Reasoned Argument Against Homosexuality?

[ASimpleSinner]

true, and then the argument for this from the homosexual activists is that not only are there humans who cannot reprodice, but there are animals who are asexual in nature and the like.

These are exception to the rule, not the norms though.

The normative and complimentary function from the natural law shows that the opposite sexes of human beings are reproductive in nature and that this is the norm.

as I have stated before, if you take 1 million homosexual couple, place them on an osland for 100 years with everything they need to survive, what do you have a the end of that 100 years? nothing.

take only ten heterosexual couples chosen at random(some sterile etc…) and after only ten years on that same island there is a village being started and thriving. life!

homsexual acts=no life-no exceptions

heterosexual acts=life

I may have to lift your comments (with attribution) out of the forum and put them in a blog entry for the day that I am working on for our group blog… (blog.ancient-future.net)

The sterile non-genitive nature of the homogenital sex act is one that few are willing to think much about. I suppose and suspect that given the vast number (likely the majority) of heterosexuals in the west who have turned to sterile sex (contraceptive & non-genitve sex practices) the correlation isn’t clear to them any longer either.

Those who seek to make themselves barren and reject their fertility are left with little reasonable option but to not oppose (in fact support!) other people who are engaged in same. If it is just about “getting off” however’s clever, what reason can there be to oppose it?

It is funny, as a growing number of Americans become concerned about eating organic foods and going green, you would think more would consider having “organic all natural sex” and dumping their artificial hormones, latex & silicone lubes… Ironically, you never hear of environmentalists expressing concern over the vast amounts of hormones in urinary waste that goes back into the water system that in some parts of the world is turning the fish population into largely all-female (or intersexed) sterile fish. No one seems to be asking “Where have all the boy fish gone?”

As it stands right now, some nations like Russia where abortion is used a a primary means of birth control are actually shrinking. Every single year the Russian state grows smaller with the net loss of some 700,000 souls. That is like the city of San Francisco disappearing every year. After a decade it is like the population of LA, Chicago & Houston just disappeared. By 2050, estimates suggest there will easily be More Yemeni than Russians, and by 2030, as trends continue, Islam will have become the majority religion in Russia. Guess which cultures value fertility and children, guess which do not.

 

[blessedtoo]

I may have to lift your comments (with attribution) out of the forum and put them in a blog entry for the day that I am working on for our group blog… (blog.ancient-future.net)

The sterile non-genitive nature of the homogenital sex act is one that few are willing to think much about. I suppose and suspect that given the vast number (likely the majority) of heterosexuals in the west who have turned to sterile sex (contraceptive & non-genitve sex practices) the correlation isn’t clear to them any longer either.

Those who seek to make themselves barren and reject their fertility are left with little reasonable option but to not oppose (in fact support!) other people who are engaged in same. If it is just about “getting off” however’s clever, what reason can there be to oppose it?

It is funny, as a growing number of Americans become concerned about eating organic foods and going green, you would think more would consider having “organic all natural sex” and dumping their artificial hormones, latex & silicone lubes… Ironically, you never hear of environmentalists expressing concern over the vast amounts of hormones in urinary waste that goes back into the water system that in some parts of the world is turning the fish population into largely all-female (or intersexed) sterile fish. No one seems to be asking “Where have all the boy fish gone?”

As it stands right now, some nations like Russia where abortion is used a a primary means of birth control are actually shrinking. Every single year the Russian state grows smaller with the net loss of some 700,000 souls. That is like the city of San Francisco disappearing every year. After a decade it is like the population of LA, Chicago & Houston just disappeared. By 2050, estimates suggest there will easily be More Yemeni than Russians, and by 2030, as trends continue, Islam will have become the majority religion in Russia. Guess which cultures value fertility and children, guess which do not.

Excellent points all.

