Reasoned Argument Against Homosexuality?

[justinthemartyr]

since animals do not share the same intellect with human beings, we then see that your ideas are disordered.

It is evident that the act of what we humans call “intercourse” has two physiological elements to it.

1. It causes us to bond with the one we are having it with.
2. It’s natural results(ejaculation by the male during orgasm and the reaching, expanding and opening of the uterus in the female body during orgasm to accept the semen including sperm from the human male person), show that this act is for not only the bonding of those two persons, and none other, but also that it is procreative in nature.

You must really think more deeply on this subject instead of looking at the surface and non scientific perspective you have chosen to justify yours desires for selfish sexual things.

 

[Beofuse]

ateista:

The purpose of sex is procreative** and **unitive. You need both of these aspects to fulfill God’s vision of sex and marriage. Pleasure is a only result of having sex but is not the purpose of it.

I think it is great that you are searching the forum. I would say this is the Holy Spirit calling you back to God. At one time I was agnostic but I always found myself searching Christian internet sites to somehow prove to myself that I wasn’t wrong in my opinion(agnosticism). Well I did make it back home to the Church and you can come back too. God is merciful.

Gordie

 

[fix]

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.

So, your argument is humans have the power to engage in sex when they want and God makes it pleasurable therefore sex is good in under any conditions we deem appropriate?

 

[ateista]

The purpose of sex is procreative** and **unitive. You need both of these aspects to fulfill God’s vision of sex and marriage. Pleasure is a only result of having sex but is not the purpose of it.

I wonder how can you (or any other human) speak of God’s vision and intentions with authority. I certainly would not dare to do that.

I am merely theorizing based upon a few facts (the lack of necessity of the estrus in humans and the higher apes) and a few simple assumptions (God is rational and decent).

 

[ateista]

So, your argument is humans have the power to engage in sex when they want and God makes it pleasurable therefore sex is good in under any conditions we deem appropriate?

Isn’t that the rational corollary of the fact that God could have made it biologically impossible for humans and the higher apes to engage in sex outside the time of the estrus?

You see, I hypothesize that God is a rational and purposeful being. If a rational being wants to achieve some goals and avoid others, and has the necessary power to bring forth his wishes, then he makes sure that the desired results are achieved and the undesired ones are avoided.

Only an unreasonable being would leave it to chance.

Obviously God does not care if the higher apes engage in sex (both hetero and homosexual acts!) at their whim. Moreover, He made these apes to use sex as a stress-reliever, to “nudge” them toward a more rational conflict resolution. (Make love, not war).

Stands to reason that the same criteria are applied to us - due to the same biological arrangement.

Disclaimer: before anyone wants to distort these ideas and brings forth the problem of paedophilia, be advised that penetrating sex is not pleasurable for children. On the other hand it has been observed that very young girls have habitally engaged in masturbation. (If my memory serves me well, the youngest one was merely a few months old.)

 

[mschrank]

“Exit only”

LOL

 

[Jean_Anthony]

I will allow this thread to continue only if there are no graphic biological descriptions or crudity introduced into the discussion. Thank you all.

 

[joeybaggz]

Ateista

Isn’t that the rational corollary of the fact that God could have made it biologically impossible for humans and the higher apes to engage in sex outside the time of the estrus?

You see, I hypothesize that God is a rational and purposeful being. If a rational being wants to achieve some goals and avoid others, and has the necessary power to bring forth his wishes, then he makes sure that the desired results are achieved and the undesired ones are avoided.

Only an unreasonable being would leave it to chance.

Obviously God does not care if the higher apes engage in sex (both hetero and homosexual acts!) at their whim. Moreover, He made these apes to use sex as a stress-reliever, to “nudge” them toward a more rational conflict resolution. (Make love, not war).

Stands to reason that the same criteria are applied to us - due to the same biological arrangement.

I guess the last criteria would apply to man, if man was simply a creature of instinct. Animals mate, or engage in sex play, on instinct … there is no thought or choice in the matter. Humans, made in the image and likeness of a rational God, choose their behavior … man does not act on instinct.

The thought that sex is a stress-reliever in human interaction to nudge us to a more rational conflict resolution is silly. Humans are beings that exist only by a rational perception of reality, and make concious (hopefull well-reasoned) choices in a given situation. Ideally, man uses his sexual expression as just that, an expression of his deepest and most highy held values. Sex is an act of choice, not compulsion, not a mindless and frivolous activity.

