Is it objectively meaningful and functionally correct to class Same Sex Attraction as a genuine form of human Sexuality?

[Lui]

It was a gentle suggestion (followed by a wink), not an “insult.” Keep in mind that you have engaged in several pages of inaccurate accusations of an absolutist nature, regarding Catholicism, that cannot result in fruitful dialogue until some education about that religion takes place. (Hence, the suggestion.)

To be fair, most of the stuff I mentioned is what I learned from people in this forum and have not actually read it as a Church Teaching. All priests I’ve talked to denied the following but people in this forum told me the priests I talked to were wrong.
I’ve heard things like:

• if a 14 year old faithful Catholic masturbates, doesn’t confess and then dies in an accident, he will go to Hell.
• All Non-Christians will go to Hell.
• in fact, most people will go to Hell.
• Catholics MUST believe in Adam and Eve
  …to name a few…

Anyway, I didn’t want to slam Catholicism. I just wanted to say that people MIGHT think that some Catholic Teachings can be distorted too and many do.

Again, familiarity with your subject matter promotes fruitful conversation.

Modern Catholic catechesis of children de-emphasizes a punitive approach to sin, but rather emphasizes an optimally loving mutual relationship between Creator and creature. In time, appropriate to their stage of development, children are led into a more adult understanding of possible permanent consequences of our moral decisions, and how to avoid such consequences. Regardless, the Church does not teach that it knows definitively the eternal destiny of any particular individual. The Church outlines a path of the moral life, teaching definitively what that truthful morality is. But she does not presume to know the Mind of God nor the mercy of God, which I mentioned earlier. The proof of its positive approach to the hereafter is that the only ‘definitive’ proclamations she makes in that regard are the positive ones: She declares which persons have lived such a publicly witnessed holy life of truth, justice, and righteousness that most certainly they are enjoying the Beatific Vision. She calls those individuals Saints.

Your “information” about Catholicism is neither accurate nor current, but based on a distortion, not on objective study.

Have you read any other threads on this board? If my information is neither current nor accurate, what do you say to many opinions Catholics have in this forum?

Sorry for being totally off topic.

 

[John21652]

You might be surprised to learn that many people find this level of homophobic bigotry to be repulsive and socially obnoxious.

I think you’ll find that most people do in fact think sodomy is an obnoxious thing and I also think you’ll find that most people are fed up to the back teeth with having the epithet “homophobic” flung at them. It is indeed just that, an epithet dreamed up by the gay lobby who will resort to meaningless propoganda to stifle debate on this issue and they use it to ram their agenda down everyone’s throats. You are one who has fallen for their propoganda and you now fling that empty epithet at anyone who espouses a moral opinion. The real ‘phobia’ is to be found amongst those who attempt to denigrate morality.

As for picking sodomy as your personal battle because it’s ‘easily defined’ and results in communicable diseases, I think you’ll find that there’s plenty of homosexual expression that does not involve actual sodomy, and furthermore that sodomy is not an exclusively homosexual practice. Sexuality is not so clear-cut and easily defined as you might think.

There you go once again, using one wrong to excuse another. That’s like a child caught stealing a sweet and crying out in defense that other kids have done the same thing. Bad luck…one wrong is never excused by another.

Overeating, I would have thought, is a much more easily defined behaviour, and obesity is a well-defined result of that behaviour. Don’t you find it repulsive and perverted that the fast food and junk food industries are growing obscenely wealthy on the back of what the World Health Organisation calls an obesity ‘epidemic’? And it’s not just adults who are affected, but children too young to fully comprehend the consequences of their actions who are now presenting with diabetes and heart disease because of obesity. And I haven’t even begun to touch on the deleterious effects the fast food industry also has on the environment, the economy and the workers and production animals involved - it’s all connected.

As others have pointed out to you, your education really, really needs attending to. You shoot from the hip too much and really, you are shooting yourself in the foot.

