The disorder of homosexuality

[RobbyS]

I am unaware of a death penalty in any pacific island for being homosexual.

Can’t always believe Margaret Mead. Francis Parkman in his”Oregon Trail” talks about homosexuals among the Plains indians. Made them dress like squaws, and theywere virtual slaves.

 

[Viviphilia]

Well if everything we become is purely reducible to genes,

In several posts on this thread I brought up the topic of epigenetics as an explanation for normal variance in Humans. Humans are far more complex than our genes. We cannot be reduced to our DNA and I hope I’ve supported that conviction in my words.

and normality is measured by their functionality, then to be born with no arms and legs is normal. To develop attraction to children is normal. To develop attraction to animals is normal. There is no real objective value distinction between any potential biological or psychological condition. There is no such thing as abnormality. But that kind of thinking is a product of a naturalistic world-view. You have to begin with naturalism before you can infer those things.

Objectively speaking, Naturalism renders the concept of normality meaningless. Disorder is meaningless given a naturalist world-view. Everything just is what they are; just an expression of energy. If a naturalistic society puts limitations on human actions, it is only in the sense of what one perceives as pragmatically advantages in terms of social, material, and physical survival. In such a society It is no wonder that someone would think that homosexuality is okay.

In a naturalistic world, the gay man defines his sexuality purely in terms of his orientation because that is what he most values. Gender has the least value in terms of defining how a gay person expresses his sexuality (what he ought to do with it). It is to an extent a meaningless fact that we should happen to be men or women. In fact in a naturalistic world, it would not be abnormal at all for a person to completely change his or her gender identity to what ever he or she felt desirable, because the value of gender is purely subject to the whim of human fancy.

For a christian meta-physician however, value is objective, it is not subject to our whim. The value of sexuality is a given fact. Sexuality objectively begins with the fact that one is either a man or a women, and these things have an intrinsic meaning and value that we are not at liberty to change. We ought to value gender as fundamental to our sexuality and also as the defining factor of what we do with it, if we are to be true to the objective value of what it means to be men or women. Because the value of human sexuality begins with gender, the true value of orientation is only fulfilled insofar as it reflects the value of our gender identity. This is to say that orientation exists as an extension of our sexual identity and not as that which defines it fundamentally. Thus if one truly recognises the objective value of their gender identity, then insofar as they express themselves sexually they will only do that which expresses the value of their gender. If homosexual attraction does not reflect the value of ones gender, then homosexual attraction is by definition a disorder insofar as it impedes the natural end and value of being a man or a women. Homosexual behaviour degrades the complimentary nature of men and women.

Thus in the eyes of a Christian meta-physician, any man or women that acts upon homosexual attraction is immoral insofar as they are degrading their identity as men and women. They are not being true to the value of what they really are. Therefore homosexuality is considered to be a shameful act.

It is for this reason that homosexuality is impossible for Christianity; at least from a metaphysical stand-point.

ReapReason, your well-reasoned post has been most thought provoking. I’m sure I’ll need to read it several times to understand more thorougly. I’m hoping you could please clarify a point. This issue has come up several times on this thread and I’d like to get your perspective. When you say, “homosexuality is considered to be a shameful act,” what do you mean by homosexuality as an act? Are you referring to two people of the same sex having sexual relations? What if they profess their love for each other without any sexual behavior? What about a homosexual couple who refrained from any sort of sexuality, but considered themselves married? What about a lone homosexual who does not act on his desires, but has homosexual desires nontheless? Should he be ashamed of himself for being a homosexual or should he merely be ashamed of the desires?

Your reliance on the firmness of gender is causing me just a little confusion. Most people are fortunate to take their gender for granted. However, there are some who suffer from gender dissonance. One group in that category of transgender individuals is reported to have a condition known as mosaicism. In that condition, some of the person’s cells contain 46,XX chromosomes and other cells contain 46,XY chromosomes. They usually report mixed sexual characteristics including ambiguous genitalia and sometimes even a mixed gender identity. A bizarre condition, I’m sure. Apparently, some of them even have blogs where they talk about their condition. While at first glance I find it plausible that your reasoning applies to the vast majority of people, I’m interested in your perspective of that tiny subgroup of rare “abnormal” individuals.