As a point of interest, the “organics” crowd has acutally expressed a great deal of interest in NFP. My daughter-in-law came to be interested in “organic” family planning through her desire to rid her body of all unnatural influences. However, this movement’s primary problem, IMO, is the glorification of heath and the body. It’s main objective is to deify the physical and all the emphasis is placed on perfection of the body. That is where it falls short. Without an understanding of God and His role in family planning, it is impossible to sustain a committment to NFP. Rather, one easily can fall back on barrier methods such as condoms since they are not introducing anything unnatural into the body.

 

[brycelaliberte]

I assume you are trying to convince someone because you feel you are homosexual?

You ask for reason, and don’t want any Bible quotes or quotes from anyone else. Are you Catholic? Do you believe in the Bible? Are you having your doubts about your faith?

Uhm sorry if I didn’t make this clear, I suppose my wording was a little vague. I’m looking for a reasoned argument, without using scripture, to use against my friends. Since they do not take as authoritative the word of the Bible or the Church.

As I said, the best I’ve been able to do so far is convince them, (for them, not me) that it is a neutral, moot point.

 

[justinthemartyr]

Excellent points all.

As a point of interest, the “organics” crowd has acutally expressed a great deal of interest in NFP. My daughter-in-law came to be interested in “organic” family planning through her desire to rid her body of all unnatural influences. However, this movement’s primary problem, IMO, is the glorification of heath and the body. It’s main objective is to deify the physical and all the emphasis is placed on perfection of the body. That is where it falls short. Without an understanding of God and His role in family planning, it is impossible to sustain a committment to NFP. Rather, one easily can fall back on barrier methods such as condoms since they are not introducing anything unnatural into the body.

This is the minority. The majority of green eating organic movement persons is made up of liberal pro abortion anti life people. one drive through the busy parking lot of the whole foods store nearest youu will make it evident by the anti life, anti conservative bumper stickers all over the place. My family is very consevative and very Catholic, and we are really the exception, and we do it mostly for our children. I think the secular progressives do it out of total; self interest and nothing more, as they do with most things in life. If it feels good, if it helps ME, then do it.

 

[Scottgun]

Work you way through the links here. Some are religious, others are not.

turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/6

 

[Metaron]

yeah, I think that rape is the worst sexual crime possible, aboce homosexuality, as there is no consent and it has a violence and a malice and disregard for feelings.

I have to agree, but I guess homosexual rape would be even worse than ordinary rape.

I would say, from most abominable to least abominable:

1. Paedophilia (by far the worst sexual sin ever to be committed)
2. Rape
3. Bestiality
4. Homosexual Adultery
5. Heterosexual Adultery
6. Homosexual Fornication
7. Heterosexual Fornication

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Excellent points all.

As a point of interest, the “organics” crowd has acutally expressed a great deal of interest in NFP. My daughter-in-law came to be interested in “organic” family planning through her desire to rid her body of all unnatural influences. However, this movement’s primary problem, IMO, is the glorification of heath and the body. It’s main objective is to deify the physical and all the emphasis is placed on perfection of the body. That is where it falls short. Without an understanding of God and His role in family planning, it is impossible to sustain a committment to NFP. Rather, one easily can fall back on barrier methods such as condoms since they are not introducing anything unnatural into the body.

Presupposing there are no latex allergies or spermicides used as lubricants on those condoms… in fact the barriers are just non-chemical foreign objects.

This is where I start to get accused of being a “fundamentalist” but NFP is only the first step. The trendy suburban couple who shuns artificial birth control (ABC) but then uses NFP to regulate and keep their family small for the sake of affording the new SUV and 3,000 sq ft house in the new-build section of the suburbs is really “not quite there yet”. NFP is a start, but openess to life - actually making some babies, is something that should be embraced better still.

A society that denigrates and scorns fertility and large families will in turn become a society that allows pro-genitive sex to be seen as an oddity. Something you might do every few years when you are spacing those two kids apart!

I know some (most!) people can’t afford to have 13 like my great-grandmother… but NFPing your way to 2 kids, a 3000sq foot home and a purebred dog isn’t quite hitting the mark either.

But what do I know, I am a happy celibate with 5 dogs!