You say you don’t believe in God, but if you did he would be a rational God. And then in the above quote, you equate God with some kind of celestial puppetmaster, pulling the strings with humanity to make us dance to his tune, for whatever purpose. Your post … umm… interesting … to say the least.

 

[fix]

Isn’t that the rational corollary of the fact that God could have made it biologically impossible for humans and the higher apes to engage in sex outside the time of the estrus?

Nope. You think God did not give man free will?

You see, I hypothesize that God is a rational and purposeful being. If a rational being wants to achieve some goals and avoid others, and has the necessary power to bring forth his wishes, then he makes sure that the desired results are achieved and the undesired ones are avoided.

And where does free will enter enter your reasoning?

Only an unreasonable being would leave it to chance.

I am not follwoing you here? What do you mean chance?

Obviously God does not care if the higher apes engage in sex (both hetero and homosexual acts!) at their whim. Moreover, He made these apes to use sex as a stress-reliever, to “nudge” them toward a more rational conflict resolution. (Make love, not war).

Huh? You think apes engage in sex to avoid war?

Stands to reason that the same criteria are applied to us - due to the same biological arrangement.

You mean you think you act like an ape? No intellect, no will, no rationality?

Disclaimer: before anyone wants to distort these ideas and brings forth the problem of paedophilia, be advised that penetrating sex is not pleasurable for children. On the other hand it has been observed that very young girls have habitally engaged in masturbation. (If my memory serves me well, the youngest one was merely a few months old.)

How can they be more distorted than you have already presented?

 

[East_and_West]

some think the natural partner for a man is a man.

Who thinks this? No one does. It flies in the face to the scientific theory of evolution.

 

[ateista]

Nope. You think God did not give man free will?

Free will is a cop-out of an incompetent and lazy designer.

Suppose you have a child and do not want to risk that the child would push an uninsulated wire into an electrical outlet. What do you do?

Rationally, you remove all the wires and cover the electrical outlets with suitable cover, so the child is physically unable to do something you do not wish him to do. His “free will” is not affected, now, is it?

No other parental behavior is rational.

And where does free will enter enter your reasoning?

It is not applicable. A rational and thorough designer will make unwanted outcomes impossible, by removing them from the physically possible lines of action. In this instance, it would be making sex impossible outside the time of the estrus.

Huh? You think apes engage in sex to avoid war?

Not “war” in the human sense, but conflicts, most assuredly. The bonobos engage in sexual activities when they feel frustrated instead of fighting.

You mean you think you act like an ape? No intellect, no will, no rationality?

As a matter of fact the higher apes have quite a bit of intellect, will and some rationality. They learn, they remember, they can even be taught sign language. Sure, there is a huge difference between us and the apes, but our biological arrangement (vis-a-vis sex outside the estrus) is almost identical.

 

[ateista]

I guess the last criteria would apply to man, if man was simply a creature of instinct. Animals mate, or engage in sex play, on instinct … there is no thought or choice in the matter. Humans, made in the image and likeness of a rational God, choose their behavior … man does not act on instinct.

In many instances we do. If an object apporaches your eye, you blink, quite instinctively. Not all our actions are reasoned, not by a long shot.

Ideally, man uses his sexual expression as just that, an expression of his deepest and most highy held values.

That is a bit farfetched, in my opinion.

Sex is an act of choice, not compulsion, not a mindless and frivolous activity.

Hopefully, in most cases it is not.

You say you don’t believe in God, but if you did he would be a rational God. And then in the above quote, you equate God with some kind of celestial puppetmaster, pulling the strings with humanity to make us dance to his tune, for whatever purpose. Your post … umm… interesting … to say the least.

Ahh, the good old “free will” raises its ugly head again. Please read my post above, I do not want to reiterate the same reasoning.

 

[Riley259]

This sounds more like a question to be answered by consulting a library book and an index than a forum. However, there are also some papers online which mention this.

== “The Thomistic Natural Law Understanding of Homosexuality” by Janet E. Smith. It’s a direct response to:

== The Church and the Homosexual by John Boswell, which is online in excerpted form. (I gave it a glance, and it’s not the most scholarly article in the world. Pretty full of unfounded generalizations and non-facts, in fact.)

Smith mentions that Aquinas’ longest discussion of the issue is in Summa Contra Gentiles, so there’s where you should start looking. She mentions other interesting source material as well, primarily an article entitled “Whether Any Pleasure Is Not Natural?”, in which Aquinas concludes that people whose souls have been corrupted, or have been damaged by abuse, can take pleasure in things which are pretty unnatural.

But though Smith’s article seems good, you should read the relevant Aquinas bits yourself. People can miss or misinterpret the darnedest things.

