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

[Lui]

I guess the word is being used here in the sense or meaning unacceptable. If two people are married, and both consent to what they are doing, what would be considered perverted, except perhaps contraception?

Raping your children or your wife for example. I’m not saying this is a common custom of married people. I am only saying that this happens and it happens a lot. Of course not with the majority but I repeat, it happens a lot. I’m not trying to say married people are perverted.

Let me say it again: perversion can take place with any person(including priests), anywhere and anytime. It is not restricted to a certain group like gay people. A married Catholic husband who goes to Church every Sunday can be just as perverted as anybody else. Being Catholic and married doesn’t automatically make you more moral than others. Being gay and an atheist doesn’t make you automatically more immoral than others.

 

[inocente]

Denial, and perhaps a conceptual limitation or inability to comprehend well defended arguments, is a very good possibility, knowing that human-beings have the capacity to deceive themselves and blind themselves to that which is obvious when presented with powerful temptations. Thus your supposed counter claim, as ridiculous and not well thought out as it is, has failed miserably.

I see. So you find homosexuality presents you with powerful temptations. That might explain.

Personally homosexuality sounds icky as I’m a long term sufferer from OSA (Opposite Sex Attraction) and the powerful temptations of a heterosexual lifestyle. But there are no “well defended arguments” against anything to do with homosexuality, just various attempts to rationalize “icky-ness”, and from that ludicrous base somehow hope to gain the moral high ground. It can never work, it will always fail miserably…

Homosexuals are a small minority, and they pay their taxes and contribute to society just like the rest of us. If there was any real concern about morality then there would be a lot more threads about divorce than gays. The fact that gays get far more air time is purely political, nothing more than a hastily and badly thought out reaction to gay union.

 

[Lui]

The fact that gays get far more air time is purely political, nothing more than a hastily and badly thought out reaction to gay union.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I see. So you find homosexuality presents you with powerful temptations. That might explain.

Your reasoning failed and so you are now reduce to questioning my sexuality. Not that my sexuality is any of your business, but it really is quite irrelevant whether i have same sex attractions or not. The fact is people lie to themselves regardless of the subject matter. For example some atheists are willing to entertain the irrational possibility that the universe popped out of absolutely nothing because they know that if it didn’t then that would mean that an “intelligent cause” is the only rational conclusion. Its really no surprise therefore that people are willing to place their attractions before the intrinsic self evident fact and value of their gender identity. Humans are deceptive, especially people with something to lose that they enjoy doing, and thats a fact you seem quite happy to ignore (surprise surprise). This is a sufficient rebuttal of your accusation.

Personally homosexuality sounds icky as I’m a long term sufferer from OSA (Opposite Sex Attraction) and the powerful temptations of a heterosexual lifestyle.

A heterosexual lifestyle is consistent with my objective gender identity; and thus there is no reason to think that its a disorder of who or what i am, because my heterosexual attraction is a true expression of my objective nature as a man or a women. Same sex attractions on the other hand, does not conform to my gender identity, and in fact undermines my gender identity rendering my nature as a man or a women impotent. Somebody with SSA cannot fulfill or enjoy their objective nature and identity as a man or a women because their sexual attraction has not developed like how it was suppose to, a fact which is self evidently implied by a person being either male or female. They same is true of somebody who finds themselves attracted to animals or children or have no sexual attractions at all; none of these are true sexual identities but rather are deformities of our gender identity as personal human-beings. Just like a person with a deformity, having no legs, cannot fulfill his objective nature to run or walk, a person with SSA cannot fulfill their gender identity, and this is a cause of great distress for those rational thinkers who have SSA but value there gender identity and want that identity to be fulfilled. Its not denial, prejudice, or any other imaginary deception your mind can come up with. SSA fulfills the definition of a disorder, regardless of whether or not people enjoy it or have legal rights which allow them to deny their objective heterosexuality. Nobody has a moral right to say that its normal, and shame on you for defending a lie.

Homosexuals are a small minority, and they pay their taxes and contribute to society just like the rest of us. If there was any real concern about morality then there would be a lot more threads about divorce than gays. The fact that gays get far more air time is purely political, nothing more than a hastily and badly thought out reaction to gay union.

