MERGED: Apologetics on Homosexuality: 75 Qs and As/Defending the Church's Stance on Homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pieman333272
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lynx said:
I think homosexuality is a mix of natural (genetic) and environmental (upbringing) sources. At the very least, it’s been proven, quite clearly, there are genes that influence sexuality in some animals. Is there a homosexuality gene in people? If so, does that exert more influence than your moral upbringing?
Click to expand...
I’ll go with Shakespeare, that great moralist and psychologist of human thought and feeling (and not a bad writer either), who said: “The (strongest) oaths are straw to the fire in the blood.”
 
BerhaneSelassie said:
Yes, this is a pathetic and foolish argument they love to use. Yes, some animals do have behavior that can be considered homosexual,but so what! rape, incest, war, torture, suicide, cannibalism, infanticide, …etc are also observed in the animal kingdom, even among high mammals, does that mean all these behaviors should be acceptable since animals do them? No. The gay animal argument is just stupid.

(see previous discussion on this topic forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=396347 )
Click to expand...
You may be right about the stupidity of that argument regarding justification for gay behavior in humans. However, consider too that virtually all the behaviors you mention are practiced more by humans than animals. What does that say about OUR nature? Probably animals should not use our behavior as an excuse for theirs!
 
meltzerboy said:
You may be right about the stupidity of that argument regarding justification for gay behavior in humans. However, consider too that virtually all the behaviors you mention are practiced more by humans than animals. What does that say about OUR nature? Probably animals should not use our behavior as an excuse for theirs!
Click to expand...
I think the only reason it comes up is that the argument is made that homosexuality is not “natural” or that it violates “Natural Law”. My guess is that there is a lot of misunderstanding about what these words mean. However, it is also true that rape is “natural” as well as other acts of sexual predation.

If you tell a homosexual that his or her actions or predilection is “unnatural”, you start down a slippery slope. The fact that it occurs makes it natural, and the fact that it occurs in “nature”, supports that view.

If your argument is a moral one, then it must be that some natural acts are immoral.

I still maintain that this is an un-winnable argument. The logic, and the rationalizations that people use to support their own views is fascinating to me. It shows how human we all are.
 
How about the argument that homosexuality is natural based on animals doing it?
 
Pieman333272 said:
How about the argument that homosexuality is natural based on animals doing it?
Click to expand...
Already addressed. Animals kill and eat each other but that’s not acceptable in modern society. We have evolved slightly beyond common animal practices and have our own societal conventions (guidelines for what is moral) to follow. Something being natural does not make it moral. You need to figure out your arguers moral base before arguing on the morality of homosexuality. If the person is a believer of the bible, this much easier, if not then I have my doubts you can convince them.
 
lynx said:
Already addressed. Animals kill and eat each other but that’s not acceptable in modern society. We have evolved slightly beyond common animal practices and have our own societal conventions (guidelines for what is moral) to follow. Something being natural does not make it moral. You need to figure out your arguers moral base before arguing on the morality of homosexuality. If the person is a believer of the bible, this much easier, if not then I have my doubts you can convince them.
Click to expand...
I often hear the argument from the side opposed to homosexuality that it is a choice. This is really a non-starter, and undermines the credibility of the person making that point. If you want to convince anyone of anything, then as soon as you make an absurd point, you lose ground.

Sexuality is not chosen. If you don’t believe me, then tell me when you chose to be sexually attracted. There is a mountain of scientific evidence, besides. Any therapist who claims that sexuality is chosen, either has a moral agenda to promote and is willing to compromise his or her professional standards to do so, or is simply not up on the research. So, when people claim that it is a choice, people just stop listening to them.

The challenge then, is that if it is not a choice, as it is not, then how can it be a sin?

I believe that the only logical response is that being homosexual is not a sin. Engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, just as any other adultery is a sin.There is a difference between having sexual impulses, and acting on them, as we all know.
 
paedagogo said:
I often hear the argument from the side opposed to homosexuality that it is a choice. This is really a non-starter, and undermines the credibility of the person making that point. If you want to convince anyone of anything, then as soon as you make an absurd point, you lose ground.

