Philosophical outlook on Homosexuality

[I_thirst_4_YOU]

My know someone who supports homosexuality but is not one himself. He has studied philosophy and is very intellectual, (i am not.)

He uses much philosophy to say that the homosexual lifestyle is fine and should be supported. All that I have to combat him with is my faith, church, and catechism.

What kind of non-biblical evidence is there against the homosexual agenda? Perhaps even philosophy based.

Thank you.

 

[john_ennis]

Ask plainly:

What is this person’s philosophy about sexuality? (Essentially, does he have some means of deciding what is right or wrong sexual behavior?)

Once he can tell you that, you can digest it and decide if it makes sense. No philosophy I’ve ever heard, which supports homosexual behavior, has stood up to serious questioning. Such folks always end up contradicting themselves.

Example: The most common answer regarding the question above is something like, "What consenting adults do for their own pleasure is never ‘wrong’, as long as no one is harmed or affected against their will. But this philosophy automatically must accept polygamy and incest (as long as pregnancy is made impossible), and most gay rights supporters reject one or both of these behaviors.
But it goes further. The above philosophy must accept certain unspeakable acts with animals (to which the person usually responds, “But animals can’t consent, so it’s wrong,” to which I always answer, "You mean that’s ALL that’s wrong with it–the animal can’t consent?!)
The only person I’ve ever heard be consistent down this line of discussion, did so by acknowledging that if the animal were already DEAD, then the moral objection would be gone, and no one could say the act was wrong.
That’s where his philosophy led him. I’d wager that 99% or gay rights supporters would never go that far.

Make any sense?

 

[john_ennis]

On the flip side, the only philosophy I’ve encountered that stands up, irrespective of the homosexuality issue, is the Catholic view of sexuality.

I’ve been hearing and considering criticism and arguments for decades, I’ve questioned the Catholic view, lived it and been challenged to follow it in my own marriage. BIBLICAL EVIDENCE ASIDE, the Catholic approach is without flaw or contradiction…

Our sexuality is a gift, the purpose of which is to share love at the same time that God makes possible our PARTICIPATION IN CREATION. It’s almost unimaginably precious and good.
It is essentially giving in nature, yet provides good to both participants.
Any deliberate attempt to thwart or avoid either the life-giving aspect or the loving aspect of the act, is a failure to appreciate it; it is making a giving thing into a taking thing.

 

[goofyjim]

Outside of Catholic views which are inherited from biblical views there is nothing against it. It is a natural phenomenon and would be if religion were not in play.

 

[Exalt]

Outside of Catholic views which are inherited from biblical views there is nothing against it. It is a natural phenomenon and would be if religion were not in play.

Prejudice exists outside of religious contexts. Many people find homosexuality repulsive for religious reasons. Many people find homosexuality repulsive just out of prejudice. And for some, it’s both.

 

[patg]

Outside of Catholic views which are inherited from biblical views there is nothing against it. It is a natural phenomenon and would be if religion were not in play.

Well said, Jim. The Chuch comes out *so *strong for natural sex - natural birth control, natural relations, a natural finish to the act, that it is very strange to have such a condemnation of what is totally natural for those wired (by God, of course) to be homosexuals. Things which are natural for the majority are fine but things which are natural for others are easily condemned. I’m surprised the church doesn’t condemn other harmless minority traits such as being left-handed or blue having eyes - it makes about as much sense.

It is also funny that much reasoning for the condemnation comes from or is derived from Leviticus - a source full of abominations to God, almost all of which we totally ignore.

 

[Exalt]

It is also funny that much reasoning for the condemnation comes from or is derived from Leviticus - a source full of abominations to God, almost all of which we totally ignore.

The condemnation of homosexuality, though deeply flawed, exists in many places in the Bible and not exclusively from Leviticus.

 

[I_thirst_4_YOU]

Well said, Jim. The Chuch comes out *so *strong for natural sex - natural birth control, natural relations, a natural finish to the act, that it is very strange to have such a condemnation of what is totally natural for those wired (by God, of course) to be homosexuals. Things which are natural for the majority are fine but things which are natural for others are easily condemned. I’m surprised the church doesn’t condemn other harmless minority traits such as being left-handed or blue having eyes - it makes about as much sense.

It is also funny that much reasoning for the condemnation comes from or is derived from Leviticus - a source full of abominations to God, almost all of which we totally ignore.