While I don’t believe I am considering the overthrow of our civilization’s gender traditions, I am left wondering how rare exceptions should be treated. For example, should they be allowed to marry or have sex? As far as I know they are always sterile. How far should charity extend to such individuals?

-V

 

[PRmerger]

For example, should they be allowed to marry or have sex? As far as I know they are always sterile. How far should charity extend to such individuals?

-V

Well, if they’re already married, then no.

And if they’re not married, then, no, they shouldn’t be allowed to have sex.

Also, these individuals are not always sterile.

 

[PRmerger]

For example, should they be allowed to marry or have sex? As far as I know they are always sterile. How far should charity extend to such individuals?

-V

Charity should extend to such individuals to the fullest extent that one is capable. Of course.

And, to seriously address your question, I go back to the Scriptures and quote Jesus saying, “From the beginning it was not so”. That is, at the beginning of each individual’s conception they had a genetic code that was intended for them: XX or XY. Whatever anomalous development that occurred that interfered with what was intended for them at the beginning is simply that: an anomaly.

So each individual can live his/her life as intended “from the beginning” and, to the degree that he/she lives a life consonant with Divine Law, he/she will be happy. In marriage. Or in celibacy. Whatever he/she chooses.

 

[Viviphilia]

As I said, you are indulgent only with differences in morality that you consider to be “tolerable.” i.e. homosexuality.

But not with other differences in morality, such as white supremacy.

And here’s another quote of yours that supports my argument:

Your proclamation that we should try to “agree to disagree” only applies to differences in morality that you find palatable.

You allow yourself to be the arbiter of what we can agree to disagree on, but not Catholics.

You may draw the line at white supremacy.
Catholics draw the line at homosexual behavior.

Why do you oppose this? Why must we agree to disagree?

Will you agree to disagree with a white supremacist?

White supremacy is a choice. Homosexual sex is a choice, but being a homosexual is not a choice. I believe I understand Catholic opposition to homosexual sex. I don’t recall ever protesting that position. My concern is not so much with moral opposition to homosexual sex. Of greater concern to me is condemnation of homosexuals, as individuals, who are unable to change their sexual orientation.

The Church’s teaching is clear that homosexuals should be treated with charity and compassion - oppose the sin, not the sinner. We went over that earlier in the thread. However, I hope we can agree that not all Catholics are perfect people, and not all limit their condemnation to the sin. From my perspective, it would appear that some Catholics might misunderstand the Church’s teachings and unfortunately condemn the sinner. Is a discussion of how to help individuals better practice the Church’s teachings not appropriate?

Many homosexual individuals live with great self-hatred because they are moral people who, out of their morality, mistakenly condemn themselves for having desires which they are unable to control. My position is merely that we should show charity and compassion to them, rather than condemnation and condescension. We should help guide them to moral behavior rather than self destruction. Don’t you agree?

 

[Viviphilia]

That is, at the beginning of each individual’s conception they had a genetic code that was intended for them: XX or XY. Whatever anomalous development that occurred that interfered with what was intended for them at the beginning is simply that: an anomaly.

Individuals with Klinefelter’s syndrome began, at conception, in their very first cell, with the 47,XXY genotype.

I’m not sure why you feel the need to repeat yourself about their anomalous condition. Forgive me if I’m mistaken, but it’s almost as if you are trivializing the condition of those people as something not worth your time or thought. As if, since they are an anomaly, it doesn’t matter what happens to them. I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, I suppose I’m just confused about what you’re saying.

 

[Viviphilia]

Also, these individuals are not always sterile.

Would you please cite evidence for your claim? I was under the impression that individuals with mosaicism are always sterile and I’d like to know for sure. Thanks.

 

[PRmerger]

Individuals with Klinefelter’s syndrome began, at conception, in their very first cell, with the 47,XXY genotype.

No. In the beginning they were not intended to be anomalous, Viv. In the beginning, this individual was designed to be either male or female.

 

[PRmerger]

Is a discussion of how to help individuals better practice the Church’s teachings not appropriate?

