Question on homesexuality

[Cowboy_Curtis]

I love it when people cite the behavior of animals to justify human behavior. Some animals eat their young. So then does that justify humans eating their young? There are places where my dog finds to place his nose whereby most of us should find repulsive.

It would be quite obvious that when looking at the human body one might notice that it was designed for a man to have intercourse with a woman. I am an electrician and we cannot take two male ends of a cord and plug them into themselves. The same principle applies here. God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. So, while one may be oriented towards homosexuality, through no fault of their own, it is still disordered. We are compassionate towards them as we would be to anyone who is afflicted and must carry their cross.

Thank you for your science lesson on the mating habits of the black swan but humans have rational reasoning and animal insticts do not apply…God bless you and I will pray for you since you mentioned the “if”…teachccd

O really? Since when are we so much better than animals? Animals don’t wage war or kill unless they have to. Animals aren’t homophobic, sexist or racist because god tells them to be.
Gays were born gay, you were raised homophobic and intolerant of people. Try thinking for yourself, it will do you some good.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

O really? Since when are we so much better than animals? Animals don’t wage war or kill unless they have to.

Actually, that’s not true. Animals can be very violent. Some animals will even kill rival’s children. I believe that certain pack animals will indeed wage war.

Animals aren’t homophobic or racist,

Neither are most of us

Gays were born gay,

Maybe, maybe not. If someone is born straight that doesn’t excuse any sins. Neither does being born gay.

you were raised homophobic

Most people here actually want to help gays.

and intolerant of people.

Your post is the one that has intolerance.

Try thinking for yourself, it will do you some good.

So this is tolerance?

Plus, what would be the alternative? leading an unhappy celibate life?

I was abstinent as a teenager. It wasn’t unhappy.

As said before, I never just it as a justification, I just wanted to point out that if, happening in nature, it can’t be unnatural.

That’s not entirely true. Natural can mean in the ordinary. Just because it’s in nature doesn’t mean it’s natural

Really? I think humans are still largely controlled by their instincts,

Humans can control the insticts.

 

[wapsi]

I would just like to know how Adam ‘left father and mother’ if he doesn’t have them (naw, just joking, it’s metaphoric, I know =D )

LOL, good catch!

But I would like to know whatever makes the pope think that men are actually drawn to monogamous relationships when a whole lot of persons out there cheat on the person they’re supposed to love. and I think some of them even are devote catholics. (just a personal guess, but, well…)

Ah, I am no expert but I think that has to do with our fallen nature. Humans are often attracted to things which are bad for our well-being. The distinction as to whether something is according to human nature (and desires) is what promotes our well-being, as opposed to what reduces our well-being. We are often attracted to things which are bad for us, but this attraction (in itself) doesn’t make it right.

 

[Crumpy]

Azzazelle,

You must have known something about Near Eastern religions to have just landed on your screen name, which refers, if I’m not far off, to a pagan goat-demon, and yours, I guess, the female version of that.

Anyway.

Why is anything wrong? Is there nothing right and wrong, for you? How do you know what is right and wrong? do you live by any laws? Do you break them all? That’s a risky, if not dangerous way to live – just try everything until something kills you or somebody else? or does killing somebody else not bother you?

Oh, these questions are not meant to be offensive, of course, they are simply meant to find out if there is any common ground between us, that gives us a basis to discuss your question.

Aside from the morality or immorality of homosexual relations, I believe that homosexuality is a disease, and I pray for a cure for it, every time I think about it, as I am now.

I think it’s a disease as much as autism, diabetes, herpes, etc. There are discoveries being made every day, in basic research and in drug therapy. Sometimes doctors find things that they are not even looking for. Maybe that’s how they’ll cure this one.

 

[teachccd]

O really? Since when are we so much better than animals? Animals don’t wage war or kill unless they have to. Animals aren’t homophobic, sexist or racist because god tells them to be.
Gays were born gay, you were raised homophobic and intolerant of people. Try thinking for yourself, it will do you some good.

