A
aemcpa
Guest
I would rather we drop the false premises of this debate. Any sexual activity outside of marriage is inherently a selfish act, and there is no way around it.
- Status
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Well I have, so I can confirm your suspicions.
Great sex, bad sex, OK sex – with whom and whenever, pales in comparison to full, selfless, self-giving & purified love, ordered to the Divine. 
I can refer all here to Kolbe’s excellent discussion of celibacy on another thread.Well I will admit that some (especially men) experience that sex is a form of communication as well. But the point is, it is not essential to communication, and outside of male-female marriage, it compromises the relationship and does not ennoble it whatsoever. That I can also attest to from experience.
One discovers how much one can love another human being, when one is required to do so without sex as a form of expression.
V
VirtusTransitus
Guest
You choose to call yourself bisexual. It’s not who you are, it is who you are choosing to be.
That is different from having a disordered attraction to the same sex.
God didn’t make you bisexual. God apparently made you such that you are sexually attracted to women and men. But God, through scripture and the Church, has also condemned homosexual sexual activity. You have a choice. Obey God. Or let your feelings rule your life.
Sorry to be harsh. I mean only to be clear.
It seems to me that people who share both same sex attraction and opposite sex attraction have a much easier road than folks with strong same sex attraction only. Maybe not, but seems so.
S
sirach2v4
Guest
I saw a National Geographic special on youtube about sexual development which made the assertion that sexual orientation depends on chemical events in the womb.
The producers were putting forth the idea that a brain becomes masculine or feminine in utero, under circumstances that are not understood as yet.
But, that theory takes the matter of sexual orientation out of the domain of choice. In adolescence or even earlier, an individual recognizes same-sex attraction and not other-sex attraction.
In 50 or 100 years, science may know a lot more about the whole matter.
The obvious evidence for this NG presentation theory is that homosexuality has been known in all recorded history. People in all cultures report the same experience of not having chosen to have that orientation.
I looked at a grad-school level psychology textbook (The Abnormal Person and His World) I used around 45 years ago. It says that historically, cultures had no problem with the phenomenon of homosexuality until Judaism and Christianity came along and made an issue of it.
I think homosexuality is a disease, a developmental abnormality, it is a defect that does not lend to the survival of the species by its very nature. According to evolutionary theory, you’d have to predict that it would disappear. But, I think it doesn’t disappear, because it is a functional, developmental problem. It’s hard to eradicate from the gene pool. With the proportion of the population affected by it measured in PER CENT, there is a HIGH chance of an individual being born homosexual.
Morally, I think that only those who have not sinned should throw the first stones at homosexuals.
The producers were putting forth the idea that a brain becomes masculine or feminine in utero, under circumstances that are not understood as yet.
But, that theory takes the matter of sexual orientation out of the domain of choice. In adolescence or even earlier, an individual recognizes same-sex attraction and not other-sex attraction.
In 50 or 100 years, science may know a lot more about the whole matter.
The obvious evidence for this NG presentation theory is that homosexuality has been known in all recorded history. People in all cultures report the same experience of not having chosen to have that orientation.
I looked at a grad-school level psychology textbook (The Abnormal Person and His World) I used around 45 years ago. It says that historically, cultures had no problem with the phenomenon of homosexuality until Judaism and Christianity came along and made an issue of it.
I think homosexuality is a disease, a developmental abnormality, it is a defect that does not lend to the survival of the species by its very nature. According to evolutionary theory, you’d have to predict that it would disappear. But, I think it doesn’t disappear, because it is a functional, developmental problem. It’s hard to eradicate from the gene pool. With the proportion of the population affected by it measured in PER CENT, there is a HIGH chance of an individual being born homosexual.
Morally, I think that only those who have not sinned should throw the first stones at homosexuals.
B
Baelor
Guest
You are not being clear. Bisexual, according to the most common and prioritized definition, is having sexual attraction to both sexes.
Homosexuality is synonymous with same-sex attraction to pretty much anyone not on these forums.
You cannot adhere to minority definitions and at the same time be clear. Sorry to be harsh. I mean only to be clear.
V
VirtusTransitus
Guest
You have a good point, there. The dictionary (at least Dictionary.com) does define bisexual as being sexually responsive to both sexes. We could get into a discussion about what “sexually responsive” means, I suppose.
I still hold, however, that identifying as a bisexual (i.e. calling oneself a bisexual) is a decision. I find many women extremely attractive, but I do not consider myself available simply because I’m “sexually responsive” to these women. I’m not available. The Church forbids adultery. Similarly, a person who is attracted to the same sex need not call themselves “homosexual” or “bisexual” simply because of that attraction. Calling oneself a “homosexual” or a “bisexual” is a decision to align oneself (surrender oneself) to these “sexual responses” even though the responses are inappropriate.
V
VirtusTransitus
Guest
I agree. The only answer is charity and love. But charity requires a kind, but candid discussion of the truth. Two parties can agree to disagree. But a Catholic cannot pick and choose what the Catholic Church teaches for convenience or sociability. And charity does not demand the abrogation of standards or obedience to Church teaching.
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
Not any more than heterosexuality.
As much as Catholicism views it as a sin, that is a religious position and not a moral one
As much as Catholicism views it as a sin, that is a religious position and not a moral one
A
aemcpa
Guest
The Church does not consider sexual orientation to be sinful, only sexual behavior outside of the Sacrament of Matrimony. Behavior certainly falls within the proper realm of morality. Besides, religion and morality are not separate animals - they are intimately related.
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
I think that depends on the religion
A
aemcpa
Guest
How so?
P
PRmerger
Guest
No, april. It appears you were poorly catechized. The Catholic Church does not view homosexuality as a sin, but rather as a disordered desire.
B
Baelor
Guest
Obviously, in the same way that identifying myself as a human is a decision.
Again, “bisexual” is most often taken as “sexually attracted to both sexes.” This is very different than “sexually active with both sexes.”
Or to acknowledge that they exist. I personally do not want to know about any other person’s sexual life or proclivities, but “homosexual” and “bisexual” need not denote anything more than the attraction. It could simply be a recognition of disordered desires.
G
guanophore
Guest
You seem to be lacking some fundamental catechesis on the Catholic faith.
Catholicism does not view homosexuality as a sin.
Furthermore, the religious viewpoint of Catholicism that sex outside of marriage is a sin is most definitely a moral position.
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
In my opinion, the church is being clever with words.
It is like saying a dog is only a dog, if it barks.
Also I don’t see how the catholic teaching of sex before marriage is a sin, is a moral issue.
It’s like saying kissing, or laughing, or walking before marriage is a moral issue
P
PRmerger
Guest
Actually, what the Church is doing is attempting to prevent people from re-defining truth. She is preventing people from saying this:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...k_e4GLckNntO5T9-ZWOtufx70t5fCEWlXUV2BxuYZ9Fme
is a dog.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
That’s your opinion, but it’s also flawed. We’ve had several posters on CAF that concede that they struggle with SSA but are in heterosexual marriages. They identified as bisexual because they are sexually attracted to members of both sexes. In practice, however, they are monogamous in their marriages.
What’s wrong with that? At a certain point you’re picking nits when you’d be better served simply meeting people where they are.
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
I think most people accept a dog is a dog.
The Catholic church does not decide what is truth, it can only suggest.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
Incorrect. The Truth is the Truth no matter what people decide it is. I could claim until my dying day that a dog is actually a cat, but I’d be wrong. Other people can proclaim until their dying days that the Church does not teach the Truth, but again, they’d be wrong.
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
I meant catholic truth, not actual truth
- Status