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

[Lui]

Condoms often are not used with careless or casual sex.

That’s like saying drinking is dangerous because if you are careless and drive that can lead to a deadly accident. If a person is not careless what are the risks then?

Sexual diseases will not be transmitted if you are celibate, or if you are faithful have sex with only one faithful partner throughout your life.

If you are not faithful, or your partner is not faithful … more reason for condemnation … and all the more reason for condemnation if you or your partner are promiscuous.

I’m a person who lives extremely healthy and does competitive swimming and other sports. For me it is a form of perversion when I see how many treat their own body by over-eating, especially on junk food. There is an epidemic of obese people that get all sorts of life threatening conditions from their eating habits.

It’s all a matter of perspective. It’s just because sex is demonized by moralists and religions which is why they point out that casual sex and certain sexual practices lead to diseases. Over-eating and bad eating habits are not demonized but cause far more diseases and deaths than sexual transmitted diseases but because it’s" morally ok" moralists don’t even mention it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Benadem

Incest is a genuine form of human sexuality.

How do you define genuine? This from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

2388 Incest designates intimate relations between relatives or in-laws within a degree that prohibits marriage between them.181 St. Paul stigmatizes this especially grave offense: "It is actually reported that there is immorality among you . . . for a man is living with his father’s wife. . . . In the name of the Lord Jesus . . . you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. . . . "182 Incest corrupts family relationships and marks a regression toward animality.

lui

**Over-eating and bad eating habits are not demonized but cause far more diseases and deaths than sexual transmitted diseases but because it’s" morally ok" moralists don’t even mention it. **

Not true. Gluttony is called one of the seven deadly sins.

Again from the Catechism:

“1866 Vices can be classified according to the virtues they oppose, or also be linked to the capital sins which Christian experience has distinguished, following St. John Cassian and St. Gregory the Great. They are called “capital” because they engender other sins, other vices.138 They are pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth or acedia.”

 

[Lui]

Hi . Incest is a genuine form of human sexuality. Imagine if the human race had been whittled down to 5 to 10 people. Parents and siblings. Would the meaning of your opposite gender sibling change?

 

[Lui]

Not true. Gluttony is called one of the seven deadly sins.

I know but do you see Catholics protesting against obese people, calling their lifestyle perverted or disordered?

 

[John21652]

In Ancient Egypt Royal incest was quite common for centuries so even incest is a matter of perspective. Morality is defined by society.

Royal incest was practiced by the Ancient Egyptian Pharoas because they thought they were descended from the gods. Look where it got them.

Read here how King Tut was a deformed cripple, thanks to generations of familial incest and how it caused him to be the last of his line.

Morality may indeed be a matter of perspective and it may indeed be defined by a society, as you suggest. The trouble is, once the objectivity of morality is perverted, as was done by the ancient Egyptian Royals, the consequences are also rather perverted.

Your rather silly and deceitful example has shot your argument to bits and demonstrates why, in just about every single civilization that has ever existed on planet Earth, incest has been taboo. It also demonstrates why it is just as well the average ancient Egyptian didn’t go along with the Royals, who not so royally shot themselves in the foot!

 

[Lui]

Your rather silly and deceitful example has shot your argument to bits and demonstrates why, in just about every single civilization that has ever existed on planet Earth, incest has been taboo.

Where exactly did I write that I support incest? Nice try with the insults again. I just pointed out that society determines morality and didn’t make a moral judgment myself.

Btw, I personally believe that incest leads to deformation which is why a find the theory that humanity is the result of incest(first parents) absurd and believe in evolution…

 

[Elizabeth502]

I know but do you see Catholics protesting against obese people, calling their lifestyle perverted or disordered?

Catholics do not “protest” against people. Faithful Catholics who understand and apply their faith oppose laws which undermine the moral, physical, and social health of society – the hijacking of an entire society by a tiny percent of people who are trying to shape a society in their own distorted image of what does and does not constitute normative sexuality, and what does and does not define the institution of marriage. Faithful Catholics do not persecute individuals (“people”) but do oppose amorality and institutionalized immorality.

As to obesity, faithful Catholics are enjoined to oppose the capital sin of gluttony (a disordered appetite) in their personal lives. Citizens of all religions and no religions “protest” obesity as opposed to “obese people,” because it also is unhealthy and affects the productivity, medical health, and efficiency of a nation.

 

[Benadam]

Benadam;8466677:

In Ancient Egypt Royal incest was quite common for centuries so even incest is a matter of perspective. Morality is defined by society.

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.

 

[Elizabeth502]

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.

Incest also violates Ordered boundaries (which sexual activity among the same sex also does).

 

[Benadam]

Where exactly did I write that I support incest?..

Morality is defined by society.

your response to

Imagine if the human race had been whittled down to 5 to 10 people. Parents and siblings. Would the meaning of your opposite gender sibling change?

 

[John21652]

Where exactly did I write that I support incest? Nice try with the insults again. I just pointed out that society determines morality and didn’t make a moral judgment myself.

I didn’t state that you wrote that you supported incest. You did, however, give it as an example of society determining morality. You were wrong. Only the ancient Egyptian royal family determined what ‘morality’ suited them. Not the whole of ancient Egyptian society. Thus, your example was deceitful. You also left out the consequences of what that perverted morality lead to, so you were being deceitful by omission. Hence, you have ruined your own credibility.

