What if the Church's teaching on homosexuality is wrong?

[Newbie2]

Earlier in the thread, the question was posed “what if” we’re wrong about God, Jesus, the Ressurection, etc.

According to St. Paul, we would then be the biggest idiots of all time. I would have to agree.

Rationalists like BingBang do not understand what “faith” means. There is an element of acceptance which may or may not be based on rational evidence, and there will always be an element that cannot be rationalized. That’s why they call it “faith”.

For example, I’d bet that BB has faith that if he posts something, it’s likely to be met with a response. But there is a chance that nobody will respond to his post(s). Nonetheless, he still has faith that it will. He can rationalize why he is likely to get a response, yet he won’t ever know for certain until he makes that post.

(Correct me if I’m making bad assumptions here, B.)

 

[bingbang]

“bingbang,”

God loves you just as much as He does the rest of us. I think you are very confused, so it’s hard for me to tell exactly what you believe in. I get the sense that you have some respect for the Church, but little faith in it. I also get the feeling that your lack of faith in the Church may be caused by the conflict between its teachings and the way you wish life to be. There are many conflicting views among Christians, in general, and even Christians who call themselves Catholic. Hence the term, “Cafeteria Catholics” …they take what they like and leave what they don’t. They are not truly Catholic, in other words. This is the same basic reason we have almost three thousand denominations of Christianity today. Considering the apostolic tradition, I’d recommend you to have more faith in the teachings of the Catholic Church more so than any other… if you believe in Jesus Christ, of course.

Besides all that, let me get to your original question. What if we (the Catholic Church) are wrong about our teaching that a homosexual relationship is wrong? Well, if we’re wrong about that, we must be wrong about everything else, pretty much. I would agree with most of what has been written to you already about this. I believe in all the teachings of the Catholic Church, my self, but I didn’t always. I left the Church, officially, for about 17 years. It was about 8 years ago that I bothered to search and research for the answers I was lacking in my life. I say this only to point out that I once too questioned the teachings of the Church. But, I dare you to put aside your selfish agendas and approach the teachings of the Church with an open heart and mind. Our faith is not blind.

Now, if you don’t believe in the Holy Trinity, or even the existence of God (the God of Abraham) in any form, there is *still *an argument against homosexuality. It is clearly against nature. It is out of order by the very physical characteristics of male and female. Male and female were meant to join together, obviously.

On a higher level (spiritual or psychological), outside of having faith in the God of Abraham, anything supporting the practice of homosexuality is really just based upon “feeling good,” which can not be accepted socially as a rational basis for judging what is right or wrong. There is no end to what some may consider “good” under that sort of judgement system. I’m sure raping makes a rapist feel good. I’m sure murdering makes some murderers feel good. Do you see what I mean? Now, I certainly don’t mean to compare homosexuals to rapists and murderers. Please don’t see it that way. I only mean to make my point by showing some extreme ends to judging what is right and wrong based upon what makes one happy. It’s just not a logical guage for judgement.

I’m not sure if you are homosexual yourself or just arguing on their behalf. I will assume you are homosexual. Feeling attracted to another person of the same sex is not a sin, but acting upon it is. So, you or anyone else who engages in such sexual activity are committing a sin.

I have known and befriended many homosexuals in my life. I know there are real feelings involved. I am very sorry for all of them. All these friends of mine I view as basically good people, as good, or even better than me in many different ways. We are all sinners. Surely, there is much evil among them, but homosexuals are not evil just by being homosexual. I am faced with all kinds of evil my self, as we all are in this life, and I am weak. I fall from grace on a regular basis, but I strive to reconcile my self to God with fear and trembling and follow Him to my salvation.

As far as judgement is concerned, read Matthew 25 (all of it, but mostly the second half). I do not condemn you. But, I do not support you. Every reasonable argument is against you in this matter. I hope you will see that someday.

God bless you.

(if you don’t believe in God, then…) Good luck.

I am married and have a son. I am not gay. As for your morality system about just doing what makes you feel good…that isn’t moral because a lot of things would actually make others not feel good. I feel as though compassion needs to be at the basis of any moral system AND many secular philosophers agree.

As for homosexuality being immoral because it is unnatural, I don’t accept that reasoning. Just because something is not natural doesn’t mean it is immoral. It isn’t natural for me to fly in an airplane, or drive in a car, or for a priest to choose to be celibate. None of those things are natural.

 

[bingbang]

You mean apart from the medical issues?

Apparently, yes, you’re missing it.

A + B = OK

A + A = NOT OK

B + B = NOT OK

Understand?