I don’t think Catholics on this forum have expressed any hatred towards those people who embrace the gay ideology. i have never said that gay people are perverted or malicious or do not contribute to society. But i do think that they are in denial or simply ignorant. I have already stated that i think people should have the legal right to be gay. It becomes a problem, however, when people make it more than an ideology and attempt to engage in the brainwashing of peoples children through force of the legal system.

If parents want their children to be taught that homosexuality is a normal healthy moral lifestyle, then they can. But parents should have the right to choose whether or not they want their children to be indoctrinated with that nonsense, since it is by no means evident that it is normal or objectively moral. Christians should have the right to defend their children against any teaching that they feel is in conflict with what they believe to be objectively moral. Nobody has the right, religious or otherwise, to force their ideology on to other people, and that includes the gay community. The government doesn’t have the moral right to promote one belief system over another or unjustly remove the moral rights of parental guardians so that the state can promote an unproven ideology in disguise of human rights.

It is evident to me that SSA is a disorder of a persons gender identity, just like being attracted to an animal is a disorder, and i am right and rational to think so.

 

[Mudgely]

Raping your children or your wife for example. I’m not saying this is a common custom of married people. I am only saying that this happens and it happens a lot. Of course not with the majority but I repeat, it happens a lot. I’m not trying to say married people are perverted.

Let me say it again: perversion can take place with any person(including priests), anywhere and anytime. It is not restricted to a certain group like gay people. A married Catholic husband who goes to Church every Sunday can be just as perverted as anybody else. Being Catholic and married doesn’t automatically make you more moral than others. Being gay and an atheist doesn’t make you automatically more immoral than others.

Rape is not consensual. I am wondering what consensual act between husband and wife would be considered perverse.

 

[davidv]

Rape is not consensual. I am wondering what consensual act between husband and wife would be considered perverse.

Sodomy.

 

[Lui]

Rape is not consensual. I am wondering what consensual act between husband and wife would be considered perverse.

I have the feeling you still don’t get what I’m saying. I’m saying it doesn’t matter if you’re hetero or gay, Catholic or Atheist, none of this says anything about moral values. A Catholic person who is married can also do perverted things.

Two gay people who have sex with each other on a free base are no more perverted than two hetero people having sex. A gay guy having sex with a boy is a pervert but so is a hetero guy who has sex with a girl. To argue which practice is perverted is a matter of dispute. Anal sex is not a gay thing but also practiced by heteros. Also, not all gays practice this. To generalize that all gay sex is perverted is ignorance.

If you want to make a list of which sex practice is perverted or not, you can use that list for gays and heteros. I hope it’s clear now.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Considering how homosexuals make up somewhere between 1%-3% of any given human population, just by the numbers alone, homosexuality is not "normal’ and is a disorder. It has never been considered to be ‘normal’ by any human society, ever.

Now if you look up the word “perversion”, you will find that it refers to aberrant behaviour. It also means to put to a wrong or improper use; or to misuse.
Now one man shoving his penis up another man’s anus is not the proper use of those organs! Nor is it normal for one woman to strap on a pretend penis and then use it to sexually gratify another woman!!

I really have no idea. However, it would seem that ou, for some reason, equate the citing of moral reasons for describing certain behaviours as abnormal is therefore a sign of someone’s political persuasion. Wow, it would seem you have invented a whole new political science. You’d better explain it to us more fully, because the connection between morality and politics escapes me.

From what you have written here and in other posts, I think you really need to get out a bit more and meet a wider range of people. Not everyone embraces the moral relativism that you do.

Being a Jew is perversion by that logic…

I totally agree that a man inserting his penis in a man’s anus is not properly using his sexual organs properly, just as a man who inserts his penis up a woman’s anus is not using it properly and a man who is getting his penis sucked on by a woman is not using it properly. Just like a husband and wife mutually masturbating each other are using their organs wrong…

I thought Kinsey put it closer to 10%, and other studies have ranged from about 1% to about 10%, with most coming in closer to 10%. But I am no expert. I don’t accept that being a minority defines a variation as a “disorder”. There is always that 10% of high achievers on an exam, yet would one call that behavior or aptitude “disordered”, necessarily due to their small numbers?

Kinsey is full of it (he had a significant amount of male prostitutes and prisoners in his sample (5% & 25% resp.)

Thought it was clear enough, but I’ll rephrase it: It is illegitimate to brand a minority as being immoral or disordered without good cause. The very existence of all the threads on homosexuality demonstrates the absence of good cause, since if there was one there would be no need for continued debate. In the absence of good cause it is illegitimate to brand the minority as immoral or disordered.