If you’d take the time to read the Catholic Catechism, you’d come across a concept called “Gluttony”. It is one of the “seven deadly sins”. Have you ever heard of them? Once upon a time, everyone knew what they were and avoided them. Todays society is full of people who have forgotton the virtues that make for a good life. You seem to be one of those. The Catholic Catechism deals with every issue you have raised in this paragraph, including good stewardship of the environment. If you did some real homework, instead of shooting from the hip, you’d know that these are moral issues and the Church has a stance on them. Of course, those who so readily knock and mock the Church conveniently forget all this and think they have a brand new take on moral issues. What hubris!

Evidently you pick your battles on the basis of personal prejudice, not the actual levels of harm involved in the activities you choose to condemn.

There you go again, turning a moral issue into one of personal predjudice. Tell me, in light of what I wrote in the preceding paragraph, if Charlemagne II wrote about the Catholic Church’s position on good stewardship of the environment, would he be writing from a position of “personal predjudice”?

This thread is about homosexuality and so he writes from the Catholic perspective on a moral issue. Now, would you condemn his opinions as “personal predjudice” if he did the same on an environmental issue?

I await your answer.

 

[Sair]

I think you’ll find that most people do in fact think sodomy is an obnoxious thing and I also think you’ll find that most people are fed up to the back teeth with having the epithet “homophobic” flung at them. It is indeed just that, an epithet dreamed up by the gay lobby who will resort to meaningless propoganda to stifle debate on this issue and they use it to ram their agenda down everyone’s throats. You are one who has fallen for their propoganda and you now fling that empty epithet at anyone who espouses a moral opinion. The real ‘phobia’ is to be found amongst those who attempt to denigrate morality.

Where do you get your ‘most people’ statistic here? And what’s to consider obnoxious? If you’re tired of being called ‘homophobic’, maybe you could consider relaxing your bigoted attitude to homosexuality. I don’t think you’ll find anyone claiming that those who oppose the abuses at Guantanamo Bay, for example, are ‘torturephobic’ - that is an obvious wrong. Two people of the same sex expressing love and desire is not so.

There you go once again, using one wrong to excuse another. That’s like a child caught stealing a sweet and crying out in defense that other kids have done the same thing. Bad luck…one wrong is never excused by another.

So the abuse of children by Catholic clergy is not excused by the indoctrination of said children in Catholic belief? Fair enough - I agree.

As others have pointed out to you, your education really, really needs attending to. You shoot from the hip too much and really, you are shooting yourself in the foot.

And you level derogatory accusations without support. What’s your point here?

If you’d take the time to read the Catholic Catechism, you’d come across a concept called “Gluttony”. It is one of the “seven deadly sins”. Have you ever heard of them? Once upon a time, everyone knew what they were and avoided them. Todays society is full of people who have forgotton the virtues that make for a good life. You seem to be one of those. The Catholic Catechism deals with every issue you have raised in this paragraph, including good stewardship of the environment. If you did some real homework, instead of shooting from the hip, you’d know that these are moral issues and the Church has a stance on them. Of course, those who so readily knock and mock the Church conveniently forget all this and think they have a brand new take on moral issues. What hubris!

So why aren’t there an equal number of threads here condemning the immorality of the fast food industry? It’s one thing for the catechism to deal with an issue - quite another for practising Catholics to pay attention.

There you go again, turning a moral issue into one of personal predjudice. Tell me, in light of what I wrote in the preceding paragraph, if Charlemagne II wrote about the Catholic Church’s position on good stewardship of the environment, would he be writing from a position of “personal predjudice”?

I think you missed the point. I was drawing a contrast between the vitriol heaped upon homosexuality, a comparatively harmless practice, and the absolute silence - both on these forums and in public protest - about the far more destructive practices of the fast food industry. Could it be that the idea of ‘picking battles’ is a matter of finding targets that invoke the personal ire of individual Catholics, rather than addressing real social issues? For the record, if anyone on this forum wrote about the Catholic church’s stance on environmental stewardship, it would have to be said that most have failed to live up to any such standard.

This thread is about homosexuality and so he writes from the Catholic perspective on a moral issue. Now, would you condemn his opinions as “personal predjudice” if he did the same on an environmental issue?

I await your answer.

That would depend upon the environmental issue addressed and the approach taken. The question was asked by another - why focus upon homosexuality? - and the answer given was that it’s necessary to ‘pick one’s battles’. I merely commented upon the fact that there are far more destructive forces against which to protest in our society than homosexual expression.

