Reasoned Argument Against Homosexuality?

[blessedtoo]

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.,

So then you are asserting that a newborn baby “appears” gay? How about a 12 month old? Five years? At what point do they “appear” to be “born” gay?

I’m talking about gay people who appeared gay in childhood. What if God did make them that way?

I suggest you read the CCC. The Book of Genesis describes the fall of man and the introduction of Original Sin into the world. God made man in His image, to exist with Him in Paradise. But man, in his utter and obviously continuous arrogance, wasn’t satisfied with that arrangement. The disorders we see, of all kinds, in our world today are not because God “made it that way”. God gave us perfection. We gave it back. What we are left with is a world filled with disease, disorder, war, sorrow, pain, suffering, etc.

I also wonder why somebody would choose to be part of the most persecuted group on the planet.

Huh?
Hmm, let’s see: six million Jews killed by Hitler.
Roughly 10 million Africans taken from their land and brought into slavery.
In the two thousand years of the Christian faith, about 70 million believers have been killed for their faith.

It’s very difficult for gay people to “come out” to their families etc.

Perhaps it’s difficult because most parents instinctively know that homosexual behavior is disordered. The process of “coming out” is one in which the homosexual proclaims his acceptance of the gay lifestyle. Is it your suggestion that this process should be made easier?

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.

While it may be true that the inclination to ssa is not chosen (although this can certainly be argued in some cases), the behavior is ALWAYS a choice.

 

[Veronica7978]

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.

In now way did I use the term “sissy”. I’m thinking about a child who instinctively plays with toy trucks, refuses to wear dresses, at the age of 3, then to nobody’s surprise, grows up to announce she was gay. She appeared gay due to her innate behaviors as a child. Or, a boy who enjoys girlie toys, watching girlie shows etc., not that all with these behaviors will grow up to be gay, but in the anecdotal situation I’m describing, both these children grew up to be gay after exhibiting these behaviors. I can only report on what I know or observe. I cannot report on what you know, which is why I would ask these questions. I don’t mean to arouse your disgust nor hatred towards gays, nor me for that matter, I’m just putting out there the things I’m questioning. As far as “something a group offers them”…that comment leads me to wonder how many gays you’ve interviewed, or how much information you have to back up what you’re saying since most gays say they always felt as they do and, therefore, a child wouldn’t see a benefit to a group. For another example, a little boy who says he’s going to marry another boy…he has no idea what he’s saying and knows of no benefit to any group, in fact, he is chastised immediately and learns that what he has said is “bad”. Bottom line is I don’t think that hating them, under any guise, is the answer. I don’t think that Jesus himself would persecute them as he did come to call everybody, and finally, I don’t think that judging others is mine, nor is it your job. I also wonder what you think your hatred will accomplish…do you think gays will go away…where do you want them to go? I wonder if they read these threads and get their feelings hurt because gays are also Catholic and they also love God and God loves them.

 

[blessedtoo]

I don’t mean to arouse your disgust nor hatred towards gays, nor me for that matter, I’m just putting out there the things I’m questioning. As far as “something a group offers them”…that comment leads me to wonder how many gays you’ve interviewed, or how much information you have to back up what you’re saying since most gays say they always felt as they do and, therefore, a child wouldn’t see a benefit to a group. For another example, a little boy who says he’s going to marry another boy…he has no idea what he’s saying and knows of no benefit to any group, in fact, he is chastised immediately and learns that what he has said is “bad”. Bottom line is I don’t think that** hating th**em, under any guise, is the answer. I don’t think that Jesus himself would persecute them as he did come to call everybody, and finally, I don’t think that judging others is mine, nor is it your job. I also wonder what you think your hatred will accomplish…do you think gays will go away…where do you want them to go? I wonder if they read these threads and get their feelings hurt because gays are also Catholic and they also love God and God loves them.

HATRED???

You read HATRED in that post?

 

[Veronica7978]

So then you are asserting that a

Huh?
Hmm, let’s see: six million Jews killed by Hitler.
Roughly 10 million Africans taken from their land and brought into slavery.
In the two thousand years of the Christian faith, about 70 million believers have been killed for their faith.

The above is simply confusing - because in essence, these statements agree with what I’m saying.