First, Homosexuality is not totally natural, it is against nature. I my self, the one who posted this question, know that. It is against the very nature of the human person. You used the wording “wired” by God. There is no scientific proof one way or another to prove that homosexuals are either born with their cross or so choose to pick one up. If they were born with it, like I a heterosexual, are called to carry it with dignity and not indulge in their appetites of sexual urge.

Secondly, my goodness have you read the Bible in it’s entirety Christ came and broke the old covenant. Some things that were illegal (for lack of a better word) in the O.T. are now the same in the N.T. That is the case for Homosexuality, where Paul goes through his listing of the sins of man.

Again this isn’t for the sake of being mean to the poor man who can’t lay with his boyfriend, this is for the betterment of their soul!!!

It is not natural for one man to have sex with another man!

 

[Renton405]

My know someone who supports homosexuality but is not one himself. He has studied philosophy and is very intellectual, (i am not.)

He uses much philosophy to say that the homosexual lifestyle is fine and should be supported. All that I have to combat him with is my faith, church, and catechism.

What kind of non-biblical evidence is there against the homosexual agenda? Perhaps even philosophy based.

Thank you.

High aids rate
High drug abuse rate, espesially with meth
mental problems
High suicide rate
lower life expectancy than average person
murder/the top 8 worst serial killers in the world were all homosexuals…

Prejudice exists outside of religious contexts. Many people find homosexuality repulsive for religious reasons. Many people find homosexuality repulsive just out of prejudice. And for some, it’s both.

I personally find it repulsive because of the act of sodomy/contact with feces…The same way you would feel replused if you stuck your arm in a sewer hole full of waste.

 

[I_thirst_4_YOU]

I remember being in 3rd or 4th grade and talking with someone about gays. I barely new what the word homosexual meant or gay for that matter.

My argument, in 3rd grade i remind you was, “lets just pretend that the whole world was gay, where would get new babies from??”

For the most part the argument stands today, 20some years later. It is not natural because there is no possible way to reproduce life.

There are three types of LAW:
Divine Law: that which is instituted by God himself ie the 10commandments, scripture, the Church

Human Law: that which God has rightly given the authority to make laws here on earth for the betterment and well being of mankind

Natural Law: That which God has given to nature in the natural world to progress and keep order.

Order is the key word, it is out of order to be a homosexual, one is “OUT OF sink” if he accepts the temptation of a same sex lifestyle.

 

[I_thirst_4_YOU]

My know someone who supports homosexuality but is not one himself. He has studied philosophy and is very intellectual, (i am not.)

He uses much philosophy to say that the homosexual lifestyle is fine and should be supported. All that I have to combat him with is my faith, Church, and Catechism.

What kind of non-biblical evidence is there against the homosexual agenda? Perhaps even philosophy based.

(links to other sites, audio, articles appreciated as well)

Thank you.

 

[Bennie_P]

Prejudice exists outside of religious contexts. Many people find homosexuality repulsive for religious reasons. Many people find homosexuality repulsive just out of prejudice. And for some, it’s both.

Most people find homosexual behavior repulsive not out of prejudice, but because it is plainly disordered unnatural conduct that contradicts the basic functionality and purpose of sex.

 

[Exalt]

Most people find homosexual behavior repulsive not out of prejudice, but because it is plainly disordered unnatural conduct that contradicts the basic functionality and purpose of sex.

Knowing that something is unnatural comes from a “basic, ethical intuition” that is “percieved intuitively” (catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp%between%).

I call it “prejudiced” because I think that this particular ‘intuition’ is wrong. You don’t because you think it’s correct.

Prejudice is a feeling or opinion for or against something without prior knowledge or reason. That sounds pretty similiar to natural law, which grounds it’s philosophical reasoning on ethical intuition.

An intuition, I might add, that billions of human beings disagree on.

Personally, intuition isn’t a very strong rock to stand on. How could I possibly distinguish my inuitive hatred for homosexuality from my intuitive hatred of interracial marriage? “Natural law” provides no outs that don’t introduce religion, theology, or God in some manner.

 

[Bennie_P]

Knowing that something is unnatural comes from a “basic, ethical intuition” that is “percieved intuitively” (catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp).