What would that look like to you, Viv? (Not what would the discussion look like. But how Catholics would better practice the Church’s teachings on homosexuality–what would that look like to you?)

 

[Viviphilia]

Well, if they’re already married, then no.

And if they’re not married, then, no, they shouldn’t be allowed to have sex.

Also, these individuals are not always sterile.

Sorry but I find your language a little difficult to decipher. Are you saying anything more than transgender individuals need to be married to have sex, but they should be permitted to marry and have sex within marriage?

I assume you require that they should be a man and a woman, but I brought up cases where it is not clear if the individual is a man or woman - mosaicism - for example. Another example would be a trans woman who has retained her functional male genitalia but is legally a woman and presents as such.

 

[PRmerger]

White supremacy is a choice. Homosexual sex is a choice, but being a homosexual is not a choice.

True, all. Non-sequiturs, but true nonetheless.

Many homosexual individuals live with great self-hatred because they are moral people who, out of their morality, mistakenly condemn themselves for having desires which they are unable to control.

What do you mean by “condemn themselves”?

My position is merely that we should show charity and compassion to them, rather than condemnation and condescension.

And here, how is it that you believe Catholics have “condemned” homosexuals? Can you cite some examples of this type of condemnation that you have in mind?

We should help guide them to moral behavior rather than self destruction. Don’t you agree?

Well, it depends. I’m not sure what it would look like to you, in your world, for Catholics to be able tl “guide them to moral behavior.”

Perhaps if you could be specific, then I could either give a or a to your examples.

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry but I find your language a little difficult to decipher. Are you saying anything more than transgender individuals need to be married to have sex, but they should be permitted to marry and have sex within marriage?

No, I am not saying anything more than transgender individuals need to be married to ahve sex, and that they should be permitted to marry and have sex within marriage.

I assume you require that they should be a man and a woman, but I brought up cases where it is not clear if the individual is a man or woman - mosaicism - for example. Another example would be a trans woman who has retained her functional male genitalia but is legally a woman and presents as such.

I already answered this, Viv. Post #510.

And I think this thread discussion has already provided great insight: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=669974

 

[ReapReason]

From an historical viewpoint also. Christians followed Jewish morality, the difference between them and the several schools of the pharisees being relativly little. Christianity is an incarnational faith, viewing the creation as a good thing, unlike the gnostics.

That’s fair enough.

What I was trying to show in my argument is that anti-homosexuality can be defended given a Christian understanding of morality and value. I think it is important that Christians show the world that their views have a rational basis, or at the very least they should be able to show that the rejection of homosexuality logically and necessarily follows from holding a particular understanding of reality that is intrinsic to their faith. That way, even if an atheist or whoever fundamentally disagrees with Christianity in terms of what it objectively means for something to be good or bad, they cannot say that Christians adhere blindly to scriptural, dogmatic, or historical statements concerning the rejection of homosexuality.

I think Christians spend too much time quoting the bible and stating God’s disgust for homosexuality and not enough time explaining what it fundamentally means for Christians to say that something is wrong or good.

Do you agree?

 

[CopticChristian]

I fully understand Hansen’s Disease is a disease and is treatable with drugs today, which it obviously should be treated with.

Isn’t hospice care reserved for terminal diseases?

When the suffering is enough to make some beg for death I think it qualifies as very painful at least emotionally for them. I was using palliative care like how it is used in regards to chronic illnesses, same sex attraction isn’t exactly going anywhere for the vast majority of people. Of course there isn’t a homogenous mindset.

Dakota,

Palliative is usually used medically speaking in the context of “that’s about all we can do for them”…for instance when speaking of Morphine for terminal Cancer…not really treating the Cancer just making someone comfortable…

 

[CopticChristian]

White supremacy is a choice. Homosexual sex is a choice, but being a homosexual is not a choice. I believe I understand Catholic opposition to homosexual sex. I don’t recall ever protesting that position. My concern is not so much with moral opposition to homosexual sex. Of greater concern to me is condemnation of homosexuals, as individuals, who are unable to change their sexual orientation.