I will. So then I will ignore your ridiculous post. There, I just thought for myself…teachccd

 

[CarlaOLS]

Cowboy NOONE is born gay - Same-sex attraction develops overtime as a learned response. A series of (a conspiracy) of factors combine to cause a deficit in natural homo-emotional needs duriing childhood and puberty. The body then misinterprets and misdirects the overwhelming desire to fill those needs. The trouble for the affected iindividual is they have absolutely no guage as to what is normal sexual desire for the opposite sex and they wrongly assume the strong attraction they have towards the same-sex is merely the flip-side or homosexual version of that same natural sex-drive. IT IS NOT. It is a psychological response as the body and brain try to repair damaged psyche and fill legiitimate needs.

Read ***You Don’t Have to Be Gay ***by Jeff Konrad. The book is easy to understand and don’t let the title throw you. Jeff’s messgae is merely one of hope to so many thousasnds of individuals who would rather be free from same-sex attractiion but have been erroneously taught that they were born that way and must “accept who they are.” You know we don’t tell kleptomaniacs to accept who they are, and yet their desiire to take things that do not belong to them feels entirely natural to them, a “part of them” or “who they are.” The same goes for a host of other psychological disorders.

IT IS MY FIRM BELIEF THAT NO ONE IS GAY and NOONE WHO SUFFERS SSA WAS BORN THAT WAY. Identifying the factors that combined to cause the ssa is the first best step to healing along with prayer of course. In fact one of the reasons it appears as if God has not “cured” these individuals when they pray to HIim is that He knows what they need and the disordered attraction is only a symptom of deeper emotional deficits that need to be addressed and healed.

Please everyone reading this thread pray for this group of souls who feel forced to identify themselves as gay. It is our prayers that are missing not their stubborness or blindness. THEY NEED US and by their conversion God is glorified.

Email the title “YES I Will Pray” to

**sorrowfulheart4ssa@yahoo.com **

to join others praying the St. Michael prayer daily for homosexuals. The group begun by parents of teens suffering ssa shares first names of specific individuals to pray for. It sends prayer reminders (no morer than once a month) and shares any news of healings and progress of the individuals on the list. It costs us nothing but 15 seconds of our day to pray to St. Michael the Archangel under the Sorrowful Heart of Mary for these souls. Please join us.

 

[Azazelle]

to wapsi

Sounds reasonable nod

but actually just another thought popped into my mind:

in your first post you said that the catholic church believes that men and women were created incomplete and to be complete they need each other.
Now would it be wrong to think that this is meant more on a erm…spiritual (sorry, lacking the proper vocab here, meh) dimension rater than on a material one.
Given that, that would mean that love completes us (I fully support that idea) but why would true love be meant only for a man/woman relationship? couldn’t you be able to find true, completing love with someone from the same gender? (since souls probably don’t have genders anyways, why would they?)

I know I’m probably stressing your patience here, but so far I found you a very smart and nice partner for good argumentation (sorry for the sucky English again… it’s my second language)

 

[Azazelle]

Azzazelle,

You must have known something about Near Eastern religions to have just landed on your screen name, which refers, if I’m not far off, to a pagan goat-demon, and yours, I guess, the female version of that.

yup. though scholars still argue whether it’s a real demon or just the personification of uncleanness. I picked it cause I know I’m far from perfect, hence ‘unclean’

Why is anything wrong? Is there nothing right and wrong, for you? How do you know what is right and wrong? do you live by any laws? Do you break them all? That’s a risky, if not dangerous way to live – just try everything until something kills you or somebody else? or does killing somebody else not bother you?

I do abide the laws in my country (Germany by the way. if my English fails in places, it’s 'cause it’s my second language. no make that third, I had Latin first.) But I cannot support moral laws discrimination a group of people because of their sexuality. Just doesn’t seem right to me if they are not harming anyone with it.

Aside from the morality or immorality of homosexual relations, I believe that homosexuality is a disease, and I pray for a cure for it, every time I think about it, as I am now.

I don’t think it’s a disease, it’s probably genetic but then so is hair color or skin tone. sides, even if it were (no, I’m not saying it is) I wonder if people would even want to be ‘healed’. Hell I have a gay friend and he prolly enjoys his life as it is. ( I might add that his family is devote catholic and not happy with it. But at least he is, which is enough for me)

 

[fix]

O really? Since when are we so much better than animals?

