Same sex attraction

[Betterave]

Thank you for demonstrating my point. The meaning of natural can be so ambiguously used as to conflate “is” and “ought”. And when used this way it is not helpful to this particular discussion (the OP).

You’re right about the possible conflation of ‘is’ and ‘ought,’ but how did I demonstrate your point? I pointed out that your use of language was radically confused, didn’t I?

 

[vsedriver]

If nature does not ‘intend’ for it to happen, why then does it? EVERYTHING is natural because everything IS. People are occasionally born blind. It happens.

That makes no sense whatsoever. The function of an eye is to see. Eyes that do not see are abnormal. Using eyes for anything but seeing is abnormal. The function of the sex drive is procreation and unitive to pair bonding. A sex drive not focused on the opposite sex is abnormal. That’s not a judgment although for many the term ‘abnormal’ is associated with ‘bad’. It is just a fact.

Depends, I suppose, on how you are defining ‘the norm’. Statistically, certainly, both blind people as well as homosexuals are outnumbered by their more ‘normal’ brethren. However, the same could be said of left handed individuals. Just because some status, such as blindness, homosexuality, or left handedness, is statistically ‘abnormal’ doesn’t make it ‘abnormal’ from the perspective of good and bad.

How do you define ‘norm’?

Numbers have nothing to do with it. This isn’t about status or statistics. And whether something abnormal is good or bad depends on whether you are speaking morally or from functionality. Obviously non-functioning eyes are a bad thing. Doesn’t mean blind people are bad. That would be a moral judgment based on their behavior.

 

[Seeker2010]

Using eyes for anything but seeing is abnormal.

Really? So, when I close my eyes and rub them, because it feels good, I’m doing something abnormal? Is it evil, too?

The function of the sex drive is procreation and unitive to pair bonding.

Really? So when I have sex with someone with whom I don’t want to have a baby, and with whom I don’t have a pair bond, I’m doing something abnormal? Is it evil, too?

A sex drive not focused on the opposite sex is abnormal.

Statistically, sure. So what?

 

[TEPO]

He said that following the logical conclusion, we would come to the point where heterosexual couples would be barred from marriage after the women reaches menopause, and that any woman who reached menopause, would be unable to marry. He also said that the unitive element of marriage is also present in same sex relationships. Can someone help me out please?

Wow, what a stretch…

 

[Edward_H]

Really? So, when I close my eyes and rub them, because it feels good, I’m doing something abnormal? Is it evil, too?

Really? So when I have sex with someone with whom I don’t want to have a baby, and with whom I don’t have a pair bond, I’m doing something abnormal? Is it evil, too?

Statistically, sure. So what?

When you use your eyes for something other than doing God’s will, like lusting or envying, etc., yep. That’s not just abnormal, it’s immoral.

Yes…if you were to have sex with someone other than your spouse, that’s immoral.
You bet.

If you have sex with your spouse and have no intent to bear and rear the children that might result of that act, yes, that’s immoral.

“Pairbonding” (I reject even the term) unless it’s marriage, is immoral if there’s sexual contact.

Homosexuals and “SSA-types” should read Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body…and some of the summaries of it.

 

[Seeker2010]

When you use your eyes for something other than doing God’s will, like lusting or envying, etc., yep. That’s not just abnormal, it’s immoral.

Really? Says who?

Yes…if you were to have sex with someone other than your spouse, that’s immoral.
You bet.

Even if everyone involved consents and desires it?

If you have sex with your spouse and have no intent to bear and rear the children that might result of that act, yes, that’s immoral.

What if I just want to have sex without actually creating children?

Homosexuals and “SSA-types” should read Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body…and some of the summaries of it.

Why does PJPII have more insight as to the desires and expectations of god than some random stranger on the street? Does god speak to him? Do they call each other on the phone? Have dinner together?

 

[Edward_H]

Really? Says who?

Even if everyone involved consents and desires it?

What if I just want to have sex without actually creating children?

Why does PJPII have more insight as to the desires and expectations of god than some random stranger on the street? Does god speak to him? Do they call each other on the phone? Have dinner together?