Sexuality is not chosen. If you don’t believe me, then tell me when you chose to be sexually attracted. There is a mountain of scientific evidence, besides. Any therapist who claims that sexuality is chosen, either has a moral agenda to promote and is willing to compromise his or her professional standards to do so, or is simply not up on the research. So, when people claim that it is a choice, people just stop listening to them.

The challenge then, is that if it is not a choice, as it is not, then how can it be a sin?

I believe that the only logical response is that being homosexual is not a sin. Engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, just as any other adultery is a sin.There is a difference between having sexual impulses, and acting on them, as we all know.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the Church’s position: being homosexual is not a sin; homosexual behavior is sinful. But it’s very difficult for many people to separate the two. You’re right: sexuality period is not a choice. Anyway, who in their right mind would choose to be homosexual (if that is what we mean by “choice”), given the stigma, discrimination, and hatred attached to homosexuality in most societies, as well as the self-loathing that is often produced by society’s attitudes toward gay people?
 
paedagogo said:
I believe that the only logical response is that being homosexual is not a sin. Engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, just as any other adultery is a sin.There is a difference between having sexual impulses, and acting on them, as we all know.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why you quoted me, but the issue remains of how you would convince someone who is a non-believer that homosexuality is immoral? I would say that very few religious members don’t view homosexual acts as a sin.
 
lynx said:
I’m not sure why you quoted me, but the issue remains of how you would convince someone who is a non-believer that homosexuality is immoral? I would say that very few religious members don’t view homosexual acts as a sin.
Click to expand...
Well, it depends on what you mean by convincing and immoral.

First, while truth is certainly important, there are billions of people who are ‘convinced’ about all sorts of things. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. If every person in the world suddenly became ‘convinced’ that we were nothing but giant holograms, that would not ‘make’ us giant holograms.

So, being ‘convinced’ of something does not make the something turn true. If something is true, it is true whether or not people are convinced of it.

Unfortunately, a lot of people think on the order of ‘majority ruules’. . .if enough people make a statement about the truth (morality) of a given action, and enough of them are ‘for’ that action, somehow suddenly that makes the action ‘moral and true’ where before that quorum, it was viewed as immoral or false by ‘the majority’. But truth doesn’t work that way.

And that leads us to ‘moral/immoral.’ Again, what is ‘moral’ is moral whether or not a ‘majority’ of people claim it is; and something immoral does not become moral just because a great number of people want it to be.

Because it isn’t really about the “God” or ‘believer" --that’s a ploy made to put believers on the ‘defensive’ from the start by claiming that it is solely a ‘god’ concept about X being moral or immoral and that those who don’t believe in god’ are not bound by god’s ‘rules’. Total relativism.

What it is all about is whether something is or is not TRUE. Since God IS truth, certainly He will lead us to ‘morality and good’ by His nature. . .but one need not be a believer to recognize truth. Therefore the whole, “you’re believers but poor dear John is not a believer and you need to ‘convince him’” is stacked against believers from the start. John doesn’t need to be convinced of the truth because ‘believers in God’ are claiming something is true. John needs to be convinced of the truth because it is true, and both believers and non believers can and should recognize truth. Sure, the more that non-believer John recognizes truth the more likely he will be ultimately to recognize God, and the less he recognizes truth the less likely he will ultimately be to recognize God. . .but knowledge of the truth does not depend on ‘religious belief.’
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Well, it depends on what you mean by convincing and immoral.

First, while truth is certainly important, there are billions of people who are ‘convinced’ about all sorts of things. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. If every person in the world suddenly became ‘convinced’ that we were nothing but giant holograms, that would not ‘make’ us giant holograms.

So, being ‘convinced’ of something does not make the something turn true. If something is true, it is true whether or not people are convinced of it.

Unfortunately, a lot of people think on the order of ‘majority ruules’. . .if enough people make a statement about the truth (morality) of a given action, and enough of them are ‘for’ that action, somehow suddenly that makes the action ‘moral and true’ where before that quorum, it was viewed as immoral or false by ‘the majority’. But truth doesn’t work that way.