That’s not why practices of homosexual acts are considered immoral.
If the NT didn’t say that homosexuality was wrong it would still be wrong because the Church says it is. If the Church did not say it was wrong it would still be wrong because it can’t happen within marriage, even if it could it would still be wrong because it is impossible for it to be procreative. So you see the immorality of it runs several layers deep.

I think it’s higher than 2% too but even 2% is not that low. That’s still 120 million people. Let’s not forget that many people are bi-sexual which might even mean that up to 20% of the population may have same sex tendencies. I’m neither so I have no reason to stand up for homosexuality. I just don’t see anything immoral with it.

20%? srsly? 10% is pushing it

Rape is not consensual. I am wondering what consensual act between husband and wife would be considered perverse.

Anal sex, oral sex along with mutual masturbation and others

 

[Lui]

20%? srsly? 10% is pushing it

I included all people who have any homosexual tendency. gays, bisexuals and heteros who might have slight homosexual tendencies. Maybe a person is hetero but still has gay fantasies. Considering that roughly 25-50% of Catholic priests in the US are gay, I wouldn’t be surprised if that number was accurate but it is more a guess.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I included all people who have any homosexual tendency. gays, bisexuals and heteros who might have slight homosexual tendencies. Maybe a person is hetero but still has gay fantasies. Considering that roughly 25-50% of Catholic priests in the US are gay, I wouldn’t be surprised if that number was accurate but it is more a guess.

25-50%? Where did you get that statistic

 

[John21652]

If someone regards gay people as disordered and perverted I don’t see them as moral guides but rather as moral fascists.

Well, you have labelled yourself quite well here. Moral guidance virtually cannot exist with the view you hold. That, of course, makes all morality relative and you are excusing moral hedonism.

My father is a left-wing atheist. FAIL! Btw, I still think he has higher moral standards than many so-called Christians. He taught me to not discriminate against people who are gay, black, Chinese, women or whatever.

Left wing atheist?! Then you did listen to him!! At least you are on the right track in recognising a higher authority. The trouble is, he may well have taught you not to discriminate against people because of race and gender, but did he teach you that an individual should be a moral agent? And did he teach you that a moral code requires an objective foundation if it is to be something other than a self serving excuse for anything goes?

.

Your opinion. I find the death penalty morally wrong: my opinion.

Again, it is not my ‘opinion’. My ‘opinion’ is that the moral code that demonstrates that homosexual sex is a perversion is true and correct and cannot be refuted. My ‘opinion’ is shared by most Catholics, by people of other religions and even by secular thinkers and it has been so shared down through thousands of generations of human existence. You also need to stop using other examples of perverted behaviour to excuse one particular example of perverted behaviour. It isn’t logical.

Speak for yourself. Maybe your morality is perverted.

If it is, then the world has truly stood on its head!

Where did I say that? Just because I don’t think having sex without being married is perverted you come to this conclusion?

Well, if you think sex is OK outside marriage, then it follows that you think it is Ok to indulge whenever it takes one’s fancy. That being the case, sex is just another pleasure in which to indulge one self.

Again, I’ve never said there must be a lot of perverted married people. I said there are many married people that are perverted too. Being married doesn’t automatically make you moral, nor does being homosexual make you automatically immoral. My point was that perversion can take place anywhere by anyone and is not restricted to a certain group of people.

All true. However, just because more than one perversion may exist does not excuse the existence of any one of them.
Just for the record, I consider that a man shoving his penis into the alimentary canal of another man is just as perverted as a man shoving his penis into the alimentary canal of a woman.

Here we go again. YOU claim to have higher moral standards than me and I have no moral values whatsoever. You even assume I’m perverted because I tolerate homosexuality.

I claim that there is a higher moral code than one you recognise. That higher moral code condemns homosexual sex and demonstrates that it is a perversion. I did not say you were perverted. I said you are supporting a moral code, or lack thereof, that does not condemn an obvious perversion.

It just goes to show what a judgmental person you are.

I am making moral judgements. That is something we all do every day. Unfortunately, some people do it less often than they should and they suspend their moral judgement making. Man is a moral agent by nature. Do you understand that?

Your whole argumentation is a joke.

Well, if it is then the society you live in is a joke, because it was founded on exactly the same moral basis as I’m educating you about!

