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

[Dakota_Roberts]

I’m the last one to deny that being an artist myself. I dress in expensive designer clothes(my favorite is Paul Smith and Dries van Noten), I groom myself, I love art, I hate watching sports(but do competitive swimming) and many people think I’m gay from my appearance(although women love it) that’s why I love to hang out with gay guys but I’m NOT gay and never will be. From all people I would understand this but it doesn’t ignore the fact that many art historians claim they were gay. No one says van Gogh, Picasso or Gauguin were gay and I never heard the claim.
Picasso: nndb.com/people/373/000024301/
Gauguin: nndb.com/people/808/000024736/
Van Gogh:nndb.com/people/803/000024731/
Da Vinci:nndb.com/people/813/000029726/
Michelangelo:nndb.com/people/977/000024905/

Of course there are much more dads that molest their children or teachers than there are priests. One reason is there are much more fathers and teachers than there are priests. I did not say celibacy is the cause. I said it might be a reason referring to the statement of someone who said sodomy causes death while celibacy causes zero harm.

I already stated that at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter. We’re beating a dead horse. My point was that there were as many homosexuals in Da Vinci’s time as today but in those days you couldn’t go on a gay parade because people would have executed you. You guys are too fixated IF those two artists were gay or not. That wasn’t my point. Today luckily gay people can be openly gay without the fear of punishment although I’m sure right wing Christians would like to see them on death row.
The German foreign Minister is gay and in a gay marriage. Is Germany going downhill because of this?

I’m actually talking about the %

No one is denying there were gay people back then!

LOL. Now verifying the historicity of the Resurrection is the litmus test for determining personal sexual behavior from earlier and later eras.

(Psst: the Resurrection is a cornerstone of believing Christians: an aspect of faith. While there is scriptural and some historical confirmation of the event, religion is not an exercise in “proving” every event, but in affirming the spiritual truths signified by the life and sayings of the Redeemer and the sacred tradition of writing and witnessing lives of others which have followed that example for those 2000 years.)

Way off-topic here.

If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit!
Damn it! He’s using the Chewbacca Defense!

 

[Benadam]

How do you know that the ‘human dimension’ of sexuality lacks a reason?

Because the solutions to reproductive issues are limited to stimulus that satisfies involuntary movements of the body for animals. Humans don’t have to stumble upon alternative stimuli manifesting alternative behaviours to solve problems producing our kind.

Sexual intimacy in humans functions as a means of strengthening social bonds. As I’ve said before, for the vast majority of the time humans have existed, we’ve done so as small bands of foragers and hunters, in which close social bonds indeed were essential for ensuring survival of group members - sexual intimacy can serve to reduce conflict and tension and bind people together in mutual interest.

 

[Lui]

LOL. Now verifying the historicity of the Resurrection is the litmus test for determining personal sexual behavior from earlier and later eras.

(Psst: the Resurrection is a cornerstone of believing Christians: an aspect of faith. While there is scriptural and some historical confirmation of the event, religion is not an exercise in “proving” every event, but in affirming the spiritual truths signified by the life and sayings of the Redeemer and the sacred tradition of writing and witnessing lives of others which have followed that example for those 2000 years.)

Way off-topic here.

Weird, in another thread I’ve been saying that outside the Bible there is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus ever rose from the dead while I’m corrected that it is historical fact that has more evidence than the existence of Julius Caesar. When I say Christian faith is based on faith which is why it is called faith I’m being enlightened that Christianity is based on pure evidence and 100% fact, and that all the Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and others are either too lazy or ignorant to research these facts which is why they don’t believe.


You’re the one who wanted 100% proof of the homosexuality of Da Vinci which obviously no one who doesn’t invent a time machine and goes back with a camcorder can’t present but you obviously have the evidence that he was straight anyway because you are historically the expert in every field. I’m sure you can even mold the statue of David with Play-Doh from memory because you’re the super expert on the works of Michelangelo:thumbsup:

 

[Lui]

Damn it! He’s using the Chewbacca Defense!

I actually thought you were one of the more liberal Catholics who didn’t discriminate gay people as disordered perverts but I’m sorry to notice that you seem to side with those who would like to see gay people publicly stoned.
Oh, was this the Chewbacca defense?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

lui

**It’s odd how many sex perverts exist within the Catholic Church. Do all the perverts decide to become priests or is the unnatural celibate lifestyle one cause that leads to many priests becoming perverted? **

Well, at least you acknowledge the existence of sexual perverts and unnatural sexual behavior. Odd that apparently for you sodomy doesn’t count as either.

