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

[MindOverMatter2]

The phrase “somebody with SSA” is loaded, implying a dread pseudo-scientific disorder “SSA”.

SSA simply means same sex attraction, which is what it is. The fact that same sex attraction is a disorder is evident in the fact that it undermines your gender development as a male or female. Only a pseudo-science would make the non-scientific claim that its natural or moral. The scientific method does not allow political, value, or moral, statements. These things are beyond the epistemological capacity of its method.

¿Que? “objective nature to run or walk

Its in our objective nature to have legs which enable us to walk and run, just as it is in our objective nature to have a brain which allows us to think. When we are robbed of that ability its correctly referred to as a disability. When people are born with no legs, it is correctly referred to as a genetic disorder. When somebody cannot express the intrinsic meaning of their gender identity correctly, it is a disability and a disorder of there gender identity. When you have attractions to animals, children, or the same sex, or have no sexual attraction at all, you have a disorder.

Have the majority stereotype a minority and tell them they are deformed for generation after generation and of course they’ll find it distressing.

Its not stereo typing, its pointing to facts that people such as your self are willing to ignore. You blindly support homosexuality, despite self-evident facts to the contrary. Does that make you right? No. It makes you irresponsible and immoral.

Make people suffer senselessly and hey, surprise, surprise they suffer senselessly.

Assuming they suffer senselessly. In this case , they are just being told the truth, and they don’t like the truth.

If you say that a minority who pay their taxes and commit no crime is immoral or disordered (I’m confused which, as you seem to keep changing your mind) then it’s you, not me, who claims this moral right you say no one has.

I claim that SSA is a disorder because thats what it is. Just because it is a disorder does not mean people should be criminalized for acting on their attraction; the reason being is because it is consensual, just like getting drunk all the time is consensual.

If homosexuality is an ideology then heterosexuality must be too.

We are male and female, our nature is intrinsically heterosexual, and self evidently So. SSA is a disorder of that intrinsic nature.

You have still to give a reasoned argument as to why sex in private between consenting adults is a moral issue at all.

It has been given. You have tried everything in your power to ignore or twist the facts. That is the choice you have made.

It’s often the case on this kind of thread that slippery slope is used as a last desperate resort, but animals can’t give consent, just as children can’t give consent.

Consent has little to do with it being a disorder. It is a disorder first and foremost because it doesn’t fulfill our nature as mature human adults either psychologically or physically. It does not fulfill the nature of a female child either psychological or physically to have sex. Thats why its wrong. Such an attraction is a disorder because you are not supposed to be sexually attracted to children or animals. It does not conform to our intrinsic nature to be as such. Consent is besides the point.

Assuming 2.5% of the world have a homosexual orientation, there are three times as many homosexuals as there are people in the UK. And unlike the Brits, most gays are not so outrageously disordered as to deliberately drive on the wrong side of the road. Fine, it’s their country, they can do as they please, but they know they have no right to impose their left on the rest of us, since there’s obviously no objective reason why left or right is best. (No doubt you can figure out my metaphor. )

Your can’t expect me to decipher unreasonable arguments. Quantity is irrelevant.

 

[John21652]

The approach to sexual morality taken by Judaism and inherited by Christianity

Right here your agument fails. Christianity didn’t simply ‘inherit’ it. Perhaps you could explain why the even older Code of Hammurabai also contains a very similar sexual moral code? And why is it that a very similar moral code was transmitted into Islam? Could it be that this sexual morality actually transcends religious institutions? From the Greek Hellenistic period onwards, it was identified as something called the Natural Law, an objective moral order.

is one based on the notion of women as property and the need for paternal certainty for inheritance purposes.

Wrong again. The Code of Hammurabi does indeed recognise women’s property rights and even their right to contract. The Egyptians gave women full equality. In Greece, motherhood was especially esteemed and running the household, considered central to Greek life, was the responsibility of the woman. methinks you have been reading way too much radical women’s philosophy, in which the rewriting and reconstruction of history has played a huge role.