Btw, I personally believe that incest leads to deformation which is why a find the theory that humanity is the result of incest(first parents) absurd and believe in evolution…

Your personal beliefs also need some education. You see, incest does not necessarily lead to deformation, as you state. If you disbelieve me, then go and Google ‘line breeding’ as carried out by livestock producers. ‘Line breeding’, or ‘incest’ in human terms, is used to highlight the beneficial traits of livestock, particularly stud livestock. Done carefully and not for too many generations, it improves livestock. So, your beleief that incest leads to deformation and therefore the impossibility of there being two original human ancestoral parents, is also wrong.

 

[Lui]

the hijacking of an entire society by a tiny percent of people who are trying to shape a society in their own distorted image of what does and does not constitute normative sexuality, and what does and does not define the institution of marriage.

Gay people just want the same rights as everybody else and are not hijacking anything. What the difference what Catholicism does: it tries to shape a society with its morality code which can be considered as distorted. Teaching children that if they sin they will burn in Hell is not exactly undistorted.

 

[Lui]

So, your beleief that incest leads to deformation and therefore the impossibility of there being two original human ancestoral parents, is also wrong.

Well, I’m pretty sure we didn’t descend from two first parents anyway.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Gay people just want the same rights as everybody else and are not hijacking anything.

Wrong. A portion (not all) of actively practicing homosexuals want their desires enshrined as “rights” – rights not granted to “everybody else” but to unencumbered consenting pairs of adults consisting of one man and one woman. That’s not a religious concept but a societal concept.

Teaching children that if they sin they will burn in Hell is not exactly undistorted.

As John said, a little education would go a long way. The Church does not teach that She knows who does and does not 'burn in Hell." She teaches that some sins – committed by those at or above the age of reason – are more serious than other sins, and thus potentially imperil the person if the person does not repent but persists in those serious sins. She also teaches that the mercy of God is beyond human understanding, including how that mercy is distributed at an indivdual person’s death (a person of any age and of whatever state of sin).

 

[Lui]

As John said, a little education would go a long way.

Are you or John even capable of answering without personal insults. Just curious?

Ok, let me correct myself: the fact that the Church teaches children that Hell even exists where people might end up, might be considered as distorted.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

lui
**
I know but do you see Catholics protesting against obese people, calling their lifestyle perverted or disordered? **

One has to choose one’s battles. One cannot jump and scream and kick about everything all the time without going a little berserk.

Since sodomy is absolutely repulsive and easily defined and can result in communicable diseases, it seems the more socially obnoxious of perversions.

The person who is fat does not have a communicable disease, and fat is something that can be overcome with a little will power and diet, like alcoholism. Sodomy cannot be overcome so easily, and according to many sodomites, it cannot be overcome at all … which with that attitude makes it all the more fatal in its consequences.

**In Ancient Egypt Royal incest was quite common for centuries so even incest is a matter of perspective. Morality is defined by society. **

And the more corrupt a society is the more corrupt its definitions of morality will be.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

lui

**the fact that the Church teaches children that Hell even exists where people might end up, might be considered as distorted. **

You appear to be another one of those people who believe that children should not be taught actions have consequences … sometimes extreme consequences.

Would it be a “distortion” to tell a teenager that promiscuous sex and sodomy can lead to serious disease and even death?

Then why would it be a distortion to say that serious sin can lead to hell?

 

[Lui]

One has to choose one’s battles. One cannot jump and scream and kick about everything all the time without going a little berserk.

Oddly most conservative Christians always pick the same topics.

And the more corrupt a society is the more corrupt its definitions of morality will be.

Well, you actually brought up incest. ALL modern societies condemn and forbid incest while homosexuality isn’t forbidden in any modern society. Gay marriage exists in many Nations so I’m definitely not the only one who doesn’t consider it as perverted or abnormal. Like I mentioned, the German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle is gay and married.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

lui

You appear to be another one of those people who believe that children should not be taught actions have consequences … sometimes extreme consequences.

Would it be a “distortion” to tell a teenager that promiscuous sex and sodomy can lead to serious disease and even death?

Then why would it be a distortion to say that serious sin can lead to hell?

First of all I said a person MIGHT consider it as a distortion based on the claim by Elisabeth that the gay people try to shape a society in their own distorted image.

Since I don’t believe in the concept of Hell I find it rather extreme to teach a child that if it sins it might burn in Hell until eternity.

Like i said, I find it normal to tell a teenager to be careful when having sex and use protection. I don’t tell a teenager that the only way to go is to stay a virgin until marriage and then only to have sex in the missionary position.

Do you tell overweight children that eating Junk food and not exercising can lead to serious disease and even death or do you just pick and chose what is convenient?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Are you or John even capable of answering without personal insults. Just curious?

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.)

Ok, let me correct myself: the fact that the Church teaches children that Hell even exists where people might end up, might be considered as distorted.

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.

 

[Sair]

lui

Since sodomy is absolutely repulsive and easily defined and can result in communicable diseases, it seems the more socially obnoxious of perversions.

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

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.

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.

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.