Perhaps it’s difficult because most parents instinctively know that homosexual behavior is disordered. The process of “coming out” is one in which the homosexual proclaims his acceptance of the gay lifestyle. Is it your suggestion that this process should be made easier? Yes, I’m saying that the process should be made easier. Why would you want to hurt anybody? Why would you want to cause anther human pain? Any human? Aren’t we here to comfort each other and take care of each other?

While it may be true that the inclination to ssa is not chosen (although this can certainly be argued in some cases), the behavior is ALWAYS a choice. I agree with this statement wholeheartedly.

Finally, why are you so angry?

 

[Veronica7978]

HATRED???

You read HATRED in that post?

When you jump from “gay” to “sissy”, yes, I see hatred.

 

[blessedtoo]

Finally, why are you so angry?

I’m not angry. I’m flabbergasted. I’m speechless. I’m stunned.

I gave you those stats to prove how absurd was your statement that “gays are the most persecuted group on the planet.” I am completely prepared to have a reasoned debate on the issue but when folks make sweeping and erroneous statements like yours, I’m afraid I can’t let it go. It’s this type of mythical rhetoric that keeps so many from the truth.

**

Yes, I’m saying that the process should be made easier. Why would you want to hurt anybody? Why would you want to cause anther human pain? Any human? Aren’t we here to comfort each other and take care of each other?

**
**So you are of the opinion that our only job as Catholics is to make eachother feel good? At what cost? **

Let’s consider what our Lord told us. We should expect to be persecuted for our loyalty to Him. We should pick up the cross and follow Him. We should spread the good news (even when it’s “uncomfortable”). He did not come to bring “peace” but a sword, which would set brother against brother, father against son, and so on.

It is not loving, kind, merciful, or Christian to encourage someone in sin. We are to help eachother reach our real home, that of heaven. If we choose comfort in this world over the eternal joy of the next, this contradicts Christian belief.

BTW: For someone who believes we should not judge, you seem quick to assume how other posters feel. And yes, that makes me a bit cranky.

 

[blessedtoo]

When you jump from “gay” to “sissy”, yes, I see hatred.

I find that ironic since your post began:

I’m sorry to throw this out there, but some gay people appear really gay

Maybe you could describe what “really gay” looks like?

 

[ateista]

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?

You twisted my words and created a straw-man argument. I simply stated that the lack of ability to perform certain actions does no impede on our free will. Please argue against that.

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.

Well, forgive me if I concentrate on the pertinent attributes of God.

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.

I find it interesting that you guys keep on telling me about God’s real intentions, while asserting that I cannot hypothesize about them. Your actual, first hand knowledge is precisely the same as mine: zilch!

 

[ateista]

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.

Do you differentiate between male and female homosexuality? Care to cite some statistics for Lesbians?

[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.

Ah, excellent. The unitive aspect to express the mutual love and caring between two human beings. Which can only apply to a male and a female, and only if performed in a certain fashion.

 

[Veronica7978]

I’m not angry. I’m flabbergasted. I’m speechless. I’m stunned.

I gave you those stats to prove how absurd was your statement that “gays are the most persecuted group on the planet.” I am completely prepared to have a reasoned debate on the issue but when folks make sweeping and erroneous statements like yours, I’m afraid I can’t let it go. It’s this type of mythical rhetoric that keeps so many from the truth.

---

**So you are of the opinion that our only job as Catholics is to make eachother feel good? At what cost? **

Let’s consider what our Lord told us. We should expect to be persecuted for our loyalty to Him. We should pick up the cross and follow Him. We should spread the good news (even when it’s “uncomfortable”). He did not come to bring “peace” but a sword, which would set brother against brother, father against son, and so on.

It is not loving, kind, merciful, or Christian to encourage someone in sin. We are to help eachother reach our real home, that of heaven. If we choose comfort in this world over the eternal joy of the next, this contradicts Christian belief.

BTW: For someone who believes we should not judge, you seem quick to assume how other posters feel. And yes, that makes me a bit cranky.

I’m really trying to see your side of it. I’m trying to imagine Jesus saying the words you’re saying - but it’s not working. He just doesn’t. Whenever Christians want to hurt somebody they throw out the “I did not come to bring peace” thing, and it’s tiresome that you ignore the many, many references of Jesus to letting God judge your brother, while you worry about your own sin, as well as the church tradition, as well as the Saint’s teachings, for one line from the bible. I never said homosexuality is right or wrong, I just said we should comfort people in pain. You disagree because you cannot see through your judgment of others - because you have to be … what??? better than somebody? More holy? Is your sin not as bad as theirs?