The only way, after all, that a man can be certain he is the father of a woman’s child is to stake an exclusive claim upon sexual interaction with that woman.

And doesn’t that work both ways? The ancient code of Hammurabi recognised this.

This opens the way to a whole raft of rules and social attitudes designed to keep a tight leash on female sexuality, and to keep men in a position of power and authority.

Well, go read the Code of Hammurabi and notice just how men’s sexuality was kept on a leash as well! You are spouting modern marxist claptrap.

One interpretation I’ve seen of Judaism’s horror of homosexuality is that homosexual male sex requires at least one of the men involved to assume a submissive position, and submissiveness is a quality that only women should have, apparently.

The horror of homosexuality is not confined to members of a religion. Indeed, even the Greeks decried the submissivness of some men during homosexual sex. They described it as “unmanly”. Of course, while one submits to being debased, the other debases himself actively through a disordered use of his sexual faculty. The practice has been admonished in every single civilisation that has sprung up on planet earth. That should tell you something.

Hence, also, the complete silence on the subject of female homosexuality - women are meant to be submissive anyway, so it doesn’t matter if a woman submits to another woman; and who cares what women get up to in their own time anyway, so long as it doesn’t threaten their husband’s paternity certainty…

That is just wild speculation. Most people laugh at the modern lesbian’s idea of using strap on dildos and pretending to be men. That is indeed weird. It is rather obvious, though, that the violently disordered use of the male sexual organs for homosexual sex drew particular disgust from the vast majority of the populations of all ancient civilisations. Today, it is that practice which is associated with the high disease rates.

In short, I think a lot of the church’s teaching is based upon keeping a leash on sexuality as a way of keeping people subservient and slightly discontented with their lives.

Nonsense. It is all about respect for oneself and for one’s spouse and in particular, a great respect for the institution of marriage as being the single most important foundation of any society.

The makers of the rules recognised that the sex instinct is one of the most powerful we possess, and that left unchecked, it can cause social chaos

Do we really need to learn once again, the hard way, of why sexual liberalness is dangerous, on a personal level and for society itself?

• at least if you’re trying to maintain social structures that are fundamentally at odds with our nature (it’s arguable that agrarian civilisation is one such structure).

Are you saying that an agrarian society is at odds with our human nature? If you are, that’s just way too far left. One of the most basic aspects of human nature is that we get hungry and have to fed ourselves. Agrarian societies are a first requirement.

Homosexual sex isn’t directly necessary for procreation, therefore it can be consigned to the dustbin - it doesn’t do to allow people to have unnecessary sexual activity; might as well make it a sin and go the extra mile of also making it a capital offence.

The ancient Greeks thought about making it a capital offence, when it got out of hand and yet they had no notion of “sin”. The ancient Romans did at one stage make it a capital offence, because of the social harm it was causing.

Better to direct sexual energy into other things, like warfare and religious devotion.

So, it takes sexual energy to be a soldier or a priest? Yeah, right. Next you’ll be telling me it takes sexual energy to ride a horse, throw a stick and open a book!

The irony is, of course, that if you accept and embrace sexuality for what it is - a fundamental aspect of our nature - it ceases to maintain such a powerful hold over us.

True enough. Sexual hedonism is dangerous to people and to societies. Ordered, however, and it is a foundational aspect of a self sustaining, confident society.

In trying to suppress sexuality, the church creates in many people an unhealthy and often perverse obsession with it - you only have to read the Moral Theology forum to see that this is so!

Just plain wrong. Read the Catechism and other Church documents and you will see and understand that human sexuality is recognised by the Church for what it is - a very important part of the foundation stone of a proper functioning society. Those societies which forgot that fact have been consigned to the dustbins of history. They all rotted from within.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

You have this uncanny ability to twist the context of what has been said. Surprise surprise once again. I know human nature because i am human, therefore i can judge human nature. I do not have to be gay to know that in general if people strongly desire something, and there are no boundaries in place, they will sooner be in denial about the reality of its disorder than accept that it is a disorder or it is wrong; and some will even act on that desire regardless of knowing that it is a disorder, they simply don’t care.

