Reasoned Argument Against Homosexuality?

[ateista]

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.

No, we do not. We are talking about “freedom” to perform an action. As long as there are two physically available options, and no coercion is applied - there is freedom. It may be trivial, or it may be substantial - but it is freedom.

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.

Yet again, limitation is not removal. I think I know the reason for confusion. If you see the world in back and white, without shades of grey then it may be impossible to understand my point. There are more than two choices in general - not just one “good” and one “bad”. There are several “levels” of both good and bad. Eliminating some of them does not equal to eliminating all of them.

Another point: there are genuinely good people, who have a built-in psychological “barrier” against committing “evil” actions. You may attribute that to divine guidance, I may consider it the result of good and decent upbringing. Irrelevant. They have a positive disposition toward “good” and an aversion against “bad”.

Do you really contend that these people are “robots”?

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.

Does it? Let’s take an example: A human sees an attempted rape and interferes, preventing the act. This interference is praised as a good and proper act. Another human sees an attempted rape and does not interfere, even though he could do it. How do you characterize his behavior?

Do you condone it on the basis that he respected the would-be-rapist’s free will? I don’t.

When one sees an “evil” act unfolding, it is a moral imperative to try and interfere, is it not? Why should the “evil” person’s free will get respected and the wishes of the victim brushed to the side as unimportant? Can you answer this question?

 

[ateista]

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.

John Doran is a prolific poster on these boards, when he has the time. Sometimes he disappears. I don’t know if he is a professional theologian or philosopher, or simply very well versed in those areas. Even though I disagree with most of what he says, I respect his very high intellect.

I brought up his views on “free will” because I found them interesting, even though I vehemently disagree with them. It was just an example of how two people of similar worldview (you and he) can have diametrically different opinion about a subject.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is straying from the original topic. Please take any side discussions to new or existing threads in the appropriate fora. Thank you, all.

 

[fix]

No, we do not. We are talking about “freedom” to perform an action. As long as there are two physically available options, and no coercion is applied - there is freedom. It may be trivial, or it may be substantial - but it is freedom.

Yet again, limitation is not removal. I think I know the reason for confusion. If you see the world in back and white, without shades of grey then it may be impossible to understand my point. There are more than two choices in general - not just one “good” and one “bad”. There are several “levels” of both good and bad. Eliminating some of them does not equal to eliminating all of them.

Another point: there are genuinely good people, who have a built-in psychological “barrier” against committing “evil” actions. You may attribute that to divine guidance, I may consider it the result of good and decent upbringing. Irrelevant. They have a positive disposition toward “good” and an aversion against “bad”.

Do you really contend that these people are “robots”?

Does it? Let’s take an example: A human sees an attempted rape and interferes, preventing the act. This interference is praised as a good and proper act. Another human sees an attempted rape and does not interfere, even though he could do it. How do you characterize his behavior?

Do you condone it on the basis that he respected the would-be-rapist’s free will? I don’t.

When one sees an “evil” act unfolding, it is a moral imperative to try and interfere, is it not? Why should the “evil” person’s free will get respected and the wishes of the victim brushed to the side as unimportant? Can you answer this question?

The mod wants us back on topic. I will be happy to answer you in another thread.

 

[ateista]

The mod wants us back on topic. I will be happy to answer you in another thread.

True, and she is right. We have been straying. So let’s get back to where we left off.

My last post on the subject was that God purposefully created a few species (humans and greater apes) with a different biological setup when it came to sex. These species are not bound by the fertility cycle (estrus) like other species are.

I drew the conclusion that that this is intentional and points to the fact that in these species sex is only partially related to reproduction. This is underscored by the fact that only a very small precentage of sexual encounters results in a conception and that only a small part of conceptions results in pregnancy.

Other posters pointed out that the unitive aspect also have to be considered. It is a reasonable point of view. especially if we consider that the sexual drive does not disappear with the end of fertility.

My conclusions are simple. Even if we disregard the pleasurable aspect, sex is not only there for reproductive purposes. The unitive aspect makes no provisions about hetero-, or homosexual bonding, nor does it require a formal arrangement like marriage. People can love and cherish each other even if they belong to the same gender or not formally committed to each other.

Disregarding the question on casual sex, and concentrating upon the serious, committed relationships, I simply cannot accept that God would not condone a loving and caring relationship. A short remark: by the same token, to put restrictions on how to express that love (by prohibiting certain “positions”) is sheer lunacy.

If we take the pleasurable aspect into account, and contend that sex is a gift from God, then it is an abuse of that gift not to enjoy it. If - as you say - God is loving and gave us this pleasure to enjoy, why put all sorts of artificial restrictions on it? Those restrictions come from a bunch of old men, who either never learned what kind of pleasure sex can give, or forgot it a long time ago.

Disclaimer: I tried to put myself into your “shoes” and tried to think like a reasonable believer, while discarding the man-made dogma. My own personal views regarding sex are not relevant, suffice it to say that I subscribe to the old saying: “Of all the sexual aberrations the most unnatural one is chastity”.