As for the medical issues, that is a silly argument when it comes to morality. Cliff jumping or mountain biking are dangerous things to do but that has nothing to do with morality.

As for your math equations, no I don’t understand. You just give a definite statement without explaining it at all.

 

[Mumbles140]

Just because there are two genders it means that people of one gender being together romantically is wrong? Am I missing the link here? There are two genders, yes, but I don’t understand how that then leads to homosexuality being wrong.

There are two genders because it takes man and woman to bear children. If heterosexually was ‘disallowed’ (as was proposed earlier to make us feel empathy), and homosexuality was ‘the norm’, then the population would die unless man slept with woman, which would break the LMHR idea. It goes against the purposes of nature (reproduction, survival, not ‘pleasure’), and is therefore wrong by the natural law (against the instinct to survive as a species). Now, I believe that is an argument against homosexual acts accepted as being ‘okay’ without using the overwhelming evidence through the revelations of God and the teachings handed down to the Church.

 

[bingbang]

Earlier in the thread, the question was posed “what if” we’re wrong about God, Jesus, the Ressurection, etc.

According to St. Paul, we would then be the biggest idiots of all time. I would have to agree.

Rationalists like BingBang do not understand what “faith” means. There is an element of acceptance which may or may not be based on rational evidence, and there will always be an element that cannot be rationalized. That’s why they call it “faith”.

For example, I’d bet that BB has faith that if he posts something, it’s likely to be met with a response. But there is a chance that nobody will respond to his post(s). Nonetheless, he still has faith that it will. He can rationalize why he is likely to get a response, yet he won’t ever know for certain until he makes that post.

(Correct me if I’m making bad assumptions here, B.)

OK, so St. Paul thinks we would be idiots. That doesn’t really prove much. I am sure there are plenty of Muslims that think Christians are idiots for thinking Jesus is God.

I understand faith, but if you have no rational evidence for something, you shouldn’t be 100% on it. That is my argument. You should always know there is a little bit of room for error when you aren’t using rational evidence.

 

[Nec5]

I understand faith, but if you have no rational evidence for something, you shouldn’t be 100% on it. That is my argument. You should always know there is a little bit of room for error when you aren’t using rational evidence.

As if rational evidence is always 100%.

 

[catholicgirl201]

I think the Church is right. The Bible says that it is a sin.

 

[Alexander_Smith]

God Himself is in relationship in the Trinity. God desires relationship with us and that we live and love in relationship with others. I find it incomprehensible that this loving, relationship-desiring God would expect a person to live his/her entire life without a loving, sexual relationship simply because of his/her unconscious sexual orientation

I know unmarried hetersexual people are also expected to conform to that standard – but sometimes that’s a choice or circumstantial – it isn’t mandated under pain of mortal sin because of who that person is in his/her very self (sexually).

Since we’re speaking hypothetically, (and disregarding biology for 30 seconds), what if you turn the tables and imagine that your heterosexual orientation were the one that was considered “intrinsically disordered?” Because of who you very basically are, and for no other reason you cannot share your life and love with anyone, ever. You are cut off from the deepest human relationship because your very essence (sexually), which was not your choice, is absolutely, irrevocably wrong.

Sexual desire exist to push us to procreate. Because the procreative act between a man and a woman is pleasurable, there is a strong motive to engage in it. This can be misused of course, but when used properly, it is what makes a man and a woman, one flesh. Marriage is the foundation on which children can be raised.

Also, would you look for a wife because you desire a “loving sexual relationship”? That sounds mighty selfish to me. If pleasure is all you want out of a relationship, don’t get married.

As for heterosexuality hypothetically being considered “disordered”, that is a moot point. Heterosexuality can never objectively be considered disordered any more than eating because you are hungry can be considered disordered. Homosexual sex is not normal, and it serves no functional purpose besides pleasure.

To you, BigBang:
Answer me this, if everyone on earth was a heterosexual, would that be good?
If everyone on earth was a homosexual, would that be good?

 

[Garyjohn2]

Bingbang, you already know that rational evidence can’t be used for everything. Remember? It’s a limited tool, especially when it comes to morality. Don’t rely on it too heavily, or you will limit yourself and your understanding of what is right/wrong…among other things!

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

So a belief is a “what if” only when it isn’t in line with the church? God being against homosexuality is acceptable but God not being against homosexuality is equivalent to gravity not existing? Seriously?