 

[Lui]

I think you’ll find that most people do in fact think sodomy is an obnoxious thing

I’m sure many don’t find anal sex to be their thing but I guess the majority of people like oral sex, especially men so your statistic is flawed.

and I also think you’ll find that most people are fed up to the back teeth with having the epithet “homophobic” flung at them. It is indeed just that, an epithet dreamed up by the gay lobby who will resort to meaningless propoganda to stifle debate on this issue and they use it to ram their agenda down everyone’s throats.

I live in Cologne, Germany which is famous for having many gay people. I have many gay friends. They never rammed anything down my throat(no pun intended). One good friend never ever even comments on any gay issues. We talk about everything except gay issues. He just happens to be gay. WHAT do gay people want except for equal rights?
Do they want all guys to dress up like drag queens? I don’t get what propaganda you’re talking about. It’s your biased opinion against gay people that you despise that leads to such claims.

You are one who has fallen for their propoganda and you now fling that empty epithet at anyone who espouses a moral opinion. The real ‘phobia’ is to be found amongst those who attempt to denigrate morality.

WHAT PROPAGANDA? My good friend who is gay is one of the nicest, sincerest people I know. He helps people without hesitation, he is funny, intelligent, a good craftsmen at his work. I once had a severe mountain bike accident. He immediately took me to the hospital, insisted on paying for the taxi, waited in the waiting room and made sure I was alright. And you dare to say gay people have no moral standards just because they’re no phony moralists who preach hatred against others?

If you’d take the time to read the Catholic Catechism, you’d come across a concept called “Gluttony”. It is one of the “seven deadly sins”. Have you ever heard of them? Once upon a time, everyone knew what they were and avoided them. Todays society is full of people who have forgotton the virtues that make for a good life. You seem to be one of those.

Last time I checked the US had a large percentage of Christians so I assume that most obese people are Christians. When were the times better in history: when black people had to sit in back of the bus and had no rights(same goes with the Aboriginals in Australia), women had no rights to vote, people were tortured and mistreated in prison, children had to work in factories? There were never times when people were all living like Saints.

The Catholic Catechism deals with every issue you have raised in this paragraph, including good stewardship of the environment. If you did some real homework, instead of shooting from the hip, you’d know that these are moral issues and the Church has a stance on them. Of course, those who so readily knock and mock the Church conveniently forget all this and think they have a brand new take on moral issues. What hubris!

No, it is hubris to believe the Church has the copyright on moral values. To say that all Non-Catholics are immoral is hubris. A person can believe that the whole story of Jesus and the resurrection is a fairytale or just totally ignore that belief, just like they ignore the belief in Zeus or some Hindu God but they still can have the highest moral values and they do. Morality is a universal thing. It just doesn’t always match what people think is moral or not but most people agree on various topics like theft, rape, murder etc.

This thread is about homosexuality and so he writes from the Catholic perspective on a moral issue. Now, would you condemn his opinions as “personal predjudice” if he did the same on an environmental issue?

That’s the point. It’s always about homosexuality. This is about the 2 billionth thread on that topic. I challenge you to open a topic on Gluttony and point out how overindulging on food is a immorally wrong and should be condemned. Also call these people disordered and perverted and make claims that they have no moral code. There will be an uproar.

 

[Elizabeth502]

To be fair, most of the stuff I mentioned is what I learned from people in this forum and have not actually read it as a Church Teaching. All priests I’ve talked to denied the following but people in this forum told me the priests I talked to were wrong.
I’ve heard things like:

• if a 14 year old faithful Catholic masturbates, doesn’t confess and then dies in an accident, he will go to Hell.
• All Non-Christians will go to Hell.
• in fact, most people will go to Hell.
• Catholics MUST believe in Adam and Eve
  …to name a few…

And if you were participating in an academic debate – say, in college, or in a formal debate setting of any kind – would you seriously reject the black text I bolded above, and instead rely on the blue text I bolded above? And would you expect that your debaters would respond seriously to “what you’ve heard” (from what you admit here are non-authentic sources) versus your having done your actual homework so that your debaters could have a debate on substance (facts) and not rumor (fantasy)?