I hope this isn’t perceived as topic-drift on this matter… It just is worth considering that pro-genitive marital sex is a foundation block for family life and generational continuity. Something homo-genital acts will never ever achieve. The move to self-create families throught art. sem & adoption is a side-stepping move that underscores what cannot be ignored - homogenital acts are (apologies for crudeness) at best really risky forms of mutual masturbation - partners become an end to your orgasm. And it stops there.

-Simple

 

[ateista]

People who are gay have become gay through one or more of environment, upbringing, choice.

Exactly!

Just like it is an undisputable scientific fact that if you hang out with predominantly tall people, your height will grow, too. (Especially between the ages of 0 to 14…) You are among tall people, and you will choose to become tall, too. There is no height-gene, either. It is all a matter of choice and the environment and your upbringing.

 

[Anonymous_38bd6e522241f447828936aad53f0c4c]

A portion of this text is edited from a response I gave to a similar question on this matter in another thread…

But if I had to say, in a single word, why homosexuality should be avoided, and if that is one’s primary orientation, celibacy should be adhered to it would be this: health.

Well before the dawn of HIV/AIDS, this sort of sexual expression has lent itself to a myriad of problematic health and wellness issues. I will look to see if I can’t find the study that discusses the average lifespan of an active homosexual. As I recall, it is around the age of 38, with a scant 2% of self-identified “gay men” who are homo-genitially sexually active living past age 65. There is mention of this study on the www.catholic.com (CAF’s parent website) in an article opposing gay marriage.

Hepatitis B, HPV (warts), HIV, and Syphallis are all hitting the community of men who have sex with men hard. Suicide, alcoholism and drug use is far more problematic there too. In my city - with numerous “gayborhoods” gay bars, and a couple of bathhouses - meth use is outrageous. 2200 new cases of HIV per year are reported (22,000 a decade!) and lately that is on the rise. (This is, I grant, significantly higher than in most cities that are not seeing this many new cases. This city is known for being the “San Francisco of the Midwest” with numerous distinctive neighborhoods.)

A considerable number of my co-workers at a night job I have are active in their homosexuality. Nice enough fellows some of them… but over the years I have watched them move from relationship to relationship, struggle with alcoholism (buried a 28 year old from liver failure this year) and drug addiction (a 27 year old OD’d on pain meds last year). A 38 year old I know who is two years HIV positive is already taking meds he can’t afford. A 21 year old co-worker I had who is attempting recovery from meth went to the free clinic to get tested for HIV and found out that not only was he positive, but he had a syphalis infection so bad he was running the risk of penis amputation.

The oft-propogated myth that everyone will be healthy if they wear condoms and have a chance to get married is really doing no one any favors. Many well intentioned people thinking themselves compassionate are only enabling this sad situation.

I am not inclined to spend days debating the merits of my anecdotal evidence - it is what it is: that which I have seen first hand and lived through. I am not prepared to debate for days the veracity of the studies cited in the Catholic Answers literature. No amount of debating will change the health situation. If any are inclined to believe I am wrong, that there are not health crises or that just wearing condoms keeps everyone in great shape mentally and physically, good luck with that.

I am not interested in going rounds on debating wether the rampant promiscuity and problems with drug and alcohol abuse are related to “homophobia” which seems to be the great scapegoat for these problems in a lot of debates. Living in a city with a huge gay population, after a decade of “Will & Grace”, “Brokeback Mountain”, “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy”, and noticing that pretty much every other television show has a gay character (even if minor) that 9 out of 10 times portrays them as very positive… Acceptance is at an all time high, but these supposed external influences that lead to so much unhealthiness declining, has not, by and large, made the gay community noticecably healthier.

I am also not prepared to debate for days (out of total lack of interest, this isn’t a sport for me) the possibility of healthy life-long (“ltr” - long term relationships) in the context of a same-sex, homogenital relationship. As one co-worker (now of blessed memory) shared with a group of us co-workers over a few pitchers of beer one night with no small hint of melancholy “Guys say or think they are looking for long term relationships, but if we are all saying we are looking for that, why aren’t we acheiving it! I just gave up on it and have fun now, what happens happens!”

