.

Nope. Sexual thoughts are not sinful. Lusting is sinful. Mental pornography is sinful but sexual thoughts - no.

Since, again, there is nothing in the heterosexual condition itself that limits these thoughts to the proper time and place and to being about one’s spouse alone, it follows that the heterosexual condition is marked by a tendency to experience thoughts which, if consented to, are sinful. Therefore, heterosexuality is disordered.

No. It’s not the heterosexual condition that is disordered. It is the unwillingness to exercise self-control regarding ones thoughts that is sinful. And that’s not limited to sexual thought. Violent thoughts, jealous thoughts, blasphemous thoughts are all subjuct to a proper use of self-control or they can be sinful.

So much for the arguments. I’m posting them here because they’ve come up a few times on these forums, but never in a context where it would have been appropriate to discuss them much. What do you think of them?

 

[Mumbles140]

False analogy. Here’s the correct one. The human appetite for food is disordered because (this is simply a matter of observation) people have an attraction to food even when they don’t need it. To be ordered, the appetite itself would have to contain an exact reference to how much food was actually needed, because, when it doesn’t, the result is a temptation to act contrary to reason. In exactly the same way, the original arguments attempt to show that heterosexuality or, what comes to the same thing, the tendency to be attracted to members of the opposite sex including those who are not one’s spouse, is disordered because there is nothing in the tendency itself that keeps it from clashing with reason.

You are wrong in your analogy, because if having an appetite for food is ‘disordered’, than what is the inverse of that? Having no appetite? Starving to death? Again, you have to accept that God gave us free will. He gave us what we need for survival, but told us to use those gifts in moderation and when appropriate. Saying something is disordered because people abuse it is simply ludicrous.

 

[StevenFrancis]

The physical acting out on homosexual impulses is gravely “disordered”. I don’t believe that means the same as homosexual impluses themselves, i.e. (same sex attraction), are indicative of a disorder, per se. It’s complicated, like most everything else in human life. The point is, persons of the same sex shouldn’t HAVE sex with each other, whether they desire it or not. You can call the desire a disorder, if you like, but the Church does NOT. The church says that to act upon those desre is a mortal sin. Whether or not it is caused by a disorder is not really the point. There are small percentages per capita of people who are drawn in some way to theft, adultery, murder, or other sexual perversions, such as pedophilia, etc. Most of even that small percentage of people only have passing thoughts, or at worst, some temptation that they are able to overcome without too much difficulty. The one who go on and act on those impulses have committed grave mortal sins. There will be even a smaller subset of those who cross the line into action who are found to be mentally ill in some way, and therefore suffering from a “disorder”. So let’s say 1 in 10 murderers have an actual mental disorder which prevented their conscience from overriding their impluses, and that was the reason they murdered. It would be an interesting statistic. (I have no idea what the actual ratio or number is), but it would change the fact that ALL murders are gravely disordered action, and mortal sin. Whether or not one has a disorder, may be a mitigating factor in the evaluation of a defendent by a jury, but it is not license to the free man to be a murderer. The existence in mankind of a disorder may be an important circumstance to judgement or punishment, but is not in and of itself a justification for illegal (or immoral) action.

Blessings,

Steven

 

[twoangels]

The question may seem a little strange, but let me develop a couple arguments on behalf of the prosecution:

1. As God intends sexuality only for marriage, we must count as a disorder any desire for another person who is not here-and-now one’s spouse. But since heterosexuality is marked by a tendency to experience sexual attractions towards members of the opposite sex, there is nothing in the heterosexual condition itself that limits the desires it gives rise to to one person. Therefore, heterosexuality is at odds with God’s plan for sexuality, i.e., it is disordered.
2. The heterosexual condition gives rise to sexual attractions which in turn give rise to sexual thoughts. Now, sexual thoughts, if consented to, are sinful unless they arise at the proper time and place and concern only one’s spouse. Since, again, there is nothing in the heterosexual condition itself that limits these thoughts to the proper time and place and to being about one’s spouse alone, it follows that the heterosexual condition is marked by a tendency to experience thoughts which, if consented to, are sinful. Therefore, heterosexuality is disordered.