And would you not expect, if you had done that, to arouse the annoyance of those who do represent and understand the authentic teachings of their position, because of your (not their Church’s, as you erroneously stated several times on this thread alone) distortion of truth?

So at least you now acknowledge what those of us who do know Catholicism could see in you all along: you did not bother to inquire first, but rather accused, and accused based on your admitted reliance on distortions of Catholicism. You have continued to criticize a distortion and caricature of Catholicism, conveniently claiming that anonymous bloggers rather than trained apologists in Catholic systematics, are valid representations of generalities that are not operative in the 21st century.

If you had read the Forum Rules (done your homework) before posting, you would have seen the following:

“Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions.”

What this means in practical terms is that this discussion forum section of Catholic Answers does not comprehensively represent official Church teaching. The official teachings are represented in the main area of the Catholic Answers website, which contains information about settled doctrine and dogma, sources, links, and further articles about those authentic doctrines, etc. The C.A. website includes a library of resources, as well as lists of books. Unfortunately, very few discussion forum users appear to access those first, before asking questions about doctrine. The evidence for that is in the nature of their questions and often the content of users’ replies.

Many C.A. discussion forum members are very well educated and authentically taught; they answer questions about Apologetics accurately, often referring to documents such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, papal encyclicals, US Bishops’ statements, etc. But probaby just as many users are poorly taught. Some of those who are poorly taught sincerely believe their inaccurate statements, and are of sincere heart; others may have various agendas, or merely emphases, due to their personal style and faith experience. However, unlike most Protestant sects, the teachings of Catholicism are not subject to shifting opinion as to their accuracy, merely varying opinion as to the individual Catholic’s response to those unwavering truths.

Anyway, I didn’t want to slam Catholicism. I just wanted to say that people MIGHT think that some Catholic Teachings can be distorted too and many do.

If they had studied, rather than guessed or relied on amateurs, they would not assume distortions.

Have you read any other threads on this board?

Again the evidence that you have not done something so simple as to click on my name and observe the many threads in the many subforums I regularly participate in.

If my information is neither current nor accurate, what do you say to many opinions Catholics have in this forum?

Answered above (in general). As to specifics, it is not the teaching of the Catholic Church that most or all non-Christians “will go to Hell” or even that most believers will. The Church doesn’t have a sense of “most,” let alone “all,” because that is for God alone to determine. It is logical to assert that most will not enter Heaven immediately, because to be in communion with the Beatific Vision, one must be spotless, which demands a loving (not a vicious) purgation of one’s faults, cumulative effects of bad moral decisions, and unacknowledged failings. Most human beings are not so consisently disciplined and progressive in their spiritual journey that they will succeed in self-purgation throughout their earthly life.

Again, if you had read other threads on which I participate you will see that very recently I have commented on this as well.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It’s always about homosexuality. This is about the 2 billionth thread on that topic. I challenge you to open a topic on Gluttony and point out how overindulging on food is a immorally wrong and should be condemned.

Not only did John not open this thread, I do not believe he has ever started such a thread on this topic. If you would do your homework for once, and actually do a simple search on his name as to “threads started,” you would see that. The overwhelming number of threads opened on this topic are opened by Catholics or non-Catholics who have been poorly taught on the subject. Some are apparently opened by those with political agendas, given the content of their postings, including their stated supposed rationale for opening the thread and often their acknowledged anti-religion bias. The author of this thread is not such a person, it would seem. It seems that he is interested in discussing the intellectual concept of “orientation” and is certainly not a troll.

 

[Lui]

Again, if you had read other threads on which I participate you will see that very recently I have commented on this as well.

Just a quick answer: it’s not like I emphasized on Church Teachings throughout this thread. I ONLY mentioned it once as an example. You wrote that gay people try to shape a society in their own distorted image. I merely wanted to say that you can accuse the Catholic Church in doing the same or any other lobby.
To promote that Jesus is God or even that there is a God can be considered as a distortion of reality by people who don’t happen to believe in this theory just like they don’t believe in any Hindu God or the religion of the Quechua of the South American Andes. A person is free to believe what he wants. You don’t believe in the Quechua religion either. How would you feel if they would go around to spread their religion like Catholic missionaries do around the world? In what way do gay people try to convert others? Do they try to convince everybody to be gay or do they just want the same rights as everybody else? What exactly do they want that is more than anybody else has as rights?