 

[Mudgely]

Exactly. You agree then. In the same way, the conjugal act is something different for the human mother and father than it is for the male and female tiger or the ducks. Yes?
Sexual attraction then, between individuals of the same gender, functions as a means to support reproduction and survival of the species in many animals. I think it’s fair to say that same sex attraction is a genuine form of sexuality for the lower animals.

Since the human dimension of sexuality lacks a reason for such support, is there a distinctly human sexual function that same sex attraction serves? Is same sex attraction, in some way, a means of support for reproduction or survival for humans? Is that required of an act for it to be a genuine form of sexuality?

I agree with you in that as far as I know, humans have a unique consciousness. We have covered that ground.

I also agree that a heterosexual marriage has the potential purpose of procreation, which is unique to a heterosexual marriage.

Correct me if I am wrong in the assumption that you would agree with me that the creation of life is a wonderful thing (though not confined to humans).

I think we would both agree that there is a “unitive” effect of intimate relations between people in love.

Where I think that we differ is that I don’t see the grave danger which the Church sees as being posed by homosexual unions. There is much which is positive to be said about them, in my opinion. They are mutually loving and supportive. They can provide a stable and nurturing environment to raise children, which is considered by psychologists to be as good as any other gender mix. (Yes, I know Catholics would disagree) There is no need to revisit all the arguments, such as non-procreative heterosexual relationships, etc… We all know what they are.

Maybe I am naive. I don’t see the threat as looming as large from 1-7% of gays in society, as I do from the rancor and ill will which comes from the fight about it. I am looking forward to the US Supreme Court ruling, because it will be nice not to be hearing about this so much for another 20 years. The Prop 8 case will get to the Court, and then it is likely that gay marriage will be the law of the land, or it will be rejected as such.

I think that the unitive function of any love relationship is objectively meaningful (in the subjective context of the relationship). This is measurable in lower morbidity rates, longer life expectancy, and less depression among those who are partnered (on average). Since I believe that not every marriage need produce children, then the functional aspects are to further the other objectively positive aspects in those relationships. I would not stop two 70 year olds from marrying because they lack the functional capacity to produce offspring. They continue to posses the other functional capacities to achieve physical and emotional intimacy. As intimacy does increase the positive effect, then I can’t make the case that it is not functional.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

lui
**
I said it might be a reason referring to the statement of someone who said sodomy causes death while celibacy causes zero harm. **

When has celibacy caused death? Sodomy certainly has caused death!

If you are truly celibate you cannot possibly use sex to harm or kill anyone.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I actually thought you were one of the more liberal Catholics who didn’t discriminate gay people as disordered perverts but I’m sorry to notice that you seem to side with those who would like to see gay people publicly stoned.
Oh, was this the Chewbacca defense?

I’m actually a diehard traditionalist Catholic who believes communion should be received both kneeling and on the tongue, that church music should either be Gregorian or polyphony, that the Extraordinary Form is superior to the ordinary form, I will sometimes pray the rosary over 100 times a week. I

I also believe that all people should be treated with love and the dignity they deserve as a child of God, that all life is sacrosanct from birth to natural death.

As someone who has studied the Mediaeval period I have come to the conclusion that same sex attraction is really a craving, a yearning for spiritual friendship, that also tends to be influenced by society. If society is hedonistic (present day) well then people with SSA will be influenced by that, likewise if society is properly ordered towards God (Middle Ages) people with SSA will also be affected by that too. As a result of this a return to a more Catholic society will definitely aid homosexuals, I also look forward to Prop. 8 being upheld.

This is actually a side conversation.

 

[Lui]

Well, at least you acknowledge the existence of sexual perverts and unnatural sexual behavior. Odd that apparently for you sodomy doesn’t count as either.

What do you mean with at least I acknowledge the existence of sexual perverts??? Just because I’m not a phony moralist you’re indicating I don’t have any morals?
Two grown people with the same gender having sex on a free base is not perverted according to me. An adult raping a child is as perverted as it gets(oddly the Church condemns the first but has a blind eye to the second)
Show me where I said that sodomy doesn’t count for either? Also describe what you specifically mean with sodomy because it means something else in each country and I lived in too many countries to know what you specifically mean. In Germany where I’ve spent many years sodomy is sex with animals. If you specifically mean oral and anal sex my opinion is: oral sex is not perverted at all and morally ok for me. Anal sex is not my cup of tea but if two adults like it, who am I to decide? Having sex with children and raping a person is morally not only wrong but one of the worst offenses there is, almost equal to murder.

I think I have high moral standards btw. I don’t consider myself more moral than anyone I’ve debated with because who am I to decide? I also don’t claim to be better than anybody here which is why I find it a pity how some people try to portray me as a person without morals and also try to mock me. It shows how poor a person’s arguments are if he has to insult someone who doesn’t agree with him.

lui
**
I said it might be a reason referring to the statement of someone who said sodomy causes death while celibacy causes zero harm. **

When has celibacy caused death? Sodomy certainly has caused death!