So much for the arguments. I’m posting them here because they’ve come up a few times on these forums, but never in a context where it would have been appropriate to discuss them much. What do you think of them?

We all have concupiscence which means we are attracted to sin. That said, I don’t know who would ever find a spouse without feeling an attraction toward them.

 

[chrysostim83]

You are wrong in your analogy, because if having an appetite for food is ‘disordered’, than what is the inverse of that? Having no appetite? Starving to death?

A properly ordered appetite would be one that didn’t clash with reason: it would lead one to eat as much food as necessary and not a calorie more than that.

The physical acting out on homosexual impulses is gravely “disordered”. I don’t believe that means the same as homosexual impluses themselves, i.e. (same sex attraction), are indicative of a disorder, per se.

First of all, let me say that was a very thoughtful response. However, there appear to be two problems with it. The big one is that what the Church speaks of as disorders has nothing whatever to do with psychology: for instance, a psychologist would say that it is perfectly normal to experience anger or jealousy when confronted with certain situations, but that doesn’t affect the Church’s judgement that those passions can be disordered in the same situations. Many people experience resentment toward their parents as a normal reaction to how they were brought up, but the resentment they feel is still disordered, since they should do everything in their power to let it go and move on. The other problem is that the Church absolutely teaches that the homosexual impulse is disordered (on that point, Google homosexuality and catechism).

We all have concupiscence which means we are attracted to sin. That said, I don’t know who would ever find a spouse without feeling an attraction toward them.

Again, sexual attractions tend to produce bad marriages. The advice most spiritual directors have given (it seems to me) is to rely on other kinds of attraction when you’re looking for a spouse.

 

[wynnejj]

Along the same lines as the opening post, and in defense of Catholic teachings against contraception and co-habitation, this is how I explained this to my nephews and nieces when they were talking about disregarding these teachings. Time will tell whether they were effective arguments. I tried, that’s all I can say…

Dear Nephew & Nieces,

Young adults today have been taught more than I ever learned about the birds & bees. With this knowledge and the way most of society views morality, it is often very hard to reconcile the Catholic Church’s strict rules. These rules seem to be a throwback to ancient times. Well, some of the rules can only be understood by going back to the most ancient of times in the Old Testament - the Garden of Eden with Adam & Eve.

This letter is a discussion of my understanding of the sex taboos of the Church. When God made Adam & Eve, he placed the forbidden tree with the forbidden fruit right in the middle of the Garden of Eden. It was like putting a Christmas tree right in the middle of the playroom with all its glittering presents - with a sign that says “Don’t open until Christmas”. They failed the test and mankind was exiled and quarantined to Earth from Paradise with the ultimate virus of “original sin” which causes us all to be born with a variety of birth defects - physically, mentally and morally. We are not born into this world the way God originally made us.

Now we have been given the same “Garden of Eden” test again. The sign says, “Do not use your reproductive tools for anything except what they were designed - that is, the procreation of children - and, don’t do so until you have made your marriage vows before God & witnesses. All else, gravely offends God.”. For healthy loving couples contemplating a life together, this puts a taboo on contraception and cohabitation.

Often these sex taboos appear unnatural. That is, one can’t help but say “Lord, you made me this way. You designed me with an animal nature and biological imperatives and drives that I never requested. Why didn’t you design me with a kill switch for my sex drive as well? Then I could be as pure & chaste as you demand and get on with the higher aspirations in life. As it stands, it seems that you programmed me one way, and command me not to behave naturally.”. Could it be that these sex taboos are simply arbitrary tests from God that require obedience without understanding?

God made us with Flesh and Spirit - with an animal and a spiritual nature. We are given free will and reason for the purpose of practicing the acceptance of God’s will over our animal nature. We are offered an invitation to become true children of God and live with Him eternally in heaven. You have the right to choose to be or not to be born again into life eternal. The invitation comes with a price of admission that requires the practice of self-mastery over our animal natures, the mastery of the Spirit over Flesh. By subordinating our animal nature, we concretely profess our supreme faith, belief, trust & love of the hidden God before all others, including ourselves & family & friends. This is the 1st commandment - to love God with our whole being above all others. We do this by obeying His Commands (“If you love Me, you will keep my commandments!”), even if their reasons may not be entirely understood, just as a child does not always understand. We do this in the same spirit as in the Garden of Eden when God placed that one arbitrary taboo right in the middle of Paradise as a symbol of our allegiance and love for God over ourselves & others.