1. Says God.

• Proverbs 5:17-23
• Matthew 5:27-30
• Romans 1:26-27
• 1 Corinthians 6:9-20
• Galatians 5:16-21
• Ephesians 4:19-24
• Ephesians 5:3-5
• 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8
• Hebrews 13:4

1. So your definition for moral acceptability is “consent and desire” So we determine moral rectitude; it doesn’t exist outside of “us”. You’re in the wrong forum to be trying to argue this.
2. “What if I just want to have sex without actually creating children?”

Too bad, so sad: It’s not your body, it’s God’s. What did you do with the talents you were given to produce for the Master?

4.* “Why does PJPII have more insight as to the desires and expectations of god than some random stranger on the street? Does god speak to him? Do they call each other on the phone? Have dinner together?”*

Because he was the Pope. He had God given authority. He was a lot smarter than you or me. He had a lot smarter helpers than you or me. He thought more about it than you have. And it appears that he had an enormous more amount of Charity than you have currently (I’ll ignore your other small comments).

 

[Seeker2010]

1. Says God.

The references you listed are works of man. Does god speak to you? (And I don’t mean through your feelings, or from the beauty of nature, have you had a direct, verifiable, two-way conversation with him?)

It’s not your body, it’s God’s.

Wow, we don’t even own ourselves? No wonder ya’ll are so big on the idea of legislating morality.

He had God given authority.

When, where, and how did god make this announcement? And I repeat my unanswered question, if the pope is speaking on behalf of god, is he telling us what he (a flawed, imperfect human) THINKS god would say about something, or is he in direct, two-way communication with him?

Cause what it boils down to is if he’s just telling us what he THINKS god would say, that’s no more authoritative than asking a random stranger.

 

[Edward_H]

The references you listed are works of man. Does god speak to you? (And I don’t mean through your feelings, or from the beauty of nature, have you had a direct, verifiable, two-way conversation with him?)

Wow, we don’t even own ourselves? No wonder ya’ll are so big on the idea of legislating morality.

When, where, and how did god make this announcement? And I repeat my unanswered question, if the pope is speaking on behalf of god, is he telling us what he (a flawed, imperfect human) THINKS god would say about something, or is he in direct, two-way communication with him?

Cause what it boils down to is if he’s just telling us what he THINKS god would say, that’s no more authoritative than asking a random stranger.

More sincere “seeking” of truth and less typing is needed. Peace. Taking my own advice. Out.

 

[Betterave]

More sincere “seeking” of truth and less typing is needed. Peace. Taking my own advice. Out.

Well put. Seeker, can you seriously do some soul-searching and ask yourself if you are open to the truth, even if the truth turns out to be other than what you want it to be? Your ‘arguments’ present as extremely sophomoric. I suggest making a concerted effort to present yourself as open-minded, even if you are skeptical. Right now you just seem to be dogmatically skeptical, which is kind of a boring position, rationally speaking.

 

[John21652]

Really? Says who?

Even if everyone involved consents and desires it?

What if I just want to have sex without actually creating children?

Why does PJPII have more insight as to the desires and expectations of god than some random stranger on the street? Does god speak to him? Do they call each other on the phone? Have dinner together?

Well, if the arch hedonist of CAF isn’t up to his old tricks of trying to ram his moral vacuuity down people’s throats and at the same time denigrating others beliefs and morals in the process. The contradiction is that while you do that you seek affirmation of your own deranged morality. I thought you’d have quit while your ahead Seeker.

That last paragraph would have to be one of the dumbest pieces of sarcasm I’ve ever read. You spend half your life on CAF because you are scared of your own lack of morality and yet you still have to ask about the Pope’s status as a man of morality and as a teacher. The crack about the phone shows just how juvenile you can get. Your own swinging lifestyle is pathetically abnormal and your support of abnormal sex attractions is designed to support your own hopelessly dysfunctional life. Why do you persist?

 

[Not_Sure_1]

It’s all about taking up your cross, just like people can’t be fornicating because its a sin,
therefore people should not be having sex with people of their own gender.

It will always be considered fornication because no marriage between two people of the same sex can be valid and in order to do a sexual act with the same sex unnatural methods are used and it takes a way God’s plan for sex, procreation.