The Church’s teaching is clear that homosexuals should be treated with charity and compassion - oppose the sin, not the sinner. We went over that earlier in the thread. However, I hope we can agree that not all Catholics are perfect people, and not all limit their condemnation to the sin. From my perspective, it would appear that some Catholics might misunderstand the Church’s teachings and unfortunately condemn the sinner. Is a discussion of how to help individuals better practice the Church’s teachings not appropriate?

Many homosexual individuals live with great self-hatred because they are moral people who, out of their morality, mistakenly condemn themselves for having desires which they are unable to control. My position is merely that we should show charity and compassion to them, rather than condemnation and condescension. We should help guide them to moral behavior rather than self destruction. Don’t you agree?

Viv,

I seem to understand some of what you say and offer this.

Homosexuals have desires that they cannot control.

Understand that a desire is a passion or urge or presumed need. Understand that a presumed need is as real as a real need.

I desire…what?

I desire food. I cannot control eating.
I desire cocaine. I cannot control use of cocaine.

In the first case it is sustenance and in the second case it is exogenous substance. Both elements of desire and both in excess can cause harm. Shall we accept that there are people that have no ability to control these desires? I am not saying that there may not be individuals that cannot however for discussion understand this.

We live in a world where people believe that the passions, emotions, desires can and should be controlled…we live in a society where people that cannot control their anger go to jail when that anger gets out of control. We live in a society filled with diets to help people get their desires under control.

We are geared to believe that people can and should control their desires and when you voice an opinion suggesting that you have an uncontrollable desire then there is a certain kind of thinking that is engendered.

I cannot control my desire to drink, yet when in jail, absent alcohol, that desire is resolved. In China, you know that Opium was a problem and the solution, prison…no more opium addicts because a short bout of prison and removal of opium resolved that…

So we, I believe that desires can and should be controlled and you won’t find any more staunch supporters of this view than a Catholic…since you wanted to understand Catholics. Ok

 

[epan]

I don’t know your experience and cannot second guess it but as I’ve said repeatedly I had substantial interaction with homosexuals during the 80s and up until this time. I just didn’t see the kind of violent or hateful reaction that you claim was all around. In fact the only time I’ve seen this is with respect to the Phelps family during a military funeral. I assure you their hateful words were completely rejected.

Lisa

And yet, there has been discrimination in employment, housing, provision of medical services, military eligibility, etc… How overt discriminatory behavior has been may have been related to location. I would expect a gay couple to have a very different experience on the streets of New York, as opposed to being newly arrived at a small rural town.

My uncle is gay. He tells me that the first time he went into a gay bar, at the age of 18, the vice squad came through and required ID from each person in the bar. They then wrote down their names in notebooks to add to their records as known homosexuals. This sort of behavior is what sparked the Stonewall riots. It was the night that Judy Garland had died. The bar was frequented by drag queens. The police came to take ID’s. The drag queens had had enough of the practice, and they rioted.

As an aside, someone pointed out to me how much courage it took in the past to be openly homosexual. There was a lot of discrimination. The people who were not discriminated against so much where the ones who could pass as straight. Personally, I would think twice about putting on a dress, fishnets and heels to go to the market (I’m male). Particularly a few decades ago, that would take some courage.

 

[Viviphilia]

So we, I believe that desires can and should be controlled and you won’t find any more staunch supporters of this view than a Catholic…since you wanted to understand Catholics. Ok

The difference between having uncontrollable desires and acting on those desires is well known to anyone with a mature sense of morality. Unfortunately, teenagers do not always possess a mature sense of morality. Adults don’t always either. And as I’m sure you are aware, the topic of sexuality can be among the most confusing for young people. Sexual morality can be a nightmare of confusion for a gender-sex variant youth. Imagine being such a person in a Catholic household with parents who focused more on condemning the sin than having charity and compassion for the sinner.

That kind of extreme confusion, not limited to Catholic households and certainly not present in all Catholic households, lends explanation to the high rates of suicide in LGBT youth. Some of those kids have a strong sense of morality, although not necessarily with a mature understanding of ethics. That could be a potentially deadly mix if the child condemns himself as evil because of his sinful desires, and becomes hopeless due to certainty of lonely future of forced celibacy.