If you are truly celibate you cannot possibly use sex to harm or kill anyone.

Neither has sodomy ever caused death. If you mean anal sex with sodomy it CAN transmit the HIV virus which MAY lead to death. If the person uses a condom nothing can happen.
I never said that celibacy caused death(nice try though). I said that it MIGHT lead to priests becoming sexually perverted which leads to rape of children.
I can’t say if it is the case but I can say that 10 thousands of Catholics priests around the world raped children.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Having sex with children and raping a person is morally not only wrong but one of the worst offenses there is, almost equal to murder.

Why do you think its wrong?

 

[Lui]

Why do you think its wrong?

Children are to be protected and not raped. It will scar them for life. Raping an adult is doing something against their will. If you don’t see anything wrong in either I can’t explain it to you.

 

[Lui]

I’m actually a diehard traditionalist Catholic who believes communion should be received both kneeling and on the tongue, that church music should either be Gregorian or polyphony, that the Extraordinary Form is superior to the ordinary form, I will sometimes pray the rosary over 100 times a week. I

I also believe that all people should be treated with love and the dignity they deserve as a child of God, that all life is sacrosanct from birth to natural death.

As someone who has studied the Mediaeval period I have come to the conclusion that same sex attraction is really a craving, a yearning for spiritual friendship, that also tends to be influenced by society. If society is hedonistic (present day) well then people with SSA will be influenced by that, likewise if society is properly ordered towards God (Middle Ages) people with SSA will also be affected by that too. As a result of this a return to a more Catholic society will definitely aid homosexuals, I also look forward to Prop. 8 being upheld.

This is actually a side conversation.

I respect if you have this faith but you and other Christians have to respect if others don’t share that faith. I don’t see anything morally wrong with homosexuality and think they should have the same rights as everybody else. If they love each other and want to marry, they should have the same rights. To call gay people disordered and perverted is discrimination which I personally won’t tolerate.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

lui

I think I have high moral standards btw. I don’t consider myself more moral than anyone I’ve debated with because who am I to decide?

If sodomy is ok. with you, excuse me for saying you don’t have a high moral standard. Is incest between two consenting adults also o.k. with you? If one adult male decides to kill another adult male, and the second adult male says it’s o.k. with him, is that also o.k. with you? Is it o.k. with you that a man should sleep with and impregnate as many women as possible so long as they agree? Is it o.k. with you that a man should sleep with as many prostitutes as he desires to sleep with because they accept his money?

What I am getting at is that you seem to think consent is the only basis for an act that is criminal or unnatural. For you rape of an adult or a child is the only unnatural sexual crime?

Excuse me for saying again that if this is your position, this is not a very high moral standard.

It is certainly not a standard held by the Catholic Church, and the Church has paid dearly for those criminal priests who by deception wormed their way into the priesthood thinking they would be forever protected in their crimes against God and nature.

 

[Lui]

Excuse me for saying again that if this is your position, this is not a very high moral standard.
.

That’s the difference between you and me. I don’t make assumptions about you or your morality. I also don’t kill, torture and enslave other people in order to convert them to my belief which is what the Catholic Church has done in the past. I also don’t rape children which 10 thousands of Catholic priests did and still do which has been covered by the Church. I also don’t make profit in the name of my belief.
I also don’t discriminate against those who don’t believe my faith and tell them they will go to Hell where they will suffer until eternity if they don’t believe in my faith. Doesn’t the Catholic Church teach we are all the results of incest(see the Adam and Eve myth).
Excuse me if I don’t consider the Catholic Church as the highest standard of morality.

Btw, if you think that I don’t have a high moral standard and that you’re better than me, that’s your problem. Maybe you need to feel superior to others by making assumptions about them and making moral judgments.

Read the Bible: Matthew 7:1-5

 

[Elizabeth502]

That’s the difference between you and me. I don’t make assumptions about you or your morality.

Any individual’s morality is deducible from how they describe moral standards and their own acknowledgement or opposition to moral standards. (Whether they accept standards in the first place as an essential element of an ordered and healthy society, whether they dismiss the need for standards, and how conveniently they might rationalize such standards to suit personal preferences.)

 

[Lui]

Any individual’s morality is deducible from how they describe moral standards and their own acknowledgement or opposition to moral standards. (Whether they accept standards in the first place as an essential element of an ordered and healthy society, whether they dismiss the need for standards, and how conveniently they might rationalize such standards to suit personal preferences.)

