Question Regarding Homosexuality

[Exalt]

Only acts in which, “two become one” are considered unitive.

You obviously mean “the two must become one” in a figurative way. In a more literal way, you mean the two “share an intimate and loving experience in which they express thier feelings of connection in a physical way.” I just needed to put the metaphor of unity into a literal expression here.

I find that the saddest part of the debate on homosexual actions and contracepted sex is our infertile brothers and sisters get dragged into the fray. Our infertile loved ones are dragged in and compared to sterile sex. Both agendas say, “well a post-menopausal couple can’t make babies either, but they are still allowed to have sex.”

They are “pulled into the fray” because it is a relevant question. I might point out that I havn’t used this problem yet, but you do good to suggest it.

The proof against homosexual actions (and contracepted sex) is in the fruit. Or in this case the lack thereof.

“The fruit” meaning the result.

Good! So at least you’ve established how one determines if a given body part can be used in a certain way or not - it’s the end result, or, as you have put it, the fruit. So, is the “end result” of homosexuality negative? Is homosexuality harmful? That is what you must prove. I’ll state it again, just in case you missed it: You must prove that homosexual sex is harmful to prove that homosexual sex uses the body parts in a “contrary” or “thwarting” way. Showing association is not enough. You have to show causation. Furthermore, proving that anal sex can be risky is not good enough. You have to to prove that mutual masturbation, oral sex, and all other types of sexual expression as harmful too. After all, not every male homosexual couple has anal sex - and niether do female homosexual couples.

You have *not *proven that homosexual acts are harmful, therefore, you have not proven that the homosexual organs are being used in a negative way.

They may stimulate the reproductive organs but used alone are then contrary to the function of reproduction.

As I stated in the earlier post, you say “contrary” and I say “different.” I agree that homosexual sexual activities are not open to the possibility of chidren. That much is obvious. You have to prove that homosexual acts are indeed a negative use of those organs. How do you know that it is a negative use of those organs? By what you said earlier - the end result. You have to prove that homosexuality is harmful.

Only acts that can reproduce, even if they don’t each time, are considered procreative.

Procreative means “resulting in procreation.” So even if a new life doesn’t result, the acts are considered to have resulted in procreation? That doesn’t make sense.

All sexual acts must be BOTH procreative and unitive.

This is the basis of your reasoning. Prove it.

 

[LittleDeb]

Sorry Exalt, but I do mean “two become one.” Since you think that it is merely a metaphor our discussions on that would be ‘fruitless.’ (If you get the pun, you get might want to ponder it.) That simple phrase is so incredibly multi-layered that your dismissal of it is very short-sighted.

Another one you are struggling with is the definition of procreation. It is not a synonym for reproduction. It means exactly what it says it means. Pro-creation. Same sex acts aren’t procreative, for the main reason, that they cannot be reproductive. Not just might not be reproductive–they cannot be reproductive. This is where same sex actions and contracepted sex diverge. Contracepted sex can become procreative by removing the contraception.

I am not here to prove homosexual acts are or are not harmful. That they are or are not does not change the purpose of the organs.

The reproductive organs are for procreation and unity. You say ‘prove it.’ That’s a red herring. You and I and everyone reading this knows that to be true. If it weren’t true you wouldn’t be arguing FOR same sex activities. You seek unity in sexual actions.

Procreation is impossible in same sex actions. Basic biology tells us that. Unity is also impossible in same sex actions. ‘Two become one’ tells us that. How sad it must be to think that God was so one-dimensional when He said that. Unity is only an emotional bond? God is not that short-sighted.

 

[Exalt]

Sorry Exalt, but I do mean “two become one.” Since you think that it is merely a metaphor our discussions on that would be ‘fruitless.’ (If you get the pun, you get might want to ponder it.) That simple phrase is so incredibly multi-layered that your dismissal of it is very short-sighted.
… [Post truncated for space]
I am not here to prove homosexual acts are or are not harmful. That they are or are not does not change the purpose of the organs.