The difference between you and me is I don’t regard myself as morally better than others while you(and many others here) in fact do exactly that.

I, like others here, have no idea about your personal moral life. However, you are openly giving support to a way of life that is immoral and you are denegrating a universal moral code in the process. That then brings into question your own moral judgement.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I included all people who have any homosexual tendency. gays, bisexuals and heteros who might have slight homosexual tendencies. Maybe a person is hetero but still has gay fantasies. Considering that roughly 25-50% of Catholic priests in the US are gay, I wouldn’t be surprised if that number was accurate but it is more a guess.

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?

 

[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?

No doubt there are gay priests, just as there are gay anything else. But how is that important? Last time I checked, priests lead a celibate life. I question the claim of 25-50%. How was that determined?

 

[Elizabeth502]

No doubt there are gay priests, just as there are gay anything else. But how is that important? Last time I checked, priests lead a celibate life. I question the claim of 25-50%. How was that determined?

Why is your question directed at me?

It should be directed at the person who guesses for a living.

 

[Lui]

Well, you have labelled yourself quite well here.

I’m a moral fascist? Who do I try to convince that my moral code is the only one acceptable?

Moral guidance virtually cannot exist with the view you hold. That, of course, makes all morality relative and you are excusing moral hedonism.

Left wing atheist?! Then you did listen to him!! At least you are on the right track in recognising a higher authority. The trouble is, he may well have taught you not to discriminate against people because of race and gender, but did he teach you that an individual should be a moral agent? And did he teach you that a moral code requires an objective foundation if it is to be something other than a self serving excuse for anything goes?

He taught me a lot. He speaks 5 languages and is highly educated. How many languages do you speak? Not that it’s important but you come across as a know it all.

.

Again, it is not my ‘opinion’. My ‘opinion’ is that the moral code that demonstrates that homosexual sex is a perversion is true and correct and cannot be refuted.

You probably also think Noah’s ark with all the animals on deck actually existed and cannot be refuted. Do you also believe that the earth is 6000 years old ? It wouldn’t surprise me.

My ‘opinion’ is shared by most Catholics, by people of other religions and even by secular thinkers and it has been so shared down through thousands of generations of human existence. You also need to stop using other examples of perverted behaviour to excuse one particular example of perverted behaviour. It isn’t logical.

Is it also shared by about 25-50% of American priests who are gay?

Well, if you think sex is OK outside marriage, then it follows that you think it is Ok to indulge whenever it takes one’s fancy. That being the case, sex is just another pleasure in which to indulge one self.

I admit that I slept with a lot of women. I’m nothing special. Most people sleep with many people. The few people who marry and then have sex are the rare case in this world. I would say I envy those people by I don’t. I don’t think there is anything morally wrong with not being married and having sex…

Just for the record, I consider that a man shoving his penis into the alimentary canal of another man is just as perverted as a man shoving his penis into the alimentary canal of a woman.

You sure like talking about it. It kind of grosses me out reading it for the second time.

I claim that there is a higher moral code than one you recognise. That higher moral code condemns homosexual sex and demonstrates that it is a perversion.

I’m too dumb to recognize it. My IQ is only about 135.

I did not say you were perverted. I said you are supporting a moral code, or lack thereof, that does not condemn an obvious perversion.

Not only do I support it but the attitude against gays is one reason I don’t consider myself as a Catholic anymore.
I will quote the famous author Anne Rice because her reasons are the exact same reasons I have:
""For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being “Christian” or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to “belong” to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen"

She basically took the words right out of my mouth.

I am making moral judgements. That is something we all do every day. Unfortunately, some people do it less often than they should and they suspend their moral judgement making. Man is a moral agent by nature. Do you understand that? Well, if it is then the society you live in is a joke, because it was founded on exactly the same moral basis as I’m educating you about!

You’re not educating me about anything. Sorry.

I, like others here, have no idea about your personal moral life. However, you are openly giving support to a way of life that is immoral and you are denegrating a universal moral code in the process. That then brings into question your own moral judgement.

No, it doesn’t. We just don’t share the same moral code. You are not the one to decide what the moral code is nor if your moral code is higher( ya’ know, the one I can’t seem to recognize, lol)

 

[Lui]

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

Oh, I wasn’t guessing if around 25-50% of Catholic priests in the US are gay. I have that information from various sources. That wasn’t the guessing. I just guessed that up to 20% of the population might have same sex desires but I gladly admit that that is a matter of dispute.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Is it also shared by about 25-50% of American priests who are gay?