It is self evident that SSA does not conform to ones gender identity. It destroys their capacity to express and respect their gender identity. That is a disorder. It is a sufficient rebuttal of you deceptive claim that if there was sufficient disproof of homosexual behavior there would not be so many threads on the subject. When the fact is, there is just as many threads on other subjects, and in those subjects there are people who would rather believe in the possibility that the universe popped out nothing rather than admit that a first cause exists. They are in denial. You ignore that which is self evident because you don’t respect gender identity, you want to believe that Catholics are being prejudice rather than face the fact that SSA is a disorder and that those who support it as being normal behavior are irrational.

I don’t know why you are doing it, but it is dishonest.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

What exactly do those with same sex attraction strongly desire? Intimacy? Intimacy does not require sex, nor does love.

For much of Catholic Europe’s history the academics and lawyers didn’t marry while busy with their professions, instead you had people becoming great friends and intellectually bonding. Take a look at the great houses of lords, there were basically no women there. Men spent nearly all of their time with men.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

What exactly do those with same sex attraction strongly desire? Intimacy? Intimacy does not require sex, nor does love.

Being friends with people is fine; thats not what i am arguing against.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Being friends with people is fine; thats not what i am arguing against.

If you looked at their relationships it’d look pretty queer to most people. Two guys hugging, kissing, writing love letters to each other and sleeping in the same bed? Why they were all having a gay old time!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If you looked at their relationships it’d look pretty queer to most people. Two guys hugging, kissing, writing love letters to each other and sleeping in the same bed? Why they were all having a gay old time!

Then this is not a correct expression of their heterosexuality if they are acting on their sexual attraction towards each-other.

 

[perro_sarnoso]

Active homosexuality is abnormal, immoral and unnatural.

The stone that is being rejected or overlooked - in favor of secular reasoning - is Jesus Christ, the Lord and God of all.

All this mumbo jumbo about heredity - psychology - physiology etc is simply put “doctrine of demons”.

That which is bad, wrong and evil - cannot be made to look or sound as good.

At first it was said " oh lets eliminate the discrimination against homosexual behavior, for the sake of “live and let live”.
Well that wasn’t enough. Then came outward proclamation and public displays. Then came “equal rights as married people”.
Then that wasn’t enough and now it has to be introduced into the classroom so that children of all ages are exposed to this sin as if it were “the normal behavior and expression of human sexuality”.

It went from “live and let live” to “we are married and have a child” and “teach the children that it’s normal”.

Doctrine of demons.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Then this is not a correct expression of their heterosexuality if they are acting on their sexual attraction towards each-other.

I never said they were engaging in intercourse. If they were doing something sinful surely the Catholic Church at the height of her power would have done something.
(My previous post was a continuation on the Catholic Europe line of thought).

 

[inocente]

I know human nature because i am human, therefore i can judge human nature.

I’m surprised MM2, this seems to be your only argument - whatever you don’t like must be “disordered”, and in some unexplained way your personal tastes give you the power to judge others.

It is self evident that SSA does not conform to ones gender identity. It destroys their capacity to express and respect their gender identity. That is a disorder.

Repetition that something is self-evident isn’t going to make it so. Where does this urge come from anyway, to change people who live full lives and do no harm? Who gave you the job of deciding what’s best for others? If people are happy, contributing to society, and don’t ask for your help, in what sense do you get to say they’re “disordered”?

I don’t know why you are doing it, but it is dishonest.