The reproductive organs are for procreation and unity. You say ‘prove it.’ That’s a red herring. You and I and everyone reading this knows that to be true. If it weren’t true you wouldn’t be arguing FOR same sex activities. You seek unity in sexual actions.

Procreation is impossible in same sex actions. Basic biology tells us that. Unity is also impossible in same sex actions. ‘Two become one’ tells us that. How sad it must be to think that God was so one-dimensional when He said that. Unity is only an emotional bond? God is not that short-sighted.

Little Deb, your thoughts are incoherant.

I’ll address them one by one. First of all, “two become one” **must **be a metaphor. Are you seriously suggesting that it’s literal? Personally, I’ve never heard of two people getting married, having sex, and only one person coming out of the bedroom (unless there was a terrible accident or murder). Are you perhaps unaware of the meaning of metaphor? Maybe you never look a literature or english class in high school?

Metaphor:

1. 
   *]A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles” or “All the world’s a stage” (Shakespeare).
   *]One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol: “Hollywood has always been an irresistible, prefabricated metaphor for the crass, the materialistic, the shallow, and the craven” (Neal Gabler).
   But maybe I’m wrong. **Explain, then, *exactly *what you mean by “two become one,” where you get this notion from, and exactly why it is needed for sex to be okay.
   
   Second: You say that homosexual acts do not follow through with the purpose of the organs. Now, you forgot the connection between that statement and morality. As I’ve stated before, just because a given use of an organ isn’t part of it’s original purpose doesn’t neccessarily make it wrong, as I’ve demonstrated with kissing and glasses, both of which use bodily organs for uses other than their intended purpose. You **must **bring in other evidence. How do you know if a given use for a body part is wrong? YOU LOOK AT THE END RESULT! Hence why you need to prove that homosexuality is harmful, which you **can’t **do.
   
   Do you not see this point? Am I not making it clear enough? Maybe if I write it sequentially, you’ll understand.
   1. You’re saying that homosexual acts are using body parts for a purpose contrary from thier original design - and that it’s wrong because of it.
   2. The greater ethical principle there is: using body parts for purposes other than thier original design is wrong. (“Contrary” is a value judgement placed later in the sequence, as I have stated in my previous post.)
   3. However, we recognize that for some body parts we have found new and acceptable uses. Example: the human nose and it’s ability to hold up objects (like glasses).
   4. We also correctly recognize that there are some uses for one’s body parts that are not acceptable, such as trying to eat a metal spoon.
   5. How do we tell the difference, then, between an acceptable use of a body part and an unacceptable use of a body part?
   6. You look at the END RESULT. Wearing glasses, which is a different use of the human nose, is acceptable because it is a *good *thing to improve ones vision or make one look more stylish. Or even if it’s a bad pair of glasses that don’t look well, it’s morally nuetral. Eating a spoon, which is an innovative use of the mouth, swallowing function, and digestive function is wrong because you’ll choke or die from posioning. It’s a *bad *thing to die, so it’s a *bad *idea to eat a spoon.
   Some actions can, indeed, be an inappropriate use of one’s bodily fuctions. But how do we know that it’s an inappropriate use of one’s bodily fuction? ***BECAUSE IT WILL BRING YOU HARM. HARM WILL RESULT. ***
   
   Do you not see how you’re completely ignoring the real issue? If you cannot prove homosexual acts are inherantly harmful, you cannot prove that the use of those body parts in a homosexual way is wrong.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Little Deb, your thoughts are incoherant.

I’m not following your thinking on that. I find her thoughts quite coherent.

I’ll address them one by one. First of all, “two become one” must be a metaphor. Are you seriously suggesting that it’s literal? Personally, I’ve never heard of two people getting married, having sex, and only one person coming out of the bedroom (unless there was a terrible accident or murder). Are you perhaps unaware of the meaning of metaphor? Maybe you never look a literature or english class in high school?

That’s bordering on rude, however, one can not tell these kinds of things on forums.

1. However, we recognize that for some body parts we have found new and acceptable uses. Example: the human nose and it’s ability to hold up objects (like glasses).