Since we are made in God’s image.

Animals don’t wage war or kill unless they have to. Animals aren’t homophobic, sexist or racist because god tells them to be.

Animals do all types of bad things.

Gays were born gay, you were raised homophobic and intolerant of people. Try thinking for yourself, it will do you some good.

Being born with any disordered inclination is not evidence such an inclination is the way it was intended from the start. “Thinking for oneself” includes the ability to reason things like moral relativism are evil.

 

[wapsi]

I know I’m probably stressing your patience here, but so far I found you a very smart and nice partner for good argumentation (sorry for the sucky English again… it’s my second language)

Your English is very good. I would never had thought it was not your primary language.

But I must have misled you somehow, as I am not smart. I am just an average Catholic trying to make sense of the world. And questions, such as you ask, help me to learn and understand more. So I am glad you are here and asking those questions.

in your first post you said that the catholic church believes that men and women were created incomplete and to be complete they need each other.
Now would it be wrong to think that this is meant more on a erm…spiritual (sorry, lacking the proper vocab here, meh) dimension rater than on a material one.
Given that, that would mean that love completes us (I fully support that idea) but why would true love be meant only for a man/woman relationship? couldn’t you be able to find true, completing love with someone from the same gender? (since souls probably don’t have genders anyways, why would they?)

You ask a very reasonable question. I think the issue centers on the Catholic Church’s teaching about the complementary nature of woman and man. We are incomplete without the other sex. If someone rejects that idea, then same-sex relationships seem acceptable.

 

[RobbyS]

As said before, I never just it as a justification, I just wanted to point out that if, happening in nature, it can’t be unnatural. Sides you can hardly compare homosexuality to cannibalism (I will not add the specific cases of tribes that do practice ‘funeral’ cannibalism and such which is motivated by love, not hunger)

Really? I think humans are still largely controlled by their instincts, which root in animal instincts. A whole lot of our DNA is left over from former stages of evolution, and our brain didn’t fall out of the sky either. we developed and those earlier steps are still visible in our behavior, we call them instincts. They helped us survive to even get this far.

If we say that homosexuality is unnatural we mean in violation of a natural law. Such as that the aim of the sexual drive is reproduction. As rational animals we are not limited to this, but our normal behavior always has reference to this end. Our sexual organs, indeed our whole bodies . are designed for reproduction. Our personal identities are to a considerable extent wrapped up in our maleness/femaleness. We don’t know why some males are attracted only to other males, of females only to other females. The attraction may be inborn (natural in that sense) or a result of our experiences. It may be analogous to the fact that we are not equally attracted to all members of the opposite sex.

 

[mark_a]

I was not trying to say that stealing is alright,

Most folks know stealing is wrong just as they know homosexuality is wrong.

I’m pointing out that apparently those individuals have the wish to reproduce, but also don’t want to leave the monogamous relationship with their partner.
it was meant to be a contra-argument against ‘homosexuality is unnatural because they don’t reproduce’

The wish to reproduce is natural, and there is a natural way to reproduce. I guess I’m not understanding the point you are trying to make.

 

[Azazelle]

But I must have misled you somehow, as I am not smart. I am just an average Catholic trying to make sense of the world. And questions, such as you ask, help me to learn and understand more. So I am glad you are here and asking those questions.

Actually, from some of the things I saw on here, being willing to actually think about such questions at all already seems to take more smartness than some people have. No offense meant to anyone but just pulling the ‘God said so’ line is not the art of good argumentation.

You ask a very reasonable question. I think the issue centers on the Catholic Church’s teaching about the complementary nature of woman and man. We are incomplete without the other sex. If someone rejects that idea, then same-sex relationships seem acceptable.

Thank you. I think we can call it done there, since from here on it’s just a matter how you define love, which everyone might do differently. I would call that, well maybe not consent, but a nice basis.
I’m gonna look out for you in the forums :hug1:

 

[Azazelle]

Most folks know stealing is wrong just as they know homosexuality is wrong.