I call it “prejudiced” because I think that this particular ‘intuition’ is wrong. You don’t because you think it’s correct.

Prejudice is a feeling or opinion for or against something without prior knowledge or reason. That sounds pretty similiar to natural law, which grounds it’s philosophical reasoning on ethical intuition.

An intuition, I might add, that billions of human beings disagree on.

Personally, intuition isn’t a very strong rock to stand on. How could I possibly distinguish my inuitive hatred for homosexuality from my intuitive hatred of interracial marriage? “Natural law” provides no outs that don’t introduce religion, theology, or God in some manner.

Here you assume most people don’t have prior knowledge or have the capabilty to reason, thus showing your own prejudice based mainly on your own feelings, a rejection of science and a reasoning based on emotion and disordered idea of purpose.

 

[cpayne]

I can’t provide links, but can provide natural law arguments. You might look up the following books:

The First Grace by Russell Hittinger
Written on the Heart by J. Budziszewski; also Ask Me Anything, same author
Homosexuality and the Natural Law by Harry Jaffa

Probably a lot of others, too, but those come to mind.

 

[I_thirst_4_YOU]

An intuition, I might add, that billions of human beings disagree on.
.

And again you fail at making your point. Just because Billions or millions of people disagree with the Church (whether it be on one issue or another) that doesn’t make it a correct statement. It is simple logic.

To deduct from your above point that billions disagree with the Church, you are more-or-less saying that simply because many people don’t agree with Her teachings than they must be wrong. That is relativism at its finest. You believe what you want and I’ll believe what i want—and oh look one billion people don’t believe this so it must be incorrect.

One’s not believing in God doesn’t in one second make him not exist. God, the creator of the Universe is in existence whether we believe in him or not; in the same fashion homosexuality is morally, logically, reasonably, and ethically WRONG!

It is obvious that you don’t think the Catholic Church was founded by Christ and bares His wisdom and teaching today! Please correct me on this point if i am wrong.

 

[estesbob]

Outside of Catholic views which are inherited from biblical views there is nothing against it. It is a natural phenomenon and would be if religion were not in play.

I guess if it wasnt for that pesky God everythng would be OK.

 

[estesbob]

Most people find homosexual behavior repulsive not out of prejudice, but because it is plainly disordered unnatural conduct that contradicts the basic functionality and purpose of sex.

Most people find homosexual beahvior repulsive because it is.

 

[patg]

First, Homosexuality is not totally natural, it is against nature. I my self, the one who posted this question, know that. It is against the very nature of the human person. You used the wording “wired” by God. There is no scientific proof one way or another to prove that homosexuals are either born with their cross or so choose to pick one up. If they were born with it, like I a heterosexual, are called to carry it with dignity and not indulge in their appetites of sexual urge.

Since the rules were made long before there was any concept of genetics or “wiring” one has to wonder if it’s time for a little updating. There are numerous instances of incorrect assumptions based on faulty understandings of biology.

Secondly, my goodness have you read the Bible in it’s entirety Christ came and broke the old covenant. Some things that were illegal (for lack of a better word) in the O.T. are now the same in the N.T. That is the case for Homosexuality, where Paul goes through his listing of the sins of man.

Oh yes I have read it and that is what convinced me the Church is way off base about this. Many things that were illegal (for lack of a better word) in the O.T. are now quite legal. It seems God can certainly change the rules at will. We ignore the absolute rules when the things seem “normal” - like eating scallops or wearing blended fabrics - but we more than happy to condemn others when they are wired differently (especially if sex is involved).

Again this isn’t for the sake of being mean to the poor man who can’t lay with his boyfriend, this is for the betterment of their soul!!!

Nonsense, it is all about control - many don’t like it (many times for good reasons, I’ll admit. I don’t like it but I accept that it is normal for some) and so it must be evil. Even if it is totally harmless to body and soul.

It is not natural for one man to have sex with another man!

I don’t think you (or anyone else) have any credibility or authority in defining what is natural between every pair of humans on the earth.

 

[patg]

Most people find homosexual beahvior repulsive because it is.

If that were a valid reason for condemning something, I’m pretty sure every human activity could be labeled sinful by someone.

For example, I find organ music totally repulsive but I don’t think those who participate in it are condemned sinners. I accept that they may like it, that it is probably harmless (though there is no scientific proof), and I wish it were outlawed.