I know, I know, a mature person should understand that the celibacy is not forced, but rather voluntary submission to God. And the condemnation is of the sin and not the sinner. But I think it should be possible for us to see how confusing the issue can be and how a lack of moral support could lead to the overwhelming feelings of hopelessness felt by people who commit suicide. If one of his core desires is an evil act, wouldn’t a morally strong but confused person wonder how he could live out the rest of his life? Obviously suicide is a sin, but the alternative is life full of sin, shame, loneliness and hopelessness.

I’m not asking anyone to abandon their morality or to abandon Catholicism. I’m asking people to understand the predicament in which LGBT individuals find themselves and to try, perhaps harder, to have charity and compassion for those sinners.

 

[RobbyS]

That’s fair enough.

What I was trying to show in my argument is that anti-homosexuality can be defended given a Christian understanding of morality and value. I think it is important that Christians show the world that their views have a rational basis, or at the very least they should be able to show that the rejection of homosexuality logically and necessarily follows from holding a particular understanding of reality that is intrinsic to their faith. That way, even if an atheist or whoever fundamentally disagrees with Christianity in terms of what it objectively means for something to be good or bad, they cannot say that Christians adhere blindly to scriptural, dogmatic, or historical statements concerning the rejection of homosexuality.

I think Christians spend too much time quoting the bible and stating God’s disgust for homosexuality and not enough time explaining what it fundamentally means for Christians to say that something is wrong or good.

Do you agree?

The rational basis lies in distinguishing the biological from the personal. The former is descriptive, the latter is existential.

 

[Stephen168]

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “purpose of a left hand or right hand.”

Nor do I understand your question, “To what is the hand ordered?”

If you’d like to elaborate, feel free.

To rephrase the question: Why do we have hands?

We have eyes to see. A blind person’s eyes are not disordered; they are broken. Even a blind eye is ordered toward sight.

You seem to suggest that there is something about the purpose of our hands that require us to only use the right hand, therefore using a left hand would be disordered. What is that purpose?

I think homosexuality is a normal variant of sexual orientation, just as left-handedness is a normal variant of handedness, and red hair is a normal variant of hair color.

What is the purpose of hair that would require one color over the other?

I’m surprised you haven’t yet heard this yet, but adults get to make their own decisions about sex and children are not believed to be able to make their own decisions about sex. There is a very big difference between morally permitting homosexuality and morally permitting pedophilia. If you’re unable to discern such basic and obvious differences, perhaps you should do a bit more research on the topic before you post next time?

If you are genuinely concerned about pedophilia, instead of falsely attributing a weak slippery slope to homosexuals, why not try focusing on Wahhabist Muslims who are actively and unabashedly promoting child marriage in Saudi Arabia?

I don’t see a slippery slope in this case. Both types of sex are disordered. I don’t understand the support for one and the condemnation of the other; except convention which can change.

 

[fix]

I sympathize with your position. You are clearly offended by homosexuality and you want homosexuals to stop offending you by “going back in the closet.” I am also offended by some of the behavior of some of the members of the gay liberation movement. You have a fair criticism, but you’re making a false dichotomy. The side you represent is not the only side with a problem.

See, the problem from the other side of the aisle which you want to “go back in the closet,” is that those people are sick of being condemned for the way they were born.

No one is condemning anyone. What is condemned is the constant attempt to normalized behavior that is not normal.

They are sick of being hated because of something which they believe is out of their control. They are offended when their basic desires are described as “perverse” or “sinful” or “deviant” even though you might believe those adjectives to be true. Since many homosexuals are offended by that attitude, some of them feel the need to be offensive in return. I disagree with that approach, but I do sympathize with their side of the issue, just as I sympathize with your side of the issue.

The word hate is misplaced here. Behavior is within their control and everyone else as well.

Would you care to explain your position? From our modern perspective, we can look back and laugh at how left-handed people were once mistrusted, right?. And most of us right-handers tend to ignore how difficult many things can be for left-handed folks. I think it’s safe to say that in the past, left-handedness was often thought of as a pathology. Today, we tend to think of left-handedness as a mere variation. I wonder if maybe homosexuality and left-handedness have more in common than either of us realize?

Being left handed really has no relevancy to this issue. It would be like claiming being left handed is like being prone to alcohol abuse.