If I saw health there, it might be a possibility for me to totally ignore the nature of the homogenital expression - an act I don’t need to be graphic about to underline the non-complimentary nature of such sex.

Although the health issue is a big problem for homosexuals, it is not a completely convincing argument. Not everyone who engages in homosexual activity gets sick.

Some people who eat shellfish get sick, but eating shellfish is not against the natural law.

 

[Scottgun]

Although the health issue is a big problem for homosexuals, it is not a completely convincing argument. Not everyone who engages in homosexual activity gets sick.

Some people who eat shellfish get sick, but eating shellfish is not against the natural law.

As a stand alone argument no it won’t carry the day, but as part of a cumulative argument certainly.

 

[Anonymous_38bd6e522241f447828936aad53f0c4c]

I suggest you read up on Thomas Aquinas.

Homosexual relations go against Natural Law. The natural function of sexual intercourse is reproduction. Since homosexual sex cannot in anyway be pro creative, its sole function is hedonistic which goes against the natural order.

Also, it is not hard to see what nature has intended when it comes to sexuality. It is quite clear that the natural parter for a human is not an animal but is another human. It is equally obvious that the natural partner for a man is not another man, but is a woman.

This is the argument at its most simple and basic state.

The idea that sexual relations have to be pro creative or open to pro creation has thus far not been proven. Pleasure may be the only reason for some sexual acts. Also, the idea that the natural partner for a man is a women is the whole point at issue; some think the natural partner for a man is a man. Simply stating your conclusion is not an argument.

 

[blessedtoo]

The idea that sexual relations have to be pro creative or open to pro creation has thus far not been proven. Pleasure may be the only reason for some sexual acts. Also, the idea that the natural partner for a man is a women is the whole point at issue; some think the natural partner for a man is a man. Simply stating your conclusion is not an argument.

Not exactly personal opinions here. Check out a level one anatomy book. As the previous poster suggested, a read through of Aquinas can inform you on natural law argument.

Sexual relations ARE procreative NATURALLY. UNNATURAL sexual relations are sterile. While it is certainly possible to engage in sexual behaviors that can not be procreative, it is stil UNNATURAL.

Reproductive systems are matched and complimentary. Attempting to use the digestive and intestinal systems as reproductive organs is UNNATURAL.

 

[Hastrman]

The purpose of sex is simultaneously procreative and unitive; lacking either it is not licit. Since only married couples can have unitive sex, only their sex is licit. Since homosexuals can neither marry nor procreate, their sex is not.

There is, however, a quesion, “what about childless hetero couples?”

Leaving contraception out (which makes the sex more illicit than sodomy, if anything, since it involves a conscious interference with nature), any sex that, were the organs fully healthy, could lead to procreation, would count as procreative. If, through no fault of their own, one or both members of a couple cannot have children, then it is still procreative, if their organs are of the procreative kind. To be unitive, of course, they would have to be married.

But the organs homosexuals use do not have reproductive capabilities; [edited by Moderator] can never bear a child.

 

[Hastrman]

Exactly!

Just like it is an undisputable scientific fact that if you hang out with predominantly tall people, your height will grow, too. (Especially between the ages of 0 to 14…) You are among tall people, and you will choose to become tall, too. There is no height-gene, either. It is all a matter of choice and the environment and your upbringing.

You and thistle are both making doctrinaire pronouncements in the absence of evidence. We don’t know if there is a gay gene. And even if there was, how much genetics is a factor would still be very much up in the air–just like with genes that influence any other behavior, like alcoholism or anxiety.

 

[puzzleannie]

I’m . If, and please grant me this argument, some humans are naturally homosexual, wouldn’t homosexuality be part of their nature and be part of their “good.” .

No humans are “naturally” homosexual. Homosexual inclination and activity are opposed to our nature which is why it is a disorder. Aquinas would tell us to look at human nature as God has designed it, and to interpret any sinful inclination as that which opposed that nature. Even being born with a disorder, whether it is homosexual inclination, Downs syndrome, or cleft palate, does not mean that disorder is “natural”. Neither does it mean that person or his parents have sinned, that person should be condemned or belittled or has less right to live. It means there is a disorder in nature which must be corrected by all possible means, and the person given all possible help to deal with any residual effects, and loved, accepted and cherished unconditionally.