I’m doing it because I thought someone of your caliber might put up a stronger case than is usual on these gay threads, but it’s not happening and it seems that already you’re down to calling me names in the hope I’ll go away. Fair enough, I’d have to repeat myself anyway to answer post #137 as it said nothing new.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I’m surprised MM2, this seems to be your only argument - whatever you don’t like must be “disordered”,

Any honest person who reads this thread will know that this was not my argument. Its a shame that you would rather build straw-men than face the facts.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

SSA simply means same sex attraction, which is what it is. The fact that same sex attraction is a disorder is evident in the fact that it undermines your gender development as a male or female. Only a pseudo-science would make the non-scientific claim that its natural or moral. The scientific method does not allow political, value, or moral, statements. These things are beyond the epistemological capacity of its method.

Its in our objective nature to have legs which enable us to walk and run, just as it is in our objective nature to have a brain which allows us to think. When we are robbed of that ability its correctly referred to as a disability. When people are born with no legs, it is correctly referred to as a genetic disorder. When somebody cannot express the intrinsic meaning of their gender identity correctly, it is a disability and a disorder of there gender identity. When you have attractions to animals, children, or the same sex, or have no sexual attraction at all, you have a disorder.

Its not stereo typing, its pointing to facts that people such as your self are willing to ignore. You blindly support homosexuality, despite self-evident facts to the contrary. Does that make you right? No. It makes you irresponsible and immoral.

Assuming they suffer senselessly. In this case , they are just being told the truth, and they don’t like the truth.

I claim that SSA is a disorder because thats what it is. Just because it is a disorder does not mean people should be criminalized for acting on their attraction; the reason being is because it is consensual, just like getting drunk all the time is consensual.

We are male and female, our nature is intrinsically heterosexual, and self evidently So. SSA is a disorder of that intrinsic nature.

It has been given. You have tried everything in your power to ignore or twist the facts. That is the choice you have made.

Consent has little to do with it being a disorder. It is a disorder first and foremost because it doesn’t fulfill our nature as mature human adults either psychologically or physically. It does not fulfill the nature of a female child either psychological or physically to have sex. Thats why its wrong. Such an attraction is a disorder because you are not supposed to be sexually attracted to children or animals. It does not conform to our intrinsic nature to be as such. Consent is besides the point.

Your can’t expect me to decipher unreasonable arguments. Quantity is irrelevant.

From the Latin the use of disorder in translation is to mean not ordered, that is to say it is imbalanced.

No, being born without legs is called a birth defect. For it to be genetic it would have to y’know deal with genes… Objection, sexuality is not an intrinsic part of our gender, since we retain our gender in Heaven if heterosexuality were an intrinsic part of our gender we would retain it in Heaven, but we don’t. Indeed if we look at Genesis it very much appears that sexuality is also part of our fallen nature, which would indeed explain why it is not retained in Heaven. Perhaps there is a reason Paul extolls celibacy…

Yes yes, well you seem to show a blithe disregard to theology so I guess that makes the two of you even then.

I think people like the WBC screaming “GOD HATES [REDACTED]!” are causing senseless suffering.

I’d personally support the criminalization of all acts of sodomy, both perfecta and imperfecta resulting in couples using condoms and birth control also being prosecuted in addition to anal and oral sex http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/satanlook.gif

We do not have a sexuality in Heaven where we are perfect, therefore sexuality is not part of our perfect nature

yawn

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

He just pointed out that if something is abnormal based on the quantity of humans who are that way then feeling SSA is more normal than being British.

 

[Mudgely]

Such a densely packed can of worms to open up…

The approach to sexual morality taken by Judaism and inherited by Christianity is one based on the notion of women as property and the need for paternal certainty for inheritance purposes. The only way, after all, that a man can be certain he is the father of a woman’s child is to stake an exclusive claim upon sexual interaction with that woman. This opens the way to a whole raft of rules and social attitudes designed to keep a tight leash on female sexuality, and to keep men in a position of power and authority. One interpretation I’ve seen of Judaism’s horror of homosexuality is that homosexual male sex requires at least one of the men involved to assume a submissive position, and submissiveness is a quality that only women should have, apparently. Hence, also, the complete silence on the subject of female homosexuality - women are meant to be submissive anyway, so it doesn’t matter if a woman submits to another woman; and who cares what women get up to in their own time anyway, so long as it doesn’t threaten their husband’s paternity certainty…