 

[fix]

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.

He could not choose to act in anyway he desired. I would limit it as is my responsibilty. Freedom is acting correctly, not acting wrongly. A child is not fully mature and requires guidance.

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

Then you would have a robot not a human.

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

Great. So when they engage in other types of behavior is it axiomatically “good” simply because we observe them doing it?

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.

How many apes can learn calculus? Decide which is the right course of action when considering abortion? Write a poem?

Any primitive similarity to human behavior does not mean they have rationality as humans possess.

 

[ateista]

He could not choose to act in anyway he desired. I would limit it as is my responsibilty. Freedom is acting correctly, not acting wrongly. A child is not fully mature and requires guidance.

You still argue against the particulars of my example, not against the concept behind it. I “desire” to float up in the air and I am physically unable to do so. Am I now a “robot”? Did my “free will” disappear?

Then you would have a robot not a human.

If there are physical or psychological “barriers” against a certain type of action does that make my freedom vanish? Did I become a “robot” because I do not wish to cheat, even though I am physically able to cheat?

Great. So when they engage in other types of behavior is it axiomatically “good” simply because we observe them doing it?

Straw-man and unwarranted generalization. I did not advocate that **everything **they do is applicable to **everyone **else.

How many apes can learn calculus? Decide which is the right course of action when considering abortion? Write a poem?

How many humans are unable to learn calculus? Able to make rational choices under any and all circumstances? How many humans are unable to write a poem? Are they not rational?

Any primitive similarity to human behavior does not mean they have rationality as humans possess.

Another straw-man. (Time to build a bonfire…) I did not say that they are equal to humans. Only that they exhibit certain traits to some degree which are associated with intellect. And their biological functions vis-a-vis sexual activities are indentical to humans. If God made them like they are, and does not feel “offended” by their behavior, he is not offended by our behavior either…

 

[blessedtoo]

You twisted my words and created a straw-man argument. I simply stated that the lack of ability to perform certain actions does no impede on our free will. Please argue against that.

I get that you like the word “strawman” as you seem to use it liberally. But how did I twist your words? I used your exact example and extrapolated from it. It’s true that I might desire to fly, and may even do everything in my power to become airborne, but the fact that I am physically unable to do so impedes my ability to fully exercise my free will, correct?

Well, forgive me if I concentrate on the pertinent attributes of God.

That is where you part company with Christians. We do not consider these things the “pertinent attributes” of God. We consider LOVE to be the pertinent attribute.

I find it interesting that you guys keep on telling me about God’s real intentions, while asserting that I cannot hypothesize about them. Your actual, first hand knowledge is precisely the same as mine: zilch!

Wrong. Our “knowledge” has something you admit you lack: faith.

 

[blessedtoo]

I’m really trying to see your side of it. I’m trying to imagine Jesus saying the words you’re saying - but it’s not working.

I appreciate that you are trying! And I understand your difficulties. Believe me when I say I was very much where you are not that long ago. Returning to the Church after a 30 year self-exile was not easy for me and required a complete re-working of old ideas.

He just doesn’t. Whenever Christians want to hurt somebody they throw out the “I did not come to bring peace” thing, and it’s tiresome that you ignore the many, many references of Jesus to letting God judge your brother, while you worry about your own sin, as well as the church tradition, as well as the Saint’s teachings, for one line from the bible.

It is also quite tiresome to hear the same cherry picked passages that put all the emphasis on “judge not” and “love everyone”.

I wonder sometimes how often people actually do read their Bibles. I wonder how you interpret St. Paul’s letters. I wonder how you would suggest we spread the good news if we are unwilling to make a “judgement” call on sin, our’s and our brother’s?

I never said homosexuality is right or wrong,

Well then, let’s clarify. Homosexual BEHAVIOR, like all sinful behaviors, is a sin. That would make it “wrong”.

I just said we should comfort people in pain. You disagree because you cannot see through your judgment of others - because you have to be … what??? better than somebody? More holy? Is your sin not as bad as theirs?