If I don’t have high standards of morality based on the fact that I tolerate and accept homosexuality, does that mean all nations that do the same and allow gay marriage also don’t have a high standard of morality?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

What do you mean with at least I acknowledge the existence of sexual perverts??? Just because I’m not a phony moralist you’re indicating I don’t have any morals?
Two grown people with the same gender having sex on a free base is not perverted according to me. An adult raping a child is as perverted as it gets(oddly the Church condemns the first but has a blind eye to the second)
Show me where I said that sodomy doesn’t count for either? Also describe what you specifically mean with sodomy because it means something else in each country and I lived in too many countries to know what you specifically mean. In Germany where I’ve spent many years sodomy is sex with animals. If you specifically mean oral and anal sex my opinion is: oral sex is not perverted at all and morally ok for me. Anal sex is not my cup of tea but if two adults like it, who am I to decide? Having sex with children and raping a person is morally not only wrong but one of the worst offenses there is, almost equal to murder.

I think I have high moral standards btw. I don’t consider myself more moral than anyone I’ve debated with because who am I to decide? I also don’t claim to be better than anybody here which is why I find it a pity how some people try to portray me as a person without morals and also try to mock me. It shows how poor a person’s arguments are if he has to insult someone who doesn’t agree with him.

Neither has sodomy ever caused death. If you mean anal sex with sodomy it CAN transmit the HIV virus which MAY lead to death. If the person uses a condom nothing can happen.
I never said that celibacy caused death(nice try though). I said that it MIGHT lead to priests becoming sexually perverted which leads to rape of children.
I can’t say if it is the case but I can say that 10 thousands of Catholics priests around the world raped children.

Okay by sodomy we mean sodomy perfecta and sodomy imperfecta, sodomy perfect refers to sterile acts between two people of the same sex and sodomy imperfecta refers to sterile acts between a man and a woman

I respect if you have this faith but you and other Christians have to respect if others don’t share that faith. I don’t see anything morally wrong with homosexuality and think they should have the same rights as everybody else. If they love each other and want to marry, they should have the same rights. To call gay people disordered and perverted is discrimination which I personally won’t tolerate.

I don’t call gay people perverted, I don’t call gay people mentally disordered, I don’t hate myself AFAIK either (I’m gay, that is to say I only feel SSA).

lui

I think I have high moral standards btw. I don’t consider myself more moral than anyone I’ve debated with because who am I to decide?

If sodomy is ok. with you, excuse me for saying you don’t have a high moral standard. Is incest between two consenting adults also o.k. with you? If one adult male decides to kill another adult male, and the second adult male says it’s o.k. with him, is that also o.k. with you? Is it o.k. with you that a man should sleep with and impregnate as many women as possible so long as they agree? Is it o.k. with you that a man should sleep with as many prostitutes as he desires to sleep with because they accept his money?

What I am getting at is that you seem to think consent is the only basis for an act that is criminal or unnatural. For you rape of an adult or a child is the only unnatural sexual crime?

Excuse me for saying again that if this is your position, this is not a very high moral standard.

It is certainly not a standard held by the Catholic Church, and the Church has paid dearly for those criminal priests who by deception wormed their way into the priesthood thinking they would be forever protected in their crimes against God and nature.

chill out

 

[Lui]

I don’t call gay people perverted, I don’t call gay people mentally disordered, I don’t hate myself AFAIK either (I’m gay, that is to say I only feel SSA).

Sorry if it came across that I was saying that you call gay people perverted or disordered. I definitely did not want to indicate that at all because you didn’t come across that way. I was referring to others who stated that earlier in this thread. I was merely saying that Christians or any other belief system must respect the beliefs of others as long as they are legal.
The Catholic Church may condemn active homosexuality but society does not. By that I mean it is not illegal to have homosexual sex as long as you don’t harm anybody. So if someone, Catholic, Muslim or Atheist calls a homosexual perverted or disordered that is discrimination.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

lui

So if someone, Catholic, Muslim or Atheist calls a homosexual perverted or disordered that is discrimination.

Sodomy is a sin … period. To call something a sin is not to discriminate.

The 1st Amendment covers both religion and free speech.

Chill out.

 

[Lui]

lui

So if someone, Catholic, Muslim or Atheist calls a homosexual perverted or disordered that is discrimination.

Sodomy is a sin … period. To call something a sin is not to discriminate.

The 1st Amendment covers both religion and free speech.

Chill out.

Why are you telling me to chill out? It wasn’t me who told you to chill out!

You’re right. If you believe in God and that God thinks it’s a sin then that is your personal belief. You can call it sin and it isn’t discrimination.
Calling a gay person disordered and perverted(as done by others in this thread) IS discrimination and can be taken legal action against.