Philosophical outlook on Homosexuality

[rlg94086]

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.

There is not solid evidence as to the cause of homosexuality, and for the Church the cause is irrellevant. However, if you do believe that it is a biological cause, then you would have to agree that it could be considered a defect and a cure/prevention could be determined.

patg:

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).

You might want to give the New Testament a read…
1Tim 8-11:

8 4 We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, 9 with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, 10 the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, 5 kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

Romans 1:24-27:

Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts 15 for the mutual degradation of their bodies. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

1Cor 6:9-10:

9 2 3 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

patg:

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.
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.

The Church has no authority?

 

[estesbob]

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.

What a useless analogy.

 

[goofyjim]

What a useless analogy.

Well if oral stuff and anal stuff between two men is repulsive and therefore sinful why is it not repulsive and therefore sinful between married couples?

 

[Jennifer123]

Well if oral stuff and anal stuff between two men is repulsive and therefore sinful why is it not repulsive and therefore sinful between married couples?

It is not sinful between married couples if it isn’t used in place of frustrating and avoiding the procreative and unitive act of intercourse.
Sex is created by God to impart His grace to families, not as hedonistic pleasure for the individual.

 

[goofyjim]

It is not sinful between married couples if it isn’t used in place of frustrating and avoiding the procreative and unitive act of intercourse.
Sex is created by God to impart His grace to families, not as hedonistic pleasure for the individual.

Just sounds like the same old mantra of permitting otherwise homosexual acts between heterosexual people.

 

[cpayne]

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.

Huh?

If a moral law is not perceivable or at least derivable from natural reason, it isn’t natural law.

And first principles of natural laws are only “intuitive” in the same sense that first principles of theoretic knowledge (for example, A = A) are intuitive.

You also commented that “billions” of people disagree that homosexual behavior is intrinstically disordered. Your source for this number? (Considering there are only six billion people in the world?)

 

[cpayne]

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.

You might check out Homosexuality and the Natural Law, by Harry Jaffa, or Ask Me Anything, by J. Budziszewski.

 

[estesbob]

Just sounds like the same old mantra of permitting otherwise homosexual acts between heterosexual people.

How can heterosexuals enage in homosexual activities? Since homosexual means sex with a member of the same sex it is an impossibilty.

 

[goofyjim]

How can heterosexuals enage in homosexual activities? Since homosexual means sex with a member of the same sex it is an impossibilty.

You have said so many times that the anus is not a sexual organ. If one agrees to that, then it would be so for a heterosexual couple as well. So is it the act that is repulsive or two men doing it that is repulsive?

 

[Bennie_P]

Just sounds like the same old mantra of permitting otherwise homosexual acts between heterosexual people.

This is an area were you and I agree on Jim. I wouldn’t call them homosexual acts but they are acts of sodomy, especially in the case of anal “sex”. For that type of sexual activity, even between faithful and chaste married couples carry health risk.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is straying from discussing the philosophical outlook on the topic to subjects best discussed in Apologetics. Please keep to the topic as described by the OP or I will have to move the thread or close the thread. Thank you all.

 

[ERose]

On religious ground the primary reason for the Church condemning homosexuality is its view of marriage. The primary function of marriage is to allow for the procreation of children in a loving environment.

Remember that ANY sex outside of marriage is classified as mortal sin.

Since same sex couples cannot naturally have children they do not fit into a marriable couple criteria.

Any homosexual act is a mortal sin, also any sexual act outside of the sacrament of marriage is a mortal sin as well.

That will not change nor should it.

That being said we should Love the sinner even though we hate the sin. We should treat all people with respect and pray for their conversion.

 

[estesbob]

You have said so many times that the anus is not a sexual organ. If one agrees to that, then it would be so for a heterosexual couple as well. So is it the act that is repulsive or two men doing it that is repulsive?

I’ve never said that. My understanding of church teaching is that if anal sex is part of foreplay it would be acceptable if both the husband and wife were comfortable with it. However since the rule is you have to climax in your wife’s vagina I doubt if many Catholics would try this. I think you’ll find that anal sex is something very few heterosexuals participate in and those who do usually only do it once.