I fail to see the relation between both things. and actually, I don’t think so. speaking as a European, most people over here don’t mind homosexuality but do mind stealing.

The wish to reproduce is natural, and there is a natural way to reproduce. I guess I’m not understanding the point you are trying to make.

I don’t know how I can word/ explain it any more understandably. shrugs sorry.

 

[OMeara]

If we say that homosexuality is unnatural we mean in violation of a natural law. Such as that the aim of the sexual drive is reproduction. As rational animals we are not limited to this, but our normal behavior always has reference to this end. Our sexual organs, indeed our whole bodies . are designed for reproduction.

Perhaps ONE “aim of the sexual drive is reproduction,” but it is not the only aim. And, while the teachers in the Church might say that reproduction is the primary purpose, even they agree that it is not the only purpose. It is the sexual desire that leads a person out of him/herself to another. It is that desire to be united with the beloved that brings about reproduction. But persons who are not able to reproduce are still allowed to be married in the Church and to enjoy the pleasures of sex. Moral sexual activity is not limited just to those married persons who are able to reproduce. So, then, one wonders just what IS the “primary” purpose of marriage OR the primary purpose of human sexuality. . . ?

If we want to limit sexual morality to the mechanics of the act, we may say that homosexual acts are a “violation of a natural law.” But sex is not simply a matter of mechanics, and therefore sex is allowed in the Church to heterosexual couples who are not able to have children. Does that mean that the Church always suspects that it’s possible that God will intervene in the sex life of, say, a woman who has had an hysterectomy and allow conception? I don’t think so. I think even the Church knows that sexual union is important for persons as their love leads to union, to intimacy, to expressing and receiving the love of another.

So, then, why may not homosexual persons enjoy sexual union with another of the same gender to achieve those same loving ends?

The moral teaching of the Church allows in marriage all sexual activities, as long as the mechanical parts end up in the approved way – that is, copulation. It’s interesting (to me, at least) that the male climax must occur in the vagina, but the female climax may occur morally without that physical aspect. Similarly male masturbation is said to be sinful because it wastes the male “seed;” yet, there is no such wasting of anything in female masturbation – unless one wishes to argue that sexual “pleasures” are only moral within the bond of marriage - and that means that the very natural “wet” dreams of a male are to be rejected and the pleasure ignored by a man enduring them. Yet, they are quite natural!

I think there is a lot in the area of sexual and psycho-sexual morality that needs to be discussed in the Church.

 

[cantheist]

Perhaps ONE “aim of the sexual drive is reproduction,” but it is not the only aim. And, while the teachers in the Church might say that reproduction is the primary purpose, even they agree that it is not the only purpose. It is the sexual desire that leads a person out of him/herself to another. It is that desire to be united with the beloved that brings about reproduction. But persons who are not able to reproduce are still allowed to be married in the Church and to enjoy the pleasures of sex. Moral sexual activity is not limited just to those married persons who are able to reproduce. So, then, one wonders just what IS the “primary” purpose of marriage OR the primary purpose of human sexuality. . . ?

If we want to limit sexual morality to the mechanics of the act, we may say that homosexual acts are a “violation of a natural law.” But sex is not simply a matter of mechanics, and therefore sex is allowed in the Church to heterosexual couples who are not able to have children. Does that mean that the Church always suspects that it’s possible that God will intervene in the sex life of, say, a woman who has had an hysterectomy and allow conception? I don’t think so. I think even the Church knows that sexual union is important for persons as their love leads to union, to intimacy, to expressing and receiving the love of another.

So, then, why may not homosexual persons enjoy sexual union with another of the same gender to achieve those same loving ends?

The moral teaching of the Church allows in marriage all sexual activities, as long as the mechanical parts end up in the approved way – that is, copulation. It’s interesting (to me, at least) that the male climax must occur in the vagina, but the female climax may occur morally without that physical aspect. Similarly male masturbation is said to be sinful because it wastes the male “seed;” yet, there is no such wasting of anything in female masturbation – unless one wishes to argue that sexual “pleasures” are only moral within the bond of marriage - and that means that the very natural “wet” dreams of a male are to be rejected and the pleasure ignored by a man enduring them. Yet, they are quite natural!