 

[Veronica7978]

I am disappointed at the lack of compassion I have found here. You can spread the good news with love, as Jesus did, or you can condemn and alienate. Believe me, gay folks don’t need you telling them that what they do is different, wrong, against the Bible, they are intelligent human beings. You’re not telling them anything they haven’t heard before. What they need is to hear that God loves them unconditionally, that God forgives all their sin, and that their sin is no different than heterosexual sin (though many of you like to pretend it’s different because it makes you better in some way). And frankly, when you hate and judge, it’s just as sinful, if not more, as premarital sex, even homosexual premarital sex. For those of you who have no sense of humor (which I’ve found is essentially nonexistent in these parts), the reference to homosexual premarital sex is meant to be sarcastic. You will be surprised at who you see in Heaven, I guarantee it. You don’t have to worry about me being here for your response, I’ve found this “Catholic” board not to my liking. Two days was enough to teach me to stay away - I’ve got too much sin to hang out with you guys.

 

[hasikelee]

I’m certainly not an Aquinas scholar, so forgive me in advance if I’m too simplistic. But my basic understanding is that Thimas Aquinas would look to the nature of things and find the Creator. Thomas said it is our nature to seek good, and the “good” was that which is in accord with the nature of the thing. 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.” I’m certinly not arguing for this position, but wondering how to address the argument.

Define your use of natural.

If you mean natural as in pertaining to the way the natural world is ordered, then your argument falls flat on its face.

Using your argument, you could say that those with amputated arms and legs should never get prosthetics. Those born blind should never have surgery, those with depression should never be treated.

Misuse of biological processes, especially sexual processes, is usually deemed unnatural, or not following the natural order of living organisms.

So you must be using “natural” in place of “normally occurring” or “average” or “common.”

Well, that’s another problem. Geneticists have still been unable to determine if homosexuality is naturally occurring or if there are environmental factors that cause it later on. Also, “average” and “common” might be our perceptions, but it is still factually incorrect. Homosexuality is not the average, nor is it common.

 

[blessedtoo]

I am disappointed at the** lack of compassion I have found here.** You can spread the good news with love, as Jesus did, or you can condemn and alienate. Believe me, gay folks don’t need you telling them that what they do is different, wrong, against the Bible, they are intelligent human beings. You’re not telling them anything they haven’t heard before. What they need is to hear that God loves them unconditionally, that God forgives all their sin, and that their sin is no different than heterosexual sin (though many of you like to pretend it’s different because it makes you better in some way). And frankly, when you hate and judge, it’s just as sinful, if not more, as premarital sex, even homosexual premarital sex. For those of you who** have no sense of humor** (which I’ve found is essentially nonexistent in these parts), the reference to homosexual premarital sex is meant to be sarcastic. You will be surprised at who you see in Heaven, I guarantee it. You don’t have to worry about me being here for your response, I’ve found this “Catholic” board not to my liking. Two days was enough to teach me to stay away - I’ve got too much sin to hang out with you guys.

For the sake of others reading this thread, I wish to point out that after careful review of this entire thread, I did not see one “hateful” comment from any poster regarding homosexual persons. In fact, this thread has been very carefully monitored by the mods who would not hesitate to squash a hateful comment or exchange.

The only personal attacks and judgemental comments have come from you.

 

[as-a-child]

peterkreeft.com/audio/11_moral-theology.htm

I think this talk covers a lot of what’s being discussed here and should be listened to by all.

 

[Veronica7978]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “[Homosexuals] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” (CCC 2358).
—Michelle Arnold

 

[Valke2]

Homosexual temptations can never be in accord with the good of the individual because they attempt to use sexuality in a fashion that negates the good end that sexuality is ordered to.

There is more than one good end to sexuality. Sexuality does not have a single goal of procreation. It is also a way to strengthen bonds of love and to provide pleasue through intimacy.

 

[Dameedna]

There is more than one good end to sexuality. Sexuality does not have a single goal of procreation. It is also a way to strengthen bonds of love and to provide pleasue through intimacy.

This has actually been shown now scientifically.

An interesting side-note, is that when women communicate emotionally, they produce a LARGE amount of the human bonding chemical in the brain. About 20 times the amount a man does when he communicates emotionally.

When a man has physical intimacy with a woman, he tends to release a huge amount of this same bonding chemcial, ironically, about 20 times less for a woman.

Women bond through talking. Men bond physically.

Neither is wrong, but it is very wrong to expect men who are born with homosexuality to be able to bond without physical intimacy.

This is going to be a big-ticket item for the church. Not because people “hate” gay’s, but because the church has an imperative to truth.

The more we know about ourselves, the more they are heading into a corner.

Cheers

 

[Dan86]

That’s hard to say, because sexual attraction is a form of instinct. It’s not chosen.