 

[Sideline]

While we’re on the subject, my friend is a fencing instructor, and I’m more or less a couch potato. He’s challenged me to a duel, and I was wondering if there were any moves people her could teach me that would allow me to win.

What do you mean “no”?

If your friend is anything like me he will shred apart, not only your arguments, but their philosophical underpinnings as well. (It sounds like your friend is a lot like me. In fact, do I know you?)
If he doesn’t believe that homosexuality is wrong, then he probably doesn’t believe in any system of ethics that would prove homosexuality is wrong.

Even if you manage to marshal an argument that throws him, he will instead search for a refutation rather than concede defeat. I know for myself that there is nothing at all that you would be able to say that would make me think, “You know, he’s right; homosexuality ***is ***evil.”

You would be way better off asking yourself what your goals are. What do you hope to accomplish, and what way can you bring that about that play to your strengths instead of his?

If you absolutely ***must ***argue with him, find out exactly what his arguments are, and find out the best arguments against them. In philosophy, counter arguments always have it easier. You won’t change his mind, but you might get him upset and agitated. If that is what you are going for, then you will “win”.

 

[CatholicYM]

Ok, as a youth minister and practicing Roman Catholic I have to say, guys and gals we need to be a bit more Christian in wording our responses. Truth without Love is a hammer and will only slam people down.

Anyway, whether someone with homosexual desires is affected biologically or through childhood experiences is up for grabs. If they choose to act on those desires that is sinful. However, living with that and struggling with that is not sinful. We all have temptations, but acting on them is what is sinful.

Homosexual acts inside of marriage are not morally acceptable either. The martial act must end with procreation being a possibility if God so wills it and “anal” sex is NEVER acceptable even in marriages between heterosexuals. Check out Christopher West’s “The Good News About Sex and Marriage”. For some serious info on this you really need to read “Theology of the Body” by our former pope, John Paul II. Some serious philosophy there.

Love, human love is always supposed to reflect God’s love. God is faithful. God is fruitful. He says in scripture to “Go out and be fruitful.” Homosexual sex is not the same as love. Love is about sacrifice. We all have to make sacrifices and again in scripture it says “there are Eunics, then there are Eunics for the sake of the Kingdom.” Its not about repressing sexuality or abusing those who are biologically or otherwise different. Its about asking God’s will to be done in all things and offering that difficulty up as a sacrifice for God. It is a struggle. NFP can be a struggle, but for the sake of doing God’s will and truly loving eachother, you do what is right.

Also, please look into your diocese having a group called “Courage” its the only recognized organization from the Magisterium that exists for those with homosexual tendencies. They get together and pray and help each other to live a chaste lifestyle. It is an international organization. My prayers are with you and please know that our Church does not condemn homesexuals, we condemn the activity of homosexuality. I dont’ know that I got very philosophical here and my grammer and spelling has issues, but I hope this helps a little.
God Bless You and your desire to search for the truth!

 

[goofyjim]

This is an area were you and I agree on Jim. I wouldn’t call them homosexual acts but they are acts of sodomy, especially in the case of anal “sex”. For that type of sexual activity, even between faithful and chaste married couples carry health risk.

Whew, it sure took a while.

 

[AgnosTheist]

^ Since annal sex was mentioned, may I ask: Are blowjobs acceptable in Catholicism?

 

[iamrefreshed]

^ Since annal sex was mentioned, may I ask: Are blowjobs acceptable in Catholicism?

I think you are way off topic sir. Why don’t you start a new thread with that title? See how the Mods like it.

Your postings on CAF really do give me cause to grieve for humanity.

 

[AgnosTheist]

On religious ground the primary reason for the Church condemning homosexuality is its view of marriage. The primary function of marriage is to allow for the procreation of children in a loving environment.

Remember that ANY sex outside of marriage is classified as mortal sin.

Since same sex couples cannot naturally have children they do not fit into a marriable couple criteria.

How does the Catholic Church define “Sex”?

 

[estesbob]

How does the Catholic Church define “Sex”?

Catholic Church defines sex as the unitive and creative act between a married man and woman How you define it?