Your argument doesn’t make sense. Homosexuals haven’t “found new and acceptable uses” of their sex organs. They are using them for sex, just like heterosexuals. However, the end result is not the intended biological function of sex, which is definitely procreation. So what you have is a corruption of the original intent. What you have to ask is that okay? You might cite other uses for sex, for example, sex seems to help a couple bond. Does it do this for homosexuals? Maybe, maybe not. However, you have to look at the intent of that bonding. From an evolutionary point of view, the bonding that occurs is most beneficial to the offspring of the bonded couple. The offspring benefits from two parents, a nurturing mother and a protective father. This increases the likelihood that the offspring will grow to adulthood and then reproduce themselves, thus continuing the process of reproduction. So, anyway you look at it, sex is intended for procreation/reproduction. The fringe benefits from it also seem geared to maximize the likelihood of successful long-term survival of the end result of reproduction. Your nose example is totally different. In this case, the nose still performs its original purpose, while a new use for the nose has been discovered. Like you said, a new use can be good or bad. However, homosexual sex is not a new use; it is just a corruption of the original use and it does not provide the original end result.

 

[LittleDeb]

I’m not following your thinking on that. I find her thoughts quite coherent.

Thanks, CITW!

 

[fix]

My position: *Because the expression of homosexuality in sexual way is **not ***harmful, and indeed can be the expression of love, joy, and intimacy, one must therefore conclude that it is acceptable to use those body parts in the context of such a situation.

Catholics understand the procreative aspect of sexuality is a personal good, not an instrumental good. It cannot be intentionally set aside. We are body and soul. It seems from what I am reading you are a physicalist and simply see the biological aspect of humans an an ends to be manipulated as you desire?

Also, any emotional pleasure one “feels” through any act may not be good. It is the antecedent action that defines whether such pleasure is good or evil.

You must prove that homosexual sex is harmful to prove that homosexual sex uses the body parts in a “contrary” or “thwarting” way. Showing association is *not *enough. You have to show causation.

There is plenty of medical evidence such acts are pathological, more importantly such acts are morally wrong.

 

[setter]

Then, it seems that Natural Law is the same as the Divine Law, which Catholicism says is in “the heart of man.” In other words, every man, deep down, knows right or wrong. It seems to be something like the typical understanding of conscience.

The Maker has given us the ability as rational beings to know what is consonant with our human nature made in the image and likeness of God (our Maker) as the only enfleshed spiritual beings in His order of creation.

So: how do we know, then, that homosexuality is objectively immoral?

Again: It violates the natural moral law of the Creator who made us creatures.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

1: I think you’ll note that it’s not** just** the APA that found tha homosexuality was not psychiatric disorder. What about the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers?

But not evolutionary biologists, like myself, virtually all of whom reject the idea of equivalence between procreative and displaced sexual actions. Whether homosexual acts should be regarded as morally licit or not is, of course, a question that evolutionary biology cannot answer.
Medcial doctors are just high class plumbers, and their opinions on philosophical issues next to worthless.

1. Find, then, reasons that homosexuality *should *be in the DSM. As I’ve demonstrated in this thread, while there is some association between homosexuality in certain genders and certain types of psychiatric disorders, the association rates are very small (that is, the percentage of differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals on these disorders is small - usually under 5%. For example, Of those 74 “Same Sex Partner” men, %15 of them reported some anxiety disorder of some kind. Of the 2310 men in the “Opposite-Sex Partners Only” group, %11.6 of men reported some sort of anxiety disorder. That’s a difference of only 3.4%.). Furthermore, these studies suggest a number of causes for this association, but *none of them **ever ***suggest that it simply *because *they are homosexual. Ever. Because there is **no convincing reason Homosexuality *should ***be in the DSM, there is no reason for it to be there.

Homosexuals have a 15% rate and heterosexuals an 11.6% rate, so I make that a difference of about 30%.
However most studies show that homosexuals who accept the passive role in intercourse are almost always the ones presenting themselves with psychiatric symptoms. If the sample was evenly balances, that you mean about 30% of the passive subset had psychiatric problems, or about three times the rate in the general population. That is accepting your figures.