You know nothing about me so your judgement of my motives is quite arrogant. Not only was my sin as “bad as theirs” - this was my sin and so I do think I can speak somewhat authoritatively on the issue. And as to the issue of pain: the pain that I see that results from homosexual lifestyles is generally that of the family. As a member of both Catholic ministries to those with ssa, I hear everyday from the broken-hearted parents, siblings (myself included) and children who fear for the soul’s of their loved ones.

 

[ateista]

But how did I twist your words? I used your exact example and extrapolated from it.

You simply took my example and used it as if it were the actual argument and not just an illustration. But it does not matter, since you answered my question below:

It’s true that I might desire to fly, and may even do everything in my power to become airborne, but the fact that I am physically unable to do so impedes my ability to fully exercise my free will, correct?

Let me quote an argument from a long time ago. I asked john doran why does God allow the free will of a rapist to supercede the free will of the victim. His answer was that the “free will” of the victim is in no way impaired, she could “freely desire” not to be raped, but she could not carry it out.

Obviously I disagreed with him, and I disagree with you, too. I accept that your freedom of action is impaired by not being able to fly at will, but you are not a “robot” just because this particular action is not available to you. Or do you actually assert that the inability to exercise your wish to fly does turn you into a robot?

To have limited freedom of action does not equal to having no freedom of action at all.

The victims freedom of action was totally removed by the rapist, your freedom of action is limited by your inability to fly.

That is where you part company with Christians. We do not consider these things the “pertinent attributes” of God. We consider LOVE to be the pertinent attribute.

I meant pertinent in this discussion, not necessarily in general. (Though I am always curious what does the word “love” mean when applied to God. But that is a different discussion.)

Wrong. Our “knowledge” has something you admit you lack: faith.

I am glad you chose to put the word “knowledge” into quotation marks, thus indicating that it is NOT knowledge. You may have faith, but that does not give you actual knowledge.

 

[Valke2]

The Hebrew word for “offensive” used in the prohibition of Homosexuality in Leviticus, is not a permanent unyeilding term. In other words it does not contemplate something necessarily being offensive throughout eternity.

The same word used in the prohibition against homosexuality is used in the story of Joseph, when he tells his brothers that the Egyptians view the practice of shepherding as offensive.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled argument.

 

[onmyknees]

I’m not angry. I’m flabbergasted. I’m speechless. I’m stunned.

I gave you those stats to prove how absurd was your statement that “gays are the most persecuted group on the planet.” I am completely prepared to have a reasoned debate on the issue but when folks make sweeping and erroneous statements like yours, I’m afraid I can’t let it go. It’s this type of mythical rhetoric that keeps so many from the truth.

---

**So you are of the opinion that our only job as Catholics is to make eachother feel good? At what cost? **

Let’s consider what our Lord told us. We should expect to be persecuted for our loyalty to Him. We should pick up the cross and follow Him. We should spread the good news (even when it’s “uncomfortable”). He did not come to bring “peace” but a sword, which would set brother against brother, father against son, and so on.

It is not loving, kind, merciful, or Christian to encourage someone in sin. We are to help eachother reach our real home, that of heaven. If we choose comfort in this world over the eternal joy of the next, this contradicts Christian belief.

BTW: For someone who believes we should not judge, you seem quick to assume how other posters feel. And yes, that makes me a bit cranky.

AMEN!!! What a great post!

 

[RobbyS]

In now way did I use the term “sissy”. I’m thinking about a child who instinctively plays with toy trucks, refuses to wear dresses, at the age of 3, then to nobody’s surprise, grows up to announce she was gay. She appeared gay due to her innate behaviors as a child. Or, a boy who enjoys girlie toys, watching girlie shows etc., not that all with these behaviors will grow up to be gay, but in the anecdotal situation I’m describing, both these children grew up to be gay after exhibiting these behaviors. I can only report on what I know or observe. I cannot report on what you know, which is why I would ask these questions. I don’t mean to arouse your disgust nor hatred towards gays, nor me for that matter, I’m just putting out there the things I’m questioning. As far as “something a group offers them”…that comment leads me to wonder how many gays you’ve interviewed, or how much information you have to back up what you’re saying since most gays say they always felt as they do and, therefore, a child wouldn’t see a benefit to a group. For another example, a little boy who says he’s going to marry another boy…he has no idea what he’s saying and knows of no benefit to any group, in fact, he is chastised immediately and learns that what he has said is “bad”. Bottom line is I don’t think that hating them, under any guise, is the answer. I don’t think that Jesus himself would persecute them as he did come to call everybody, and finally, I don’t think that judging others is mine, nor is it your job. I also wonder what you think your hatred will accomplish…do you think gays will go away…where do you want them to go? I wonder if they read these threads and get their feelings hurt because gays are also Catholic and they also love God and God loves them.