Are we made by God intentionally so that overcoming our natural instincts will require effort? Yes.

Will we fail? Quite likely at times as we turn off temporarily or question constantly our belief in Jesus as Lord.

Will we be forgiven if we confess our sins and make a firm purpose of amendment? You bet, but it takes a conversion of heart which becomes harder and harder as we cultivate the habit of justifying and rationalizing our offenses against God’s Law.

Should we always keep trying? You better or else. We have the right to choose, but there are consequences.

Are we just being fools if Jesus is NOT Lord? Now there’s the leap of faith.

Are you willing to be a fool for Christ?
Let’s hope that your answer is a resounding “Yes, I believe and place my trust in You, Lord!”.

God Bless,
Your Uncle

P.S. Let me recommend to you the Saint Joseph Promise. If you promise to keep yourself chaste before marriage to Saint Joseph, you can be assured that he will intercede for you before his foster son, Jesus, to ensure that you are blessed with a happy marriage.

 

[Mumbles140]

A properly ordered appetite would be one that didn’t clash with reason: it would lead one to eat as much food as necessary and not a calorie more than that.

Again, sexual attractions tend to produce bad marriages. The advice most spiritual directors have given (it seems to me) is to rely on other kinds of attraction when you’re looking for a spouse.

So we should be robots? It is great that you are suggesting our appetites to be ‘just enough’, and they do that. Your system will tell you when it is full. If you get no signals from your stomach when it is about to burst, then there is something wrong and you are actually disordered. A healthy appetite is completely normal, and that is what heterosexual desire is. What you want is for us to lose free will. Lose that ability to say ‘Well, just one more bite’. And yes, this would keep us from sin, but this would also keep us from love. Just out of curiosity, why do you think that a ‘normal’ appetite is one which gets us the minimal need and nothing further, and that anything above that is ‘disordered’?

Also, one should never marry based purely on sexual attraction/relations. That contributes toward passion, but passion is not only those things, and passion alone does not make up a marriage. However, passion is part of a marriage. There is a natural desire for physical attraction to a potential mate, and though this isn’t one of the main areas in finding a spouse, it is something that should be present in a potential spouse. Your suggestion was that any sexual attraction towards someone who isn’t your spouse is sinful, which is completely not true. Lusting is when it becomes sinful, even if one lusts after his own spouse, so your argument holds no water here, either…

 

[chrysostim83]

That was an awesome letter, wynnejj. Your nephews and nieces are fortunate to have such an uncle.

Now to some objections:

A healthy appetite is completely normal, and that is what heterosexual desire is.

Yes, but plenty of normal inclinations are disordered. Again, consider the fact that it is normal to love your friends and hate your enemies.

What you want is for us to lose free will. Lose that ability to say ‘Well, just one more bite’.

Someone with a perfectly ordered appetite could still deliberately choose to eat too much.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think that a ‘normal’ appetite is one which gets us the minimal need and nothing further, and that anything above that is ‘disordered’?

The word I would use is not “normal” but “ordered.” An ordered appetite would encourage us to eat enough and no more: and surely, the reason why this is so is already clear, since if an appetite for too much food were not disordered, it would be impossible to explain why we should struggle against it rather than giving it free reign and dealing with obesity through surgery or other means.

However, passion is part of a marriage. There is a natural desire for physical attraction to a potential mate, and though this isn’t one of the main areas in finding a spouse, it is something that should be present in a potential spouse.

I should point out here that through much of human history, marriages were arranged, and sexual attraction had nothing to do with the arrangements.

Your suggestion was that any sexual attraction towards someone who isn’t your spouse is sinful, which is completely not true.

No. Sexual attraction toward someone who isn’t your spouse is disordered, not sinful.