1. Accusations of the APA being too politically involved seem silly considering the religious context that Joseph Nicolosi comes from.

That’s a logical fallacy. I claim the data shows X - let’s say a flying saucer. I admit I was drunk when I took the photo. That means that my testimony is dubious. My friend who was with me says it was a helicopter. However he was also drunk, so his testimony is dubious. That doesn’t mean that my testimony suddenly becomes valid.

 

[setter]

Setter:

Two things.

#1: We are having a *discussion. *That means, we’re speaking *in context *of previous points mentioned. You’re looking at conclusions of mine that follow from evidence that has not been tackled by you earlier in this thread. If you’d like me to continue repeating un-dealt-with objections of mine, I’d be glad to.

Regardless, the conclusion is the same, and your conclusion does not hold water against natural moral law, as properly understood and applied.

#2: Stop calling me a relativist. You said, “Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth.” There does indeed exist a universal standard for morality. See my thoughts on this above.

I will let you decide then what you are (please let us know):

Relativism. In ethics, there are two main type of relativism. *Descriptive ethical relativism *simply claims as a matter of fact that different people have different moral beliefs, but it takes no stand on whether those beliefs are valid or not. *Normative ethical relativism *claims that each culture’s (or group’s) beliefs are right within that culture, and that it is impossible to validly judge another culture’s values from the outside.

Pluralism. The belief that there are multiple perspectives on an issue, each of which contains part of the truth but none of which contain the whole truth. In ethics, moral pluralism is the belief that different moral theories each capture part of truth of the moral life, but none of those theories has the entire answer.

Subjectivism. An extreme version of relativism, which maintains that each person’s beliefs are relative to that person alone and cannot be judged from the outside by any other person.

Utilitarianism. A moral theory that says that what is moral right is whatever produces the greatest overall amount of pleasure (hedonistic utilitarianism) or happiness (eudaimonistic utilitarianism). Some utilitarians (act utilitarians) claim that we should weigh the consequences of each individual action, while others (rule utilitarians) maintain that we should look at the consequences of adopting particular rules of conduct.

**Ethical Egoism. **A moral theory that, in its most common version (universal ethical egoism) states that each person ought to act in his or her own Self-interest.

Absolutism. The belief that there is one and only one truth; those who espouse absolutism usually also believe that they know what this absolute truth is. In ethics, absolutism is usually contrasted to relativism.

Agnosticism. The conviction that one simply does not know whether God exists or not; it is often accompanied with a further conviction that one need not care whether God exists or not.

ethics.acusd.edu/Glossary.html

Wrong.

While this is a more philosophical question, I absolutely believe that we, as both a human society and as a human induvidual, are absolutely obligated to improve ourselves. If a given facet of our “human nature” is negative, we absolutely ought to change it. For instance, our history, literature, and culture suggests that human nature is decietful. We ought to change that.

Human nature is not deceitful (it is made in the image and likeness of God), but the effects of original sin (fall from sanctifying grace), have lent the human nature toward sinfulness (“deceitfulness” in your example).

Furthermore, if some moral taboo that was once held by a great number of people is found to be incorrect, we ought to change it.

This certainly sounds like some sort of “…ism” belief system …please review the above list that I presented and check off the appropriate one.

I never said we transcend God.

But we can transcend our old selves. We invent. We create new and better things. We change our world. I never said we transcend God.

Please reread my post: I was referring to maker in the lower case human maker, not the upper case the Maker.

 

[Exalt]

Your argument doesn’t make sense. Homosexuals haven’t “found new and acceptable uses” of their sex organs. They are using them for sex, just like heterosexuals.

Your first objection: Homosexuals havn’t discovered a “new” use for thier sex organs. It’s just a different version of the previous use. Meh, it seems like semantics to me. It’s a “different” use, let’s say.

However, the end result is not the intended biological function of sex, which is definitely procreation. So what you have is a corruption of the original intent.

“Corruption.” I point out the value judgement there, which you leave unjustified. Why didn’t you say “So what you have is a change from the original intent?”