I don’t feel any special sense of disgust about INDIVIDUAL homeosexuals. Apart from wondering why they do what they do, my personal concern would be that what they do is so unhealthy
as to to be perverse. I feel the same about the whole concept of “free love,” of the abandoment of reasonable restraints. I was well into middle age because I became aware of the truly extraordinary excesses such as what went on in "bathhouses."at least as reported in “Newsweek.” I concluded that St. Paul was right to call such behavior a kind of madness, which you will however remember that he was comparing it with the same sort of behavior that made men worship statues with animal heads as gods. Nothing I have learned since convinces me that this is not a destructive way of life.

As to the benefit of a group, the most important thing is for the child not to feel alone, to be excluded. Indeed, the most important thing for any adult is not to be excluded, not to be respected, not to be loved. The reason for forming communities is to find places where one can be included, respected, loved.

The question is, however, ought we be included, respected, loved when we are doing things that are objectively wrong? When we hurt ourselves? Ought we to respect a GROUP that encourages people to hurt themselves? In the last forty years gays have organized politically, and with great success to avoid the persecution that they were sometimes subjected to. I would say that no one should be subjected to public humiliation, and I am sure that was their main goal. But as so often in the case of
persecuted groups, when they get power they seek revenge and end up persecuting and humiliating those on whom they blame their pain.

For instance, the episode of the Act-up people who came into St. Patrick’s and desecrated the Blessed Sacrament. They are able to get away with this sort of action which, a hundred years ago, would have resulted in their being bodily thrown into the street by outraged Catholic men, because they have not suceeded alone but joining a coalition of sexual liberationists and radical politicians who have overthrown the traditional morality. As they have demonstarted in Canada, they now have acquired such power that they can prevent anyone, even a clergyman, from saying what they do is wrong.
from saying the plain truth about their “life-style.”

We therefore have a situation where we are asked to deny what we believe to be true, what can be substantally shown to be true
by a politically powerful group. And they will not rest until we agree with everything they say. Ironically, people who started out by asking to be left along, for us to respect their privacy, are now refusing to leave us alone.

 

[joeybaggz]

My quote:

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

Your response:

“I have no idea what you mean here.”

My reply:

I don’t either. (notice to lurkers, don’t post at the end of a long and tiring day) The sentence was supposed to read: Just because you don’t believe in something, doesn’t make your point of view true. For example, I might not believe in the theory of evolution, but that doesn’t make my point of view true. (And by the way, I do believe that evolution is the best explanation of the historical and ongoing creation of existence)

As to the rest of your observations: You posit the possible existence of a God who is decent and rational. You say that free will is a cop out by a lazy and incompetent designer. And then you elaborate on free will’s existence in subsequent posts. So it stands to reason that a decent and rational God could not have given man the free will that you contend he has. (After all a decent and rational God isn’t lazy and incompetent.) So, if free will didn’t come from God, what then, it evolved??? In only one species ??? What does a decent and rational God have against rainbow trout, or kangaroos, or western diamondback rattlesnakes? Why don’t they have free will ?? then, you confuse reflex with instinct, and go on to argue the parallels between human sexuality and the activities of higher primates. To be honest, I can’t find the caboose on your train of thought. To another poster you claimed that he/she was arguing the particulars and not the concept you put forth. Me, I find so many concepts, I’ll pass on any attempt to reply. Suffice to say, you are an exceptional moving target.

Your example of the child and the electrical outlet isn’t a good one, although your point that the action of a superior intellect and will does not negate free will is a good one. However a
‘coerced’ free will is a contradiction in terms.

Young children have neither instinct nor higher faculties of reason.
Put a six month old child and a six month old mouse in a room with a king cobra. The mouse, acting on its instinct, will flee. The infant will not. It will approach the snake, and die. It has neither instinct (and in the animal kingdom, the instinct of self preservation is paramount), nor acquired knowledge with which to survive. The human parent child relationship is unique in the animal kingdom. Parents must think for their infant children. Human reason and free will develop humans in a way no other animal in known existence, does. Interestingly, in the overall point of this thread, you are arguing for the existence of free will, that gift that our rational and decent Creator endowed us with.