 

[Seeker2010]

That last paragraph would have to be one of the dumbest pieces of sarcasm I’ve ever read.

Quite the rant without even making an effort to address the fundamental question.

How is it that the pope is more enlightened than the rest of us? If he’s giving us nothing more than his own opinion, then how is that meaningful, for he is but a man? And if it’s not merely his personal opinion, how does he come to be in possession of the information?

 

[Betterave]

Quite the rant without even making an effort to address the fundamental question.

As I mentioned, that may be because your questions seem to be thoroughly sophomoric, not real questions from someone who is seeking real answers.

How is it that the pope is more enlightened than the rest of us?

Supposing he was more enlightened, how do you think it would/could be that he would be?

If he’s giving us nothing more than his own opinion, then how is that meaningful, for he is but a man?

Who said he was giving us nothing more than his own opinion?

And if it’s not merely his personal opinion, how does he come to be in possession of the information?

How does any of us come to be in possession of any information?

 

[John21652]

Quite the rant without even making an effort to address the fundamental question.

How is it that the pope is more enlightened than the rest of us? If he’s giving us nothing more than his own opinion, then how is that meaningful, for he is but a man? And if it’s not merely his personal opinion, how does he come to be in possession of the information?

Well, don’t you just always label everything directed against your hedonism a ‘rant’. Seems to be a habit of yours. I suspect the anger arises in you so much you lose focus on what the other person is saying. Hopefully one day you will mature enough to be a little calmer.

Oh, I know and you know and others know I’m correct in my judgement of you. After all Betterave called you ‘sophomoric’. Interesting label that!

With regard to the Pope, the very fact he has ascended to the Papacy makes him more enlightened than the rest of us. Of course, if you know so very little about the Papacy that what I just wrote has gone way over your head, I’d be more than willing to write an essay on the subject for you.

Now answer my question. Why do you persist?

 

[JChapel]

I’m feeling the heat of a flame war coming on, with bluntly unsupported arguments on both sides. Must this be how all SSA threads end on CAF? If so, this really stands as proof that this issue of SSA in the church, or at least the surrounding controversy, has yet to be resolved.

 

[BlueShadow123]

I’m feeling the heat of a flame war coming on, with bluntly unsupported arguments on both sides. Must this be how all SSA threads end on CAF? If so, this really stands as proof that this issue of SSA in the church, or at least the surrounding controversy, has yet to be resolved.

The war will never be over until its legalized like it should be.

I think people have the right to be with who they want sexually if the other person is consenting and its in private. However due to personal beliefs, that also would mean I have to think its a perversion. Eitherway, not my choice.

 

[djeter]

Edward Feser speaks to Natural Law Theory and Sexual Morality here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/11/23/natural-law-theory-and-sexual-morality-%e2%80%93-edward-feser/

“procreative” slips off the tongue easily enough but if you want to start with Why procreative?" this essay is a great place to begin.

dj

 

[John21652]

Edward Feser speaks to Natural Law Theory and Sexual Morality here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/11/23/natural-law-theory-and-sexual-morality-%e2%80%93-edward-feser/

“procreative” slips off the tongue easily enough but if you want to start with Why procreative?" this essay is a great place to begin.

dj

djeter, that is indeed a good article you linked to.However, have a read of this thread Gay marriage - who cares. There you can read Natural Law arguments in great detail thrown up against hedonists and moral relativists who have the arrogance to denigrate every pillar of Western Christian-Judeo morality and who simply thumb their noses at Catholic teaching. They make themselves look pretty foolish in the process, but, having no shame whatsoever, they continue on regardless.

 

[Seeker2010]

Supposing he was more enlightened, how do you think it would/could be that he would be?

Well, I would think it would be because he has access to actual authoritative information that the rest of us lack. However, since the premise here is that god is the actual, and only, authority, that would mean either the pope is in direct, two-way communication with him, or has access to past, verified communications from him. Either way, it’s an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

And if he is giving us merely his personal opinion, why should that be authoritative?

If the pope thinks god wants X, you think god wan’t Y, and I think he want’s Z, but we’re all just spouting our own opinions, is there any real way to determine who amongst us is right?