And that leads us to ‘moral/immoral.’ Again, what is ‘moral’ is moral whether or not a ‘majority’ of people claim it is; and something immoral does not become moral just because a great number of people want it to be.

Because it isn’t really about the “God” or ‘believer" --that’s a ploy made to put believers on the ‘defensive’ from the start by claiming that it is solely a ‘god’ concept about X being moral or immoral and that those who don’t believe in god’ are not bound by god’s ‘rules’. Total relativism.

What it is all about is whether something is or is not TRUE. Since God IS truth, certainly He will lead us to ‘morality and good’ by His nature. . .but one need not be a believer to recognize truth. Therefore the whole, “you’re believers but poor dear John is not a believer and you need to ‘convince him’” is stacked against believers from the start. John doesn’t need to be convinced of the truth because ‘believers in God’ are claiming something is true. John needs to be convinced of the truth because it is true, and both believers and non believers can and should recognize truth. Sure, the more that non-believer John recognizes truth the more likely he will be ultimately to recognize God, and the less he recognizes truth the less likely he will ultimately be to recognize God. . .but knowledge of the truth does not depend on ‘religious belief.’
Click to expand...
While nearly all moral systems have some shared premises, there are differences Anthropologists have found that all societies come up with essentially the same codes of ethics, regardless of religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs.

For example, you can count on finding a prohibition against murder. However details will differ on when killing of other people is permissible, and therefore not murder.

In areas of sexual activity, all bets are off. I sometimes speculate that this is a matter of whether the act under scrutiny includes victimization. For example, rape is generally prohibited, but consensual sexual activity can range from deserving the death penalty (arabic) to the opposite end of the spectrum, and being encouraged even among strangers (pacific). My theory is that in these cases, the matter comes down to the purpose or essence (if you will) of the act. In a pacific islander’s culture, the purpose or nature of sex is not defined as procreative, and therefore non procreative sex is actually seen as a moral good, as it promotes happiness and intimacy. In the Church, the pro-creative impetus is the postulate from which other standards derive, and which constrains the point of view. Therefore, even without the scriptural prohibitions to homosexuality (which are not always interpreted in the same way), the Church is opposed to non-procreative sex on general principle for all sexual activity.

So, we get into this ground of moral relativism… where a devout Catholic may say… I am right and your disagreement does not change that “fact”. But unless the other party accepts that Catholic system of principles and postulates as being universally true, then the entire argument fails, at least to the extent that the other person accepts your “truth”.
 
Did anyone mention to JaredM that the One Flesh is referring to procreation (children)? A child is both parents in one flesh and the last time I checked homosexuals cannot reproduce.

Humans are only “worthy” of respect in so far as we recognize the dignity we have been given by God by being created in His image and that we are all His children. This respect however does not mean we have to support or tolerate the actions of Gods disobedient children. I do not hate homosexuals and I do not condemn them. However this does not mean that i should have to tolerate, support, or be silent on my stance against homosexuality for the sake of not hurting someone’s feelings.
 
I would suggest clearly differentiating between the Homosexuals and practicing Homosexual Acts in all your posts as the church has clearly NO PROBLEM with HOMOSEXUALS but does have with HOMOSEXUAL ACTS. It is in this differentiation that the enemies of the Church create confusion in the Churches teachings and allows bigoted people licence to practice hatred and discrimination against Homosexuals.

Instead of defending the churches stance as who are you defending it from maybe we should try and accurately reflect its stance and try and find a way to bring the love of Christ into the situation so we can bring these people home into our church as HOMOSEXUALS. ( non practicing ) or as sinners like the rest of us who need to work on their salvation carrying their particular cross who with time ; wisdom ; love and spiritual education can become non practicing.

heres hoping 🙂
 
Defending the Church’s stance on Homosexuality:


  1. *] Homosexuality is forbidden by God. [Argument from Authority: See: Gen 13:13; 18:20, Gen 19:5, Jude 7, Jude 5-7, Lev. 18:22, 29, Lev. 20:13, Rom. 1:26- 27, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10, 2 Peter 2:4-10]

    *] The Church has clearly expressed this as an Intrinsic Evil. [Argument from Authority]
    Argument logically should stop here]

    *] Large groups of animal populations, given a male-female reproductive relationship are majorly heterosexual. As such, species reproduction and continuation can flourish [Argument from numbers.]