What you have to ask is that okay?

Good, you people are starting to look at the wider ethical implications of your morality.

You might cite other uses for sex, for example, sex seems to help a couple bond. Does it do this for homosexuals?

For many people, it does indeed.

Maybe, maybe not. However, you have to look at the intent of that bonding. From an evolutionary point of view, the bonding that occurs is most beneficial to the offspring of the bonded couple.

That’s only if children are produced. But, if a child is produced, then I agree that the child would be the most beneficial outcome - as existence is more preferable to non-existence.

The offspring benefits from two parents, a nurturing mother and a protective father. This increases the likelihood that the offspring will grow to adulthood and then reproduce themselves, thus continuing the process of reproduction.

Is there evidence to assume that children produced from a situation other than the one you mentioned are any less likely to reproduce? Your thoughts hinge on this idea; it’s a very important question that I feel needs to be given some sort of attention.

So, anyway you look at it, sex is intended for procreation/reproduction. The fringe benefits from it also seem geared to maximize the likelihood of successful long-term survival of the end result of reproduction.

Interesting hypothesis.

But how do you deal with my nose example? Ah, here it is:

Your nose example is totally different. In this case, the nose still performs its original purpose, while a new use for the nose has been discovered. Like you said, a new use can be good or bad. However, homosexual sex is not a new use; it is just a corruption of the original use and it does not provide the original end result.

Lets break this down:

“In this case, the nose still performs its original purpose.” One very important difference between the nose example and homosexual sex is that, for the nose, one should be able to breathe and smell through it all the time. While it isn’t neccessarily for survival, it is certainly a good thing. Wearing glasses doesn’t hinder breathing or smelling. For the sex organs, however, procreation isn’t needed for one’s survival or well-being. One can be perfectly happy without producing children. While I’ve never heard of anyone not wanting to have the ability to smell, I have heard of people not wanting to have children of their own. (And if you start telling me how, as a society, we need to procreate to survive - I remind you that a tiny percentage of the population is predominatly homosexual.)

“Like you said, a new use can be good or bad. However, homosexual sex is not a new use; it is just a corruption of the original use and it does not provide the original end result.”

Once again, the value judgment. “Corruption” of the original use of sex.

This is the summary of your argument:

1. The original use of sex is supposed to be procreation. (Including the bonding that takes place between mother and father.)
2. In the case of homosexuals, it’s something else because procreation is impossible in homosexual sex.
3. Therefore, homosexual sex has corrupted the original use.

“Corruption” is a value judgement, but it’s the first time I’ve heard the word used in this forums! Grats! We’ve had “contrary,” “deviant,” and “thwart” so far, but not “corrupt” yet.

Just like everyone else, you have to justify your negative value judgement placed on the different use of homosexual sex as opposed to heterosexual sex.

How do you justify it?

By telling me how it’s harmful.

Good luck!

 

[Exalt]

Catholics understand the procreative aspect of sexuality is a personal good, not an instrumental good. It cannot be intentionally set aside. We are body and soul. It seems from what I am reading you are a physicalist and simply see the biological aspect of humans an an ends to be manipulated as you desire?

Also, any emotional pleasure one “feels” through any act may not be good. It is the antecedent action that defines whether such pleasure is good or evil.

You’re gonna have to define exactly what you mean by “antecedent action.”

There is plenty of medical evidence such acts are pathological

Prove. It.

 

[Exalt]

However most studies show that homosexuals who accept the passive role in intercourse are almost always the ones presenting themselves with psychiatric symptoms.

Why do you people keep making up statistics? Give me the evidence. Folks, it can’t be *that *hard if it’s so obvious to everyone but me to find where you’re getting this stuff from. Where are the studies to support this statment?

 

[fix]

You’re gonna have to define exactly what you mean by “antecedent action.”

Taking pleasure is not good or bad. The action that comes before that causes the pleasure is the issue. If one takes pleasure from art that is good. If one takes pleasure from hurting puppies that is bad.

**

Prove. It.