In short, I think a lot of the church’s teaching is based upon keeping a leash on sexuality as a way of keeping people subservient and slightly discontented with their lives. The makers of the rules recognised that the sex instinct is one of the most powerful we possess, and that left unchecked, it can cause social chaos - at least if you’re trying to maintain social structures that are fundamentally at odds with our nature (it’s arguable that agrarian civilisation is one such structure). Homosexual sex isn’t directly necessary for procreation, therefore it can be consigned to the dustbin - it doesn’t do to allow people to have unnecessary sexual activity; might as well make it a sin and go the extra mile of also making it a capital offence. Better to direct sexual energy into other things, like warfare and religious devotion. The irony is, of course, that if you accept and embrace sexuality for what it is - a fundamental aspect of our nature - it ceases to maintain such a powerful hold over us. In trying to suppress sexuality, the church creates in many people an unhealthy and often perverse obsession with it - you only have to read the Moral Theology forum to see that this is so!

As I browse the threads, I am surprised by the perversity expressed by those who are caught up in this topic. I don’t understand why it is such an emotional issue for those who oppose giving people their rights. I try to have an open mind, but nobody has yet come up with a cogent reason, in spite of thousands of words being written. It just seems a lot of superstition.

 

[Mudgely]

Such a scientific statement. 25-point “rough” spreads and all.

By all means: contribute to the insufficient quota of guessing on CAF.

Who knew that Catholic Apologetics consists of guessing instead of Truth?

It appears that Lui is correct. There have been numerous studies. About 30% of priests are gay. It is also fascinating to follow the discussions, mostly in the European press, about the role of homosexuality in the Church under JP 2, and the speculation about the sexual orientation of B XVI. All food for thought which may explain the inordinate preoccupation with this topic.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

It appears that Lui is correct. There have been numerous studies. About 30% of priests are gay. It is also fascinating to follow the discussions, mostly in the European press, about the role of homosexuality in the Church under JP 2, and the speculation about the sexual orientation of B XVI. All food for thought which may explain the inordinate preoccupation with this topic.

Why would anyone be surprised by priests being more likely to be “gay” than the average man? I can think of at least half a dozen reasons right now why a man feeling SSA would join the priesthood

 

[razredge]

The only objective purpose of sex is reproduction.

Same sex relations cannot achieve this hence they are intrinsically not the same as heterosexual relations.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

razredge

**Same sex relations cannot achieve this hence they are intrinsically not the same as heterosexual relations. **

Not only not the same as, but not equal to. By definition, same sex relations cannot produce offspring.

 

[Mudgely]

Why would anyone be surprised by priests being more likely to be “gay” than the average man? I can think of at least half a dozen reasons right now why a man feeling SSA would join the priesthood

Same as the military. It is not a surprise.

After reading the arguments, I can see why Catholic countries like Brazil and Spain are ignoring them. They don’t seem to add up to much, and they don’t jive with what is known.

 

[John21652]

razredge

**Same sex relations cannot achieve this hence they are intrinsically not the same as heterosexual relations. **

Not only not the same as, but not equal to. By definition, same sex relations cannot produce offspring.

Some wag emailed me and asked why it is, when homosexuals can’t breed, there are more of 'em than ever before?

Weird…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

John

Some wag emailed me and asked why it is, when homosexuals can’t breed, there are more of 'em than ever before?

Maybe it’s just that there are more of them out of the closet than before?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

John

Some wag emailed me and asked why it is, when homosexuals can’t breed, there are more of 'em than ever before?

Maybe it’s just that there are more of them out of the closet than before?

It has been suggested that most people are varying shades of bisexual; and that truly straight and gay people are actually in the minority.