As to being intolerant, GUILTY. You see, this is a Catholic forum, and we Catholics (hopefully) faithfully follow a man who was nailed to a tree and also was intolerant. “Go and sin no more” - rather intolerant, wouldn’t you say? So, I do not and will not tolerate the canonization by the “beautiful people” of pop culture, of the moral sores I cited in my post. Despite your contentions, those moral cancers do hurt people, and we see it every day in the news. Yes, I am intolerant of the action, but not of the person or persons involved. That judgment is not left to me, and we Catholics did away with the Inquisition a long time ago.

As to further arguing the existence of God, Free Will, and other related topics, no. That runs the danger of hijacking the thread and that belongs on the I am an Atheist thread anyway. Arguing the Catholic concept of God with committed atheists, is a little like going to the barrio in Mexico City and speaking Norwegian. No thanks

And as to the original intent of the thread, I think that there are some interesting scientific, psychological, and physiological investigations underway as to the root causes of homosexuality. In twenty years I think we will understand that there is a constitutional aspect to it, and it is not simply a chosen behavior. Here I depart from the views of a great number of my more conservative Catholic brethren. And while you may believe that sexuality, either homo or hetero is simply a matter of seeking fun and pleasure, the fact is that it will always be the Catholic position that human sexuality was created “from the beginning” to be expressed within the framework of a committed union between a man and a woman, and its purpose was to be pro-creative and unitive. That will not change. Any other expression is an offense to mankind’s Creator. That’s the Catholic position, this is a Catholic forum, and just because you don’t believe it, doesn’t make you right. At least, not on this forum.

And you said that it is foolish to impose my views on others. I’m not imposing anything. I am merely stating a point of view and I don’t consider the views of others, views that are diametrically opposed to mine, to be an imposition. Granted, my views are in opposition to the ‘anything goes’ sexuality, permissiveness, and moral relativism of today’s society. If people who hold views contrary to mine consider me an imposition, it’s their problem.

And you stated something about using the arguments of others. Reading your post, I don’t know if you are stating that is what I’m doing. Well, if that’s the case, I have no idea who John Doran is, never read a word he’s said, and wouldn’t know him if he ran up my right side, did the funky chicken on my head, and ran down my back. Besides, you wouldn’t believe the source and inspiration of my ideas if I told you. A source that doesn’t wear a Roman collar, preachers robes, or minister’s business suit - not by a long shot.

Shalom

 

[fix]

You still argue against the particulars of my example, not against the concept behind it. I “desire” to float up in the air and I am physically unable to do so. Am I now a “robot”? Did my “free will” disappear?

We are talking of moral freedom, right? Are you claiming one would be free, in some sense, if they could be restrained from acting wrongly by God? I am trying to understand your position but am not following you.

If there are physical or psychological “barriers” against a certain type of action does that make my freedom vanish? Did I become a “robot” because I do not wish to cheat, even though I am physically able to cheat?

If there are barriers then yes freedom is limited. The difference it seems in who is deciding to limit the freedom. Is it a human who, for example, joins the army and voluntarily decides he will limit his choices or is it God who takes away free will.

See, your argument is confusing. A human can volutarily take drugs that will limit his free will or many other things can be done, but that seems much different than God deciding man will have limited moral freedom in terms of choosing good over evil.

Straw-man and unwarranted generalization. I did not advocate that **everything **they do is applicable to **everyone **else.

So, only sexual acts apply? Why?

How many humans are unable to learn calculus? Able to make rational choices under any and all circumstances? How many humans are unable to write a poem? Are they not rational?

Please show one ape who can reason morally? Not instinct, but reason.

Another straw-man. (Time to build a bonfire…) I did not say that they are equal to humans. Only that they exhibit certain traits to some degree which are associated with intellect. And their biological functions vis-a-vis sexual activities are indentical to humans. If God made them like they are, and does not feel “offended” by their behavior, he is not offended by our behavior either…

You actually equate ape intellect with human intellect simply because you find certain biologic functions similar? That primitive similarities exist say nothing about human moral freedom. Your analogy goes nowhere.