Thanks for the references.

 

[joeybaggz]

In many instances we do. If an object apporaches your eye, you blink, quite instinctively. Not all our actions are reasoned, not by a long shot.

My response:

Reflex is not instinct. A reflex is an automatic body function that protects the organism. Eyes blinking at the aproach of an object, skin healing after a tear, knee jerking when tapped with a hammer, etc. etc. are not instincts. Your heart beating, your lungs breathing, your eyes blinking are not instincts. Erect bi-pedal non-homo sapiens mammals (gorillas), mating as they do, is instinctual, like birds flying south for the winter, fish returning to the same stream to spawn, etc. etc are instincts. I re-iterate, man does not possess instinct. (Granted many claim we do, but usually it is in defense of actions that are less than exemplary in human behavior)

Your quote:
That is a bit farfetched, in my opinion.

My response:

You know, you may just be right. After all, in a society that beatifies pornography, cohabitation, abortion, adultery, fornication, and just about every other pus oozing open moral sore that can be sold under the freedom of ‘choice’, or the *right *to privacy, the idea that choosing to see one’s sexual expression as a statement of a higher and more noble value has to be foolish. Imagine, a man or woman, understanding that he/she is created in the image of a majestic, powerful, intelligent, creative, dignified, just, and loving God, choosing to see in their sexuality an expression of that creativity, dignity, and love. What a couple of fools! Don’t they know the sex is the activity of those whose sole objective is to get through the night with anyone who matches the emptiness of his/her heart and soul. That sex is an act of meaningless compunction, devoid of any higher value, and that the activity of the body is in no way connected to the working of the mind, the heart, and the soul. Then again, that’s just my opinion

Your quote:
Hopefully, in most cases it is not.

My response: (one of these days I’ll figure out these stupid quote boxes)

No, in most cases for people who believe in the dignity of their creation as children of God, and followers of a Christian ethic, sexual expression is just that, an act of dignity, and love. Of course, atheists who can’t cotton to that idea, believe that man climbed out of some primordial swamp. I can understand your statement and I admit it has a rational basis. After all, if you look around at society and the moral filth that passes for values these day, I have to admit, it seems as if a great part of society is slithering back into the ooze.

Your quote
Ahh, the good old “free will” raises its ugly head again. Please read my post above, I do not want to reiterate the same reasoning.

Reasoning?? Just because you don’t believe something doesn’t make it true. Your example of the electrical outlet doesn’t prove that the child has had its free will circumvented just because the parent elected to choose to protect his/her child. And everyday, people chose to do evil. The news is full of stories of children who are killed or maimed because a parent failed, or chose, not to make a proper parental decision. People everyday, everywhere, freely choose to do things that are stupid, silly, irrational, dangerous, and deadly. Do people reason to do the absurd, the evil, and the deadly, or do they simply choose?? Freely, as an act of will, not intelligence.

 

[joeybaggz]

Oops
‘That sex is an act of meaningless compunction,’

should read:

‘That sex is an act of meaningless compulsion,’

sorry

 

[ateista]

Reasoning?? Just because you don’t believe something doesn’t make it true.

I have no idea what you mean here. Please elaborate.

You know, you may just be right. After all, in a society that beatifies pornography, cohabitation, abortion, adultery, fornication, and just about every other pus oozing open moral sore that can be sold under the freedom of ‘choice’, or the right to privacy, the idea that choosing to see one’s sexual expression as a statement of a higher and more noble value has to be foolish.

It is foolish to try to impose your views on others. Your choice of words is very loaded and revealing. If you view your sexual acts as an expression of some “higher and noble” values, that is your own business. I do not make judgement calls on your behavior, I respect your views and ideas, even if I disagree with them. You, however, choose to use words like “pus” and “moral sore” indicating your absolute intolerance to other people’s views on the same subject.

Your example of the electrical outlet doesn’t prove that the child has had its free will circumvented just because the parent elected to choose to protect his/her child.

That is precisely my point. If some action is impossible to perform due to physical restrictions imposed by a higher intelligence does not mean that the “free will” has been restricted. You argue my side.

If God did not want people to have sex for any other purpose, but procreation and if God is a rational, purposeful being, then God would have imposed physical restrictions on that activity.

It is quite interesting to quote arguments from other posters (to wit: john doran, who is a very smart and knowledgable Christian philosopher) who argues that no matter happens in this world - this is the best possible world. He argues that just because we are unable to see the reason for God’s actions (or lack of them) it does not mean that there are no sufficiently good reasons to allow or tolerate the said behavior - be it murder, rape or genocide.