I think there is a lot in the area of sexual and psycho-sexual morality that needs to be discussed in the Church.

A++++++++++++

 

[Corki]

Perhaps ONE “aim of the sexual drive is reproduction,” but it is not the only aim. And, while the teachers in the Church might say that reproduction is the primary purpose, even they agree that it is not the only purpose. It is the sexual desire that leads a person out of him/herself to another. It is that desire to be united with the beloved that brings about reproduction. But persons who are not able to reproduce are still allowed to be married in the Church and to enjoy the pleasures of sex. Moral sexual activity is not limited just to those married persons who are able to reproduce. So, then, one wonders just what IS the “primary” purpose of marriage OR the primary purpose of human sexuality. . . ?

If we want to limit sexual morality to the mechanics of the act, we may say that homosexual acts are a “violation of a natural law.” But sex is not simply a matter of mechanics, and therefore sex is allowed in the Church to heterosexual couples who are not able to have children. Does that mean that the Church always suspects that it’s possible that God will intervene in the sex life of, say, a woman who has had an hysterectomy and allow conception? I don’t think so. I think even the Church knows that sexual union is important for persons as their love leads to union, to intimacy, to expressing and receiving the love of another.

So, then, why may not homosexual persons enjoy sexual union with another of the same gender to achieve those same loving ends?

The moral teaching of the Church allows in marriage all sexual activities, as long as the mechanical parts end up in the approved way – that is, copulation. It’s interesting (to me, at least) that the male climax must occur in the vagina, but the female climax may occur morally without that physical aspect. Similarly male masturbation is said to be sinful because it wastes the male “seed;” yet, there is no such wasting of anything in female masturbation – unless one wishes to argue that sexual “pleasures” are only moral within the bond of marriage - and that means that the very natural “wet” dreams of a male are to be rejected and the pleasure ignored by a man enduring them. Yet, they are quite natural!

I think there is a lot in the area of sexual and psycho-sexual morality that needs to be discussed in the Church.

Believe me these areas have been discussed in the Church to an unbelievably detailed extent.

If you want to argue against the Church’s position, please try to understand and state the Church’s position correctly.

But persons who are not able to reproduce are still allowed to be married in the Church and to enjoy the pleasures of sex. Moral sexual activity is not limited just to those married persons who are able to reproduce. So, then, one wonders just what IS the “primary” purpose of marriage OR the primary purpose of human sexuality. . . ?

The primary (as in first, not necessarily more important) purpose of sexual activity is procreation. Even when a couple is not physically able to have children, they “enjoy the pleasures of sex” in a way that is ordered to procreation. There isn’t a different kind of sex for those who are unable to procreate.

Does that mean that the Church always suspects that it’s possible that God will intervene in the sex life of, say, a woman who has had an hysterectomy and allow conception? I don’t think so. I think even the Church knows that sexual union is important for persons as their love leads to union, to intimacy, to expressing and receiving the love of another.

Of course she knows this. That’s why the Church teaches that the two aims of marital sex are procreative and unitive. You can’t have one without the other, even if one is unable to have children. Procreative does not equal fecundity. Procreative sex without the unitive aspect is just as disordered as unitive sex without the procreative aspect.

So, then, why may not homosexual persons enjoy sexual union with another of the same gender to achieve those same loving ends?

Because their sexual union might have loving motives but be neither procreative nor unitive. Procreative I described above. And unitive involves not only the emotional ties between spouses but also the complementariness that completes one to another. That unitive aspect is not present in a homosexual coupling.

It’s interesting (to me, at least) that the male climax must occur in the vagina, but the female climax may occur morally without that physical aspect. Similarly male masturbation is said to be sinful because it wastes the male “seed;” yet, there is no such wasting of anything in female masturbation – unless one wishes to argue that sexual “pleasures” are only moral within the bond of marriage - and that means that the very natural “wet” dreams of a male are to be rejected and the pleasure ignored by a man enduring them. Yet, they are quite natural!