 

[Lui]

Not only did John not open this thread, I do not believe he has ever started such a thread on this topic. If you would do your homework for once, and actually do a simple search on his name as to “threads started,” you would see that.

I never said that he did. I just pointed out that there are other topics than homosexuality but oddly there are zero threads on Gluttony but numerous on Homosexuality. It was a general statement. The challenge to open a thread on Gluttony was also a general statement directed to anybody and was not meant as an actual challenge to John

The overwhelming number of threads opened on this topic are opened by Catholics or non-Catholics who have been poorly taught on the subject. Some are apparently opened by those with political agendas, given the content of their postings, including their stated supposed rationale for opening the thread and often their acknowledged anti-religion bias.

Ok, I agree to with you on this. My main suspicion is that religion is misused for political issues. I don’t even think that most threads against homosexuals have anything to do with the moral issue of the topic. It’s more political propaganda.
I personally never engaged in any thread about homosexuality(or at least extreme rarely). In this case I got engaged because I was repulsed by the way homosexuals were labeled as disordered and perverted and also the accusation that people who TOLERATE it lack moral values as well.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

lui
**
Evidently you pick your battles on the basis of personal prejudice, not the actual levels of harm involved in the activities you choose to condemn. **

Since you have condemned incest, I suppose people guilty of it would say the same for you.

Sodomy can produce communicable disease. Gluttony does not. Ergo the urgency of stopping sodomy, but gluttony is certainly a serious sin and the fact that it is called a capital sin by the Church makes it clear that the sinner is in trouble.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I I personally never engaged in any thread about homosexuality(or at least extreme rarely). In this case I got engaged because I was repulsed by the way homosexuals were labeled as disordered and perverted and also the accusation that people who TOLERATE it lack moral values as well.

Where were the people (not the activity) “labeled as disordered?” Catholics do not “label” people, a point I have brought up more than once and a point you refuse to acknowledge. Catholics appropriately label actions as disordered. Perhaps you are perfect. I know that I engage in, am attracted by, am inclined to, various disordered behaviors (of a non-sexual nature). That makes those particular behaviors of mine disordered, not me as a person disordered.

There is no Catholic theology which is authentic and proceeds from the Vatican that you can cite here that describes human beings as disordered. So once again, you yourself are either distorting the words of other posters, or are selecting words from other posters whose views do not align with authentic Catholic teaching.

 

[Lui]

lui
**
Evidently you pick your battles on the basis of personal prejudice, not the actual levels of harm involved in the activities you choose to condemn. **

Since you have condemned incest, I suppose people guilty of it would say the same for you.

Sodomy can produce communicable disease. Gluttony does not. Ergo the urgency of stopping sodomy, but gluttony is certainly a serious sin and the fact that it is called a capital sin by the Church makes it clear that the sinner is in trouble.

One small advice: if you quote people, please make sure you quote them correctly. That quote was not by me

 

[Lui]

Where were the people (not the activity) “labeled as disordered?” Catholics do not “label” people, a point I have brought up more than once and a point you refuse to acknowledge. .

Sorry, you’re right. Let me rephrase my sentence:
“I personally never engaged in any thread about homosexuality(or at least extreme rarely). In this case I got engaged because I was repulsed by the way homosexual activity was labeled as disordered and perverted and also the accusation that people who TOLERATE it lack moral values as well.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

Sorry, you’re right. Let me rephrase my sentence:
“I personally never engaged in any thread about homosexuality(or at least extreme rarely). In this case I got engaged because I was repulsed by the way homosexual activity was labeled as disordered and perverted and also the accusation that people who TOLERATE it lack moral values as well.”

…in which case you are “repulsed” (also) by the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, which describes the activity as disordered. The posters whom you so condemn are people you condemn for accepting the teachings of their Church and faithfully following them.