 

[Mumbles140]

Yes, but plenty of normal inclinations are disordered. Again, consider the fact that it is normal to love your friends and hate your enemies.

Someone with a perfectly ordered appetite could still deliberately choose to eat too much.

The word I would use is not “normal” but “ordered.” An ordered appetite would encourage us to eat enough and no more: and surely, the reason why this is so is already clear, since if an appetite for too much food were not disordered, it would be impossible to explain why we should struggle against it rather than giving it free reign and dealing with obesity through surgery or other means.

I should point out here that through much of human history, marriages were arranged, and sexual attraction had nothing to do with the arrangements.

No. Sexual attraction toward someone who isn’t your spouse is disordered, not sinful.

Why is loving one’s friends disordered? It is animal instinct for survival of the fittest, dog eat dog, etc. But did God not gift us with friendship? Didn’t Christ want us to be communities together, to unite rather than live as hermits? This is precisely human order - this is why pity, compassion, and empathy are natural human emotions.

Concerning the perfect appetite, who then isn’t to say that heterosexual feelings are ordered, just like eating the sufficient amount of food. Our body provides us reactions to know when we are crossing boundaries, and as you said, we have the ability to override/abuse those. But if you claim heterosexuality is disordered, than who is to say that abusing it is any worse? However, if you start with a normal sexual appetite (properly restrained and in moderation), then lusting, premarital relations, or self-gratification would be the problems, and that is the disorder of sin.

And how many Catholic arranged marriages were there? Are the parties not asked if they are there of their own free accord? And being there not of one’s own choosing could invalidate the marriage?

Lastly, making someone your spouse does not mean a light turns on and you have sexual attraction to them. It is part of dating to have that attraction. Now, responsible couples will control that attraction - they will not try to reject it, but they will not let it run rampant. Then, once married, they will enter in the fullness of their God-given sexuality by partaking in the marital act. But come on, claiming that any sort of attraction to someone is a disorder is completely ridiculous.

I guess the next question would be - why do you believe heterosexuality is a disorder? Not the reasons/arguments you have, but why do you want this to be the case?

 

[Elizabeth502]

It’s astounding that anyone who has even read Genesis once, let alone read it and heard it often, could conceive of creating a thread with this title.

The utter contradiction of the God who is the author of all order and who contains all order within Himself, being simultaneously the creator of disorder, is quite an exercise in distortion of physical reality.

 

[Poor_Soul]

Heterosexuality is indispensable for the continuation of the species. This is why it is not disordered. Someone cannot misuse heterosexuality since they either like the opposite sex or they dont so the argument that it is disordered is not logical, however, if the person says that sex can be misused by heterosexuals then thats true and the Catholic Church teaches this when it states all sexual acts that are done outside of marriage regardless of sexuality are a misuse of sex and thus disordered.

Homosexuality is considered disorder since it is not necessary or essential to the human race. We could survive and continue to survive just fine without it.

 

[FCEGM]

No. Sexual attraction toward someone who isn’t your spouse is disordered, not sinful.

No. Such attraction might prove to be sinful, but if one is attracted to a member of the opposite sex who isn’t one’s spouse the fact that the other is the opposite sex reflects the order of heterosexual attraction which is a good for the propagation of the species; it’s one’s concupiscence that is the disorder, not one’s heterosexuality. If one, however, were to be attracted to a member of one’s same sex, then that would be reflective of a disorder and acted upon would be sinful.

Trying to rework Catholic moral theology doesn’t work very well however hard one may try.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

No. Such attraction might prove to be sinful, but if one is attracted to a member of the opposite sex who isn’t one’s spouse the fact that the other is the opposite sex reflects the order of heterosexual attraction which is a good for the propagation of the species; it’s one’s concupiscence that is the disorder, not one’s heterosexuality. If one, however, were to be attracted to a member of one’s same sex, then that would be reflective of a disorder and acted upon would be sinful.

Trying to rework Catholic moral theology doesn’t work very well however hard one may try.

That’s what the OP appears to advance in his arguments. One trying to square a circle.
,