It is very ironic that such arguments are introduced in the “defense” of incredible atrocities God allows to happen, but it is objected when the same method is used to explain why God allows totally innocent or consensual activities, which do not hurt anyone, but happen to be frowned upon by some people.

I hope you see my point.

 

[Veronica7978]

I’m sorry to throw this out there, but some gay people appear really gay. Not kidding either. I mean to say, they appear to have been born that way and not by choice etc., I’m talking about gay people who appeared gay in childhood. What if God did make them that way? I also wonder why somebody would choose to be part of the most persecuted group on the planet. It’s very difficult for gay people to “come out” to their families etc., Feel free to disagree with me or whatever, but rationale would dictate that nobody would choose to live a life of exile and loneliness from one’s own family during the crucial years as an adolescent at which time they usually figure out they are different than their parents. I think it’s painful for them and human nature is to turn away from pain, yet they cannot. But these are just my observations and wonderings (that’s not even a word, is it?!).

 

[blessedtoo]

Suppose you have a child and do not want to risk that the child would push an uninsulated wire into an electrical outlet. What do you do?

A child does not know what will result from pushing an uninsulated wire into an electrical outlet so a parent will certainly cover that outlet to protect the child from harm. However, when the child has grown, and fully understands what such an action will do, doesn’t the parent uncover the outlet and leave it up to the free will of the now grown child to make a choice on the matter?

With God, we are indeed protected as children WHEN we are children. In fact, using your argument, He has protected us from potential harm that might come with sexual activity by postponing “estrus” (can we PLEASE use a different word?) until humans have reached maturation. During the formative years, before the onset of adolescents, God have given us the gift of faith, love, and clear instructions on how to live the best life which always includes the hope of eternity in heaven with Him. It is at this point our free will comes into play. It is the reason why very young children are not allowed to receive the Sacraments that require an understanding and moral sense of right and wrong.

Here are your descriptions of how you would percieve God:

• if God is a rational, purposeful being
• A rational and thorough designer
• I hypothesize that God is a rational and purposeful
• I would believe in rational and decent deity,
  Forgive me, but you have a spiritually autistic view of God. Catholics believe in a LOVING, just, and merciful God. Your describe him as though He is an engineer.

We are able to understand through OUR reasoning abilities and through divine revelation what God had in mind when He created man. But we certainly can’t presume to understand God’s reasoning beyond what He has told us through Scripture and Tradition. Chief among these is that we are all created because of His love for us.

 

[Hastrman]

If God did not want people to have sex for any other purpose, but procreation and if God is a rational, purposeful being, then God would have imposed physical restrictions on that activity.

What, like the fact gays are 13 times as likely to get MRSA?

Like the fact heterosexual AIDS is essentially nonexistent in the first world?

Like the fact gays are more prone to every infection known to medical science?

No, there are no physical restrictions at all. Except you’re incredibly likely to die doing it.

[Edited by Moderator]

Also there’s the factor of the Unitive purpose of sex, which is discussed in Catholic teaching, therefore we never said God only wants sex to be procreative. But thanks for arguing with your misunderstanding of our point, instead of our point.

 

[RobbyS]

I’m sorry to throw this out there, but some gay people appear really gay. Not kidding either. I mean to say, they appear to have been born that way and not by choice etc., I’m talking about gay people who appeared gay in childhood. What if God did make them that way? I also wonder why somebody would choose to be part of the most persecuted group on the planet. It’s very difficult for gay people to “come out” to their families etc., Feel free to disagree with me or whatever, but rationale would dictate that nobody would choose to live a life of exile and loneliness from one’s own family during the crucial years as an adolescent at which time they usually figure out they are different than their parents. I think it’s painful for them and human nature is to turn away from pain, yet they cannot. But these are just my observations and wonderings (that’s not even a word, is it?!).

Aren’t you assuming that guys who appear to be sissies are homosexual? On the other hand, some men and women are sexual freaks. Are you saying that homosexuals are necessarily this kind of person? I am not happy with the term “sexual orientation.” because it seems to beg the question. Hard to know what makes any human being behave the way they do. Why might a person choose to become a member of a persecuted group? the general answer is that they must see some reward in it, something that the group offers them that others do not. An example. Boy and girls are different. Up to the age of twelve or so, they tend to stay with their own kind. Then
they become sexuallly aware, and most people are able to
relate to the opposite sex. Some never do. I don’t pretend to know why, but as I said, “sexual orientation” does not explain anything. It just announces who individuals are drawn to sexually.