 

[Lui]

…in which case you are “repulsed” (also) by the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, which describes the activity as disordered. The posters whom you so condemn are people you condemn for accepting the teachings of their Church and faithfully following them.

Which is why I stated that people who do not believe in the Teachings of the Catholic Church MIGHT say the Church tries to shape a society in their own distorted image. Just because the Church says it is disordered doesn’t mean it IS disordered. We are in the philosophy section so I assume we are discussing the topic of homosexually active or not in general.
My view is that the Teachings of the Church on the topic are wrong.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

lui

My view is that the Teachings of the Church on the topic are wrong.

That you view them as wrong doesn’t make them wrong. You have to prove they are wrong, and you can’t do that just by asserting it.

Sodomy is clearly irrational, dysfunctional, sordid, perverted, and sinful against both God and nature.

The penis was not designed for the anus! What part of that sentence do you not understand?

Thomas Jefferson believed that sodomy in men, repulsive and perverse as it is, should be punished with castration. Jefferson was not a Catholic!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The penis was not designed for the anus! What part of that sentence do you not understand?

They refuse to understand.

 

[Lui]

lui

My view is that the Teachings of the Church on the topic are wrong.

That you view them as wrong doesn’t make them wrong. You have to prove they are wrong, and you can’t do that just by asserting it.

It doesn’t make them right either. I have to prove nothing. Society doesn’t expect me to believe in Christianity.

 

[Mudgely]

Lui;8466812:

So true. Even though human life would be impossible if incest were not a genuine form of sexuality, changing society made it more often and more often a sin. The morallity surrounding incest isn’t necessarily about genes though. It’s also possibly about the socially confining characteristic of single parentage. It’s socially disordered to not choose mates that expand family relations. To not choose mates of other parents, to not foster social growth with the addition of inlaws is disordered. Man is naturally social and incest is a sin first against the social nature of the human family.

But there are biological issues related to attraction. There is a correlation between immune profile and attractiveness of the scent of a person. Opposite immunity profiles attract, which tends to make siblings unattractive to each other, and preserves a broad spectrum of immune response capability for the species.

There are a few others. When men are given the scent of a woman, then they lose their ability to discriminate which women are attractive to them. All women become attractive. Men find a woman’s voice more attractive when she is fertile. One day can make a difference. Women generally dislike the scent of a man, unless they are fertile, at which time they like the scent.

 

[Mudgely]

lui
**
Evidently you pick your battles on the basis of personal prejudice, not the actual levels of harm involved in the activities you choose to condemn. **

Since you have condemned incest, I suppose people guilty of it would say the same for you.

Sodomy can produce communicable disease. Gluttony does not. Ergo the urgency of stopping sodomy, but gluttony is certainly a serious sin and the fact that it is called a capital sin by the Church makes it clear that the sinner is in trouble.

The Society of Actuaries puts the cost of obesity in the US at $300 billion per year. It’s hard to find comparable data on STD’s. I found a 1999 study that puts the total direct medical costs at $13 billion for STD’s. Half of that was for HIV, for which direct medical costs have declined drastically with new medications. One third of that was for HPV and cervical cancer, for which there is now a vaccine.

30% of ten year old boys today will develop type II diabetes, along with 40% of girls.

As a public health concern, gluttony is far more serious than some percentage of a small percentage of the population engaging in anal sex. The point is well made that all this prattle on the issue is more about personal prejudice than anything else.

 

[Lui]

Thomas Jefferson believed that sodomy in men, repulsive and perverse as it is, should be punished with castration. Jefferson was not a Catholic!

He also believed that black people were inferior to white people. He was against slavery although he had slaves and even had sex with them so I’m not sure if he is the role model for supreme morality so I don’t get why Jefferson’s opinion is relevant.

Remember, I am not the one who condemns active homosexuality and accuses people who don’t condemn it as immoral and I repeat, neither do any modern Nations. In several Nations gay marriage exists and in all Western nations homosexuality is legal and not considered as disordered. It’s not ME who has to prove that active homosexuality is not perverted or disordered. If you make the claim it is perverted then YOU have to prove it. Why don’t you bring active homosexuals to court and accuse them of perversion and disorder if you think that the majority of people share your views?