Source this with an objective, verifiable reference link (not a guess), or stop engaging in character assassination of the clergy, becuase

It kind of grosses me out reading it for the second time.

Not only do I support it but the attitude against gays is one reason I don’t consider myself as a Catholic anymore.

Of course, the Church does consider you a Catholic. It considers you a baptized, non-practicing one.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Oh, I wasn’t guessing if around 25-50% of Catholic priests in the US are gay. I have that information from various sources.

Then share the sources, or keep silent. And sources from priests themselves who own not only supposedly being attracted to the same sex, but engaging in behavior with the same sex.

Rumors are immaterial, as are wild guesses and inflated statistics from any quarter, including those unfriendly to the clergy with axes to grind. (That would be many individuals, by the way.)

 

[Lui]

Source this with an objective, verifiable reference link (not a guess), or stop engaging in character assassination of the clergy, becuase

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholic_priests

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2297

jknirp.com/filteau5.htm

It’s already late. When I have the time I’ll check for more.

 

[John21652]

I’m a moral fascist?

Did someone write that about you? Please, by all means, show us where. It was you who labelled anyone who teaches that “… gay people as disordered and perverted I don’t see them as moral guides but rather as moral fascists.” Like I said, Moral guidance virtually cannot exist with the view you hold. That, of course, makes all morality relative and you are excusing moral hedonism.

Who do I try to convince that my moral code is the only one acceptable?

You can’t convince anyone about a ‘code’ you don’t have.

He taught me a lot. He speaks 5 languages and is highly educated. How many languages do you speak? Not that it’s important but you come across as a know it all.

Well, he taught you to turn a blind eye to immorality, it would seem. So anyone who disputes you is a “know it all”. Well, that’s a juvenile way to have a discussion. By the way, if I spoke 5 languages, would that then make your father a know it all too?
.

You probably also think Noah’s ark with all the animals on deck actually existed and cannot be refuted. Do you also believe that the earth is 6000 years old ? It wouldn’t surprise me.

With the level of debate you seem capable of, I’m surprised you’ve even heard of Noah’s Ark.

Is it also shared by about 25-50% of American priests who are gay?

You seem to think that if you post rediculous figures often enough, there will be at least one dummy around that will beleive it. You might be right. I’m sure when that happens the two of you will get along just fine.

I admit that I slept with a lot of women. I’m nothing special.

Obviously not. You can’t seem to hook one permanently. I worry that lots of practice is doing you no good.

Most people sleep with many people.

Another wild claim. You are full of them.

The few people who marry and then have sex are the rare case in this world.

What?! So the few who you think marry then give up sex? I think you have a very distorted view of the world. Like I said, you need to get out a bit more…

I would say I envy those people by I don’t. I don’t think there is anything morally wrong with not being married and having sex…

Of course you don’t and that is your trouble. You are morally blind.

You sure like talking about it. It kind of grosses me out reading it for the second time.

So, you support something that grosses you out?!! Man, that’s weird.

I’m too dumb to recognize it. My IQ is only about 135.

We only have your word that you have an IQ of 135. Considering how spurious some of your other material and information is, I’m wondering if you are not numerically challenged. You are certainly morally blind, if not bankrupt. Stick around. You might have your eyes opened.

Not only do I support it but the attitude against gays is one reason I don’t consider myself as a Catholic anymore.
I will quote the famous author Anne Rice because her reasons are the exact same reasons I have:
""For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being “Christian” or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to “belong” to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen"

She basically took the words right out of my mouth.

And neither she nor you knows much about Catholicism. Go look up the Catholic Catechis. It refutes and contradicts both she and you.

You’re not educating me about anything. Sorry.

I know, it’s a worry. Some people are just sooo slow to see what’s right.

No, it doesn’t. We just don’t share the same moral code. You are not the one to decide what the moral code is nor if your moral code is higher( ya’ know, the one I can’t seem to recognize, lol)

Well, considering how you admit to hedonistic behaviour and fail to see the ‘wrongness’ of certain behaviours, I’d say you don’t have a moral code. That means, of course, I only require a few basic moral principles to trump your (non-existant) moral code. However, you are right in saying I am not the one to decide what the moral code is. That’s because it’s self evident, if your eyes are open.