 

[ateista]

You and thistle are both making doctrinaire pronouncements in the absence of evidence. We don’t know if there is a gay gene. And even if there was, how much genetics is a factor would still be very much up in the air–just like with genes that influence any other behavior, like alcoholism or anxiety.

Actually I was simply making fun of his remarks, to show how absurd they are. Far be it from me to pronounce dogmatic statements.

To the best of our knowledge (which is far from complete) there may very well be a disposition to a certain type of behavior, to the likes and dislikes for each individual. Some people are attracted to blonds, others are attracted to brunettes. The old nature vs. nurture debate, which you refer to, is probably something that cannot be objectvely decided, and in this case it is irrelevant anyhow.

[Edited by Moderator]

 

[graceandglory]

I disagree. While we have not discovered it yet there may well be a genetic predisposition to same sex attraction. I admit this would not excuse the behavior but to say everyone who is gay has become gay is like saying they gave it some thought beforehand. The majority did not.

While I disagree with the poster that they will ever “find” a “gay gene;” if they do it will probably be the same gene that causes one to be a sex addict or addicted to porn.

Just my :twocents:

 

[Beofuse]

Ateista:

I recomend you read Christopher West’s “Theology of the Body for Beginners”.

amazon.com/Theology-Body-Beginners-Christopher-West/dp/1932645349/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202135402&sr=8-1

God Bless
Gordie

 

[ateista]

I recomend you read Christopher West’s “Theology of the Body for Beginners”.

Thank you. If you would be so kind and give a brief summary, I would appreciate it.

Before that happens, I suspect that the book agrees with the most orthodox posters. I understand that for Catholics the ex-cathedra utterances of the Pope in the matters of morality are considered infallible. Please forgive me when I say that I differ.

As far as I am concerned there are no humans who are qualified ro discern the intents of God. Not even the Pope, nobody.

I will give you a very short line of reasoning why I disagree with the idea that sex is “intended” only for procreation, and any use of sex outside that realm is incorrect.

I will base this reason on two things:

1. A few indisputable facts of biology and
2. the assomption that God is rational.
3. It is a fact of biology that most animals are only able to perform sex during the time of the estrus. For them it is true that sex is only and solely aimed at procreation. This is not true, however, for humans and the higher apes. In these species the act of sex is not limited to the time of the estrus, it can be performed any time.
4. With the assumption that God is rational we have to conclude that this is not an accident. It is intentional that we can have sex pretty much whenever we want to.

Therefore there can be two conclutions:

1. God planted this very strong urge into us and wants to catch us with our “pants down” (pun intended) and wants to punish us for our “misbehaviour”, or
2. God gave us this pleasurable act to enjoy it.

I don’t care whatever anybody says, I will stick to facts and logic and minimal assuptions, and see where they lead us. And logic points to the second conclusion.

Obviously I do not believe in God. But if I would believe in God, I would believe in rational and decent deity, who does not put down “traps” for us just to have a lame excuse to punish us. If a rational deity wanted to restrict our sexual activity to procreation only, he would have restricted its use (biologically!) to the time of the estrus.

 

[buffalo]

Another reasoned argument comes from its efects on society and children.

**[Child Molestation by homosexuals and heterosexuals (Child Molestation by homosexuals and heterosexuals)

** Many homosexual leaders have admitted that there is a natural link between a homosexual orientation and child sexual abuse.

…

• A very recent (2000) study published in the *Archives of Sexual Behavior *found that "The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 620 times higher among pedophiles."5
• Another 2000 study in the *Archives of Sexual Behavior *found that". . . all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories" for sexual activity;’ These age categories were fifteen and twenty years old.6
• Yet another recent study in the *Archives of Sexual Behavior *found that "Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality . . . Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%."7

[Edited by Moderator]