**
Gay bowel syndrome for one thing, but to be clear physical pathology alone is not needed to make the case homosexual acts are wrong.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Just like everyone else, you have to justify your negative value judgement placed on the different use of homosexual sex as opposed to heterosexual sex.

**Did I issue a negative value judgement? I think not, I simply stated that from a biological and evolutionary point of view, homosexual sex is a (yep, I’m gonna use the word!) corruption of the intent of the process. That does not mean much beyond what I said. In other words, my argument can be summed as following:

1. Sexual intercourse is intended for reproduction
2. Homosexual intercourse fails to do this
3. Therefore, it is a corruption of the original intent.

It is up to humans, who have freewill, to decide if that makes homosexual sex immoral. As a Catholic, I know where I stand. As a practicing homosexual, I know where you stand.**

How do you justify it?

You are bordering on putting words in my mouth.

By telling me how it’s harmful.

There you go, you put words in my mouth. I am arguing from a biological and evolutionary point of view that homosexual sex fails to perform the original intent of sexual activity. I have left the conclusions on what that means up to free-will humans. Could it be that you hate people who disagree with you and you like make their words out to be what they are not?

Good luck!

Thank you, I have done a fine job, if the only thing you can do is put words in my mouth, call Little Deb incoherent, etc.

Beyond the above, you haven’t really disputed anything I said.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

In fact, I am really failing to see any kind of value judgment in what I said. A value judgement is defined by Webster’s Online Dictionary as “An assessment that reveals more about the values of the person making the assessment than about the reality of what is assessed.” Wikipedia offers a more indepth view of the subject here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_judgement Given this, you can see that I have left the “value judgement” of the issue to the reader. I have not said, “therefore, homosexuality is wrong.” I have only said it fails to follow the original intent of the biological nature of sex. Whether that is good or bad, that is, the “value” of it, is up to each person to make. Let’s examine the word I used that you don’t seem to like, corruption. Corruption is defined in a number of ways. Notably, it can be used to mean a breakdown from an original state or purpose. No value judgement there and you know it.

 

[BrooklynBoy200]

Is it bad to be homosexual, or just to act upon that homosexuality?

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

I was wondering… what are your viewpoints on a Christian who struggles with homosexuality?

Is it any different than a Christian who struggles with addictions, pornography, etc.?

No. Of course he/she is also no different from the Christian that struggles with racism, a violent antisocial temperment, envy or pedophilia.

Your examples (addictions, porn) are interesting since many people feel that the addict is not responsible for the behavior.

Forgiveness is open to all.

 

[ReflectiveDove]

WOAH! Eyes pop out!

Anyhoo…

My question is thus… if we live any lifestyle outside holiness, are we really where we should be with God? (This is regarding all things sinful, not just SSA/Homosexuality, but drunkedness, adultery, fornication, lust, etc… the whole Kit-and-Kaboodle!)

For instance:

1 - We are children of God.
2 - We are overcomers through Christ.
3 - We are dead to sin through Christ.
4 - We are temples of the Holy Spirit.
5 - We are to walk in the light and not the dark.

Many more scriptural things determine the way we walk… even the Sacred Scriptures itself states that it is to be used for “reproof, correction, …”

How can we just merely conform ourselves to society and pick and choose when the Bible blatantly states that it is an abomination? (Harsh words having been there, but it’s not the Word of God unless it IS the Word of God!)

I’ve made up my mind, however, it is NOT God’s will for anyone to be or suffer with homosexual/SSA attractions! However it may be that some homosexual/SSA relationships are “true love” (in their eyes), we are allowing the Evil One to step in and take control… Are we, the Church and Body of Christ, going to stand up and take back what Satan is using for his glory and turn it to be used as a way of ministering and life-changing for the glory of God?

Sorry if this blows some fuses… but it’s time to stop being philosophical and being faithful.

Peace be with you,
~ Brian

 

[Neo_Canaan]

Those that fight with homos is outa da church!!

 

[ReflectiveDove]

Those that fight with homos is outa da church!!

HUH?!

Is very discombobulated (confused)!

Where’s your source of information?