    *] The human population, which cannot be compared to the animal population also exhibit the same situation, heterosexuality greatly outnumbers homosexual behaviours. [Argument from numbers [*Note Numbers do not equal Truth, but they can assert for argument a state of natural behaviour.]]

    *] Darwinian evolution (For sake of argument) does not favour homosexual relationships as continuation cannot be found due to the absence of a reproductive cycle. [Argument from Design]

    *] Divine Creation does not favour homosexual relationships as continuation cannot be found due to the absence of a reproductive cycle. [Argument from Design: See Gen. 1 & 2, Gen. 2:18, Gen. 2:24, Matt. 19:6 ]

    Is homosexuality natural? No:

    1. *]The argument from genetics can only contemplate malfunction (if design is to be understood as by chance) or Divine Will (by authority). Since the sex in question has been given the reproductive organs, there is no doubt a purpose for these organs. If the original design contemplates reproduction, and an alternative behaviour emerges, the alternative behaviour that runs contrary must be unnatural. The Homosexual should take into question, why does s/he have specific organs contrary to the opposite sex?

      *] The animal kingdom: Animals (dogs for example) exhibit tendencies to exert their dominion via this act. The problem with the argument: Man is not an animal. Biologically of course man can be argued as such, but his existence is in the image of God, his Soul which is bound to the flesh makes him unique over other subjects.

      *] Certain arguments can be linked from above.
      ‘Born this way’:***

      1. *] Matthew Archbold (at NCRegister) makes an interesting comparison with the issue of anger: See it here.
        40.png
        Lynx:
        I’m not sure why you quoted me, but the issue remains of how you would convince someone who is a non-believer that homosexuality is immoral?
        Click to expand...
        Exactly, they’ll need to find that authority first, otherwise without authority, who can tell them they are doing an Evil act? Prayer will help.
        40.png
        thirddec:
        Instead of defending the churches stance as who are you defending it from maybe we should try and accurately reflect its stance and try and find a way to bring the love of Christ into the situation so we can bring these people home into our church as HOMOSEXUALS.
        Click to expand...
        No, one must defend the Church’s stance. We can also bring our love into the situation by being charitable in our actions and behaviours.

        Bringing Homosexuals into the pews as practicing homosexuals or as those with the inclination to the act? The former won’t enter because they believe the Church is prejudice against them, the latter may. The Church DOES NOT condemn the individual with the inclination, but does condemn the Act as thirddec states.

        God Bless,

        Christopher.
 
paedagogo said:
While nearly all moral systems have some shared premises, there are differences Anthropologists have found that all societies come up with essentially the same codes of ethics, regardless of religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs.

For example, you can count on finding a prohibition against murder. However details will differ on when killing of other people is permissible, and therefore not murder.

In areas of sexual activity, all bets are off. I sometimes speculate that this is a matter of whether the act under scrutiny includes victimization. For example, rape is generally prohibited, but consensual sexual activity can range from deserving the death penalty (arabic) to the opposite end of the spectrum, and being encouraged even among strangers (pacific). My theory is that in these cases, the matter comes down to the purpose or essence (if you will) of the act. In a pacific islander’s culture, the purpose or nature of sex is not defined as procreative, and therefore non procreative sex is actually seen as a moral good, as it promotes happiness and intimacy. In the Church, the pro-creative impetus is the postulate from which other standards derive, and which constrains the point of view. Therefore, even without the scriptural prohibitions to homosexuality (which are not always interpreted in the same way), the Church is opposed to non-procreative sex on general principle for all sexual activity.