You are correct about the mechanics but not about the reason. Neither female nor male masturbation up to climax is moral. And this has less to do with “spilling seed” than with not completing the act naturally. And many (but not all) moral theologians say that a womans climax can be brought about outside the act as long as it is part of a complete encounter.

Yes, deliberate sexual pleasures are only moral within marriage but that does not preclude involuntary instances such as erotic dreams, even “wet” ones.

 

[Holly3278]

alright, this is my first thread, please bear with me if I made some mistake in placing it in this section or make some structure mistake.

my question is, why the catholic church sees homosexuality as a sin.

I know that passages in the old testament are often evoked to solidify this, but this always made me wonder if people ever realize that the same parts of the old testament also tell you not to eat pork/ shrimps or not to wear clothing woven from two different threads. I would like to know you can pick just selected paragraphs and ignore the rest. is there some ‘guideline’ book for this? or do you just pick what suits you best?

another thing often mention is that homosexuality is supposed to be unnatural.

well, in that case I can say that no, it’s not. it’s nicely documented for several species of animals (for example black swans). I think black swans are especially interesting in that case because they still show the wish to reproduce, while being monogamous in same-sex relationships. We have recorded cases of black swans stealing eggs from ‘normal’ swan couple to breed and raise them themselves. the explanation of this would be that is homosexuality is genetic. now if it is genetic, it’s not a things one’s own choice and as such it also can’t be sin.

Now I would like to know how the catholic church argues against this.

on a side note, no, I’m not catholic, I’m halfway between agnostic and Buddhist.
you don’t need to pray for me about this, I’m quite happy the way I am. if it sends me to hell, well I’d have interesting question to nag the devil with, then.

Just because homosexuality is supposedly natural for some animals does not mean that it is natural for humans. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

 

[CarlaOLS]

Amen Holly - not to mention the very idea of homosexuality in animals is a myth.

*The homosexuality in animals myth refers to the current interest on whether homosexual behavior is or is not zoologically “natural.” This is largely a sterile debate because behavior is not necessarily moral even if “natural;” because the nature of human beings is not necessarily the same as the nature of other species, and because it is not at all clear when an observed behavior can be counted as “sexual,” or as implying a sexual “orientation.” Examples such as one male mounting another have been used as evidence in the argument that homosexuality is natural and therefore should be permitted in human beings. Gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected. [1]

“There is…documented proof of cannibalism and rape in the animal kingdom, but that doesn’t make it right for humans.”[2] While some animals (like the lion) eat their young, neither supporters or opponents of “gay rights” have used this as an argument in favor of infanticide or cannibalism.[3] Thus, a healthy dose of wariness needs to be employed in making scientific claims about homosexual animals justifying homosexual humans.

A 1996 article published by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, an organization committed to the treatment of homosexuality, musters the arguments against interpretation of animal behavior as sanctioning homosexuality.[4] It notes that “homosexual scientist Simon LeVay” stated that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

“ Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity. ”

Dr. Antonio Pardo CaballosIn addition, Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, wrote:

“** Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals**… For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[5] ”

[8] For example, every cattle farmer is familiar with the phenomenon of “bulling”, cows mounting other cows; in fact, this is one of the standard signs farmers look for when determining that a cow is coming into estrus. However, it does not follow that the cows involved are showing anything analogous to human lesbian orientation.[2]

Despite the hotly contested nature of homosexuality in animals, ideologically motivated zoo directors in liberal American cities and progressive European countries are placing their supposedly homosexual animals on parade and declaring it to be fact that the animals are gay and that homosexuality occurs naturally in nature. In addition to the famed “gay penguins” Roy and Silo at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan there has been a supposed homosexual animal photo and video gallery in the zoo in Oslo, Norway, featuring flamingoes and giraffes, among other allegedly gay animals.[9] *

The reaching and stretching of truth by politically motivated gays has reached yet another new low in their search for legitimacy.

 

[Azazelle]

Just because homosexuality is supposedly natural for some animals does not mean that it is natural for humans. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Great argument, now try to explain that to someone who gives the bible credit for being metaphoric. because if the only people God ever created were Adam and Eve I see some serious incest problems for the generations to come.