So, we get into this ground of moral relativism… where a devout Catholic may say… I am right and your disagreement does not change that “fact”. But unless the other party accepts that Catholic system of principles and postulates as being universally true, then the entire argument fails, at least to the extent that the other person accepts your “truth”.
Click to expand...
Morality is not subjective. As you have pointed out there is a universal law that everyone seems to follow to a point, regarding morality (murder, stealing, etc). However when it comes to the ends and outs of these things people seem to make it subjective which is a clear signe that you have strayed from the correct path. Something that is objective cannot change its nature and be subjective as well, that would make it a contradiction. This means morality by its very nature is a law that must be observed and followed (like gravity) and that this law is composed of rules. Furthermore morality since it is a law shares the same qualities as the other laws in nature and that is while its applied to nature and governs nature, its source or point of creation is not from something natural but rather something that transcends nature and is thus supernatural. Only something that can transcend a law has the power to create the law.

So we know by logic and reason that the moral law comes from God and that this then points to the need for religion (Which contrary to popular opinion, religion is also not subjective) 🙂 This means there truly is One, Holy, and Universal true Faith that has been founded by God and guided by God in the mission of teaching and governing His creation and showing them the objective moral law that they need to ascribe to for their own good. This religion is of course the Catholic Faith and the Catholi Church which Christ (God) founded. This is a conclusion that anyone can come to by using logic and reason as well.

God Bless
 
qOcOp said:
Did anyone mention to JaredM that the One Flesh is referring to procreation (children)? A child is both parents in one flesh and the last time I checked homosexuals cannot reproduce.

Humans are only “worthy” of respect in so far as we recognize the dignity we have been given by God by being created in His image and that we are all His children. This respect however does not mean we have to support or tolerate the actions of Gods disobedient children. I do not hate homosexuals and I do not condemn them. However this does not mean that i should have to tolerate, support, or be silent on my stance against homosexuality for the sake of not hurting someone’s feelings.
Click to expand...
Humans are worthy of profound respect does not depend on someone’s recognition of their dignity or the prospect of hurting someone’s feelings. Humans are worthy of profound respect is based on their objective, intrinsic value which includes many facets. Theists and non-theists can and do recognize this concept of profound value of the human person.

This truth of respect for the human person does not mean that one has to ignore immoral actions as post 52 pointed out. Of course "However this does not mean that i should have to tolerate, support, or be silent on my stance against homosexuality… " from 52

However, it seems to me that some previous discussions regarding choice, sin, etc. sound as if choice, sin are somehow dependent on each person’s particular definition, i.e., existing on their own without a true connection to human nature.

What happened to one’s own respect for oneself which includes our intellect and will? For example, the value and worthiness of human procreation should be respected by all because it is part of human nature regardless if one is sterile or attracted to the same sex. In these cases either the ability to procreate is negated by an anatomical defect or the ability to procreate is totally disrespected by the sham of homosexual actions.

I often use “The human person is worthy of profound respect.” in hopes that not only will theists and non-theists recognize the inherent dignity of others but will also recognize the inherent dignity in themselves.

Profound refers to coming from great depth, thorough-going, and far-reaching. Human nature is profound precisely because it is rational/corporeal. The profoundness of a rational/corporeal being, such as a human, entails certain responsibilities toward oneself and toward others. A major responsibility involves the sacredness of procreation.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.
 
God bless you for putting this resource together, and thank you!
 
Im sorry to be negative about your blog BUT their is nothing new in what your saying here.
You may be theologically and morally correct but can’t we be positive ; can’t we be more thou shalt rather than thou shalt not.

Can’t you begin more along the lines of.

Q1) What is the Catholic View of a person who is homosexual.
A 1) The Catholic church sees every individual as deserving of respect ; dignity and love and someone who is homosexual is as included in Gods plan for salvation as is everyone else. The Church welcomes homosexuals into the church.

we can deal with the Issues of how they live their lives within the church after it is clear that we want ; value and love them and will do all we can to help them live their lives in a Christlike manner.

I understand what you are doing but remember we have a duty to try and save people and anything we put under the title of Catholicism must reflect Christs love ; forgiveness : hope and the common experiences we will all have when we have to carry our own personal crosses and how the Church will help

Pray a little on the matter and see if you can create a site that doesn’t comprimise Catholic teaching but offers hope and welcome to homosexuals too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top