No, all beliefs are, in some sense, “what if”'s. That does not mean that all “what if” beliefs are accurate. Hence my statement regarding gravity. We know that every judeo-christian faith holds homosexuality as immoral (outside of fringe, secularized, faiths). And since we hold the bible as the inerrant word of God, and the bible says that homosexuality is immoral, then we can know God’s view of a grossly disordered urge.

Just because there are two genders it means that people of one gender being together romantically is wrong? Am I missing the link here? There are two genders, yes, but I don’t understand how that then leads to homosexuality being wrong.

Okay, let me explain this again. Same analogy but different items. A seatbelt. It has a male and female end. Two male ends wont hold you in a car during a crash and you will end badly. Two female ends wont hold you in a car during a crash and you will end badly. A male and female end WILL hold you in the car (except if one malfunctions) and you will most likely be better off than in either of the two previous cases.

I said that the teachings on contraception, fornication, and masturbation were not likely to impede on one’s happiness. I didn’t say that these things were immoral.

Also, I don’t think that homosexuality is “against their own nature.” And if it is, it is probably no more against one’s nature than being a celibate priest.

Homosexuality is absolutely against their nature. Nature being the intended purpose of a thing, and sex being primarily intended for procreation, homosexuality goes against the very nature of sex.

I am married and have a son. I am not gay. As for your morality system about just doing what makes you feel good…that isn’t moral because a lot of things would actually make others not feel good. I feel as though compassion needs to be at the basis of any moral system AND many secular philosophers agree.

If we take morality as being whatever makes you feel good AND doesnt hurt others, then homosexuality should be immoral since it causes emotional distress to many of the people around the homosexual lifestyle.

A moral foundation has to be based upon something constant and unchanging, not the emotional whims of a society.

As for homosexuality being immoral because it is unnatural, I don’t accept that reasoning. Just because something is not natural doesn’t mean it is immoral. It isn’t natural for me to fly in an airplane, or drive in a car, or for a priest to choose to be celibate. None of those things are natural.

Your acceptance of a thing does not effect its validity.

And Airplanes and cars follow the natural, physical, laws. Should a brick suddenly decide that it wants to be a window, THAT would be unnatural in the same sense of a man suddenly deciding he wants to insert his male tab A into male “exhaust port” A.

As for the medical issues, that is a silly argument when it comes to morality. Cliff jumping or mountain biking are dangerous things to do but that has nothing to do with morality.

As for your math equations, no I don’t understand. You just give a definite statement without explaining it at all.

You asked for reasons why homosexual activity would be a bad thing outside of the Christian moral view. The medical reasons are one. If you wanted to know why it would be immoral, I have no idea. Outside of a religious moral foundation, there is literally no reason why ANYTHING could be considered moral or immoral.

As for the math:

A = Male tab
B = Female “slot”

Directions = insert A into B for procreation.

Insert A into A? Doesnt compute.
Insert B into B? Doesnt Compute.

 

[bingbang]

Sexual desire exist to push is to procreate. Marriage creates a foundation on which to raise children which are the result of the marital act.

Would you look for a wife because you desire a “loving sexual relationship”? That sounds mighty selfish to me. If pleasure is all you want out of a relationship, don’t get married.

As for heterosexuality hypothetically being considered “disordered”, that is a moot point. Heterosexuality can never objectively be considered disordered any more than eating because you are hungry can be considered disordered. Homosexual sex is not normal, and it serves no functional purpose besides pleasure.

To you, BigBang:
Answer me this, if everyone on earth was a heterosexual, would that be good?
If everyone on earth was a homosexual, would that be good?

My name is bingbang…no reference to the big bang.

It would be better if everyone was heterosexual. It would work out better for everyone involved. That doesn’t have anything to do with the morality of it though.

 

[Mumbles140]

As for homosexuality being immoral because it is unnatural, I don’t accept that reasoning. Just because something is not natural doesn’t mean it is immoral. It isn’t natural for me to fly in an airplane, or drive in a car, or for a priest to choose to be celibate. None of those things are natural.

Please make up your mind, BB! We argue why it is immoral on the commonly accepted system of morality passed down by religion, namely Christianity with its foundations in Judaism. You will not accept that homosexuality is wrong because the Church thinks it is immoral. We then present evidence that not only is it immoral in the eyes of God, but also unnatural, which you admit to above (or choose not to refute, which based on your response, is the same thing).

So outside of religion, we prove that it is not natural, and your best response is that something being unnatural does not make it immoral. It is unnatural for you to fly an airplane because you are not a pilot, and doing so would put lives at risk, making it immoral. Following the rules of your belief system is natural (it’s called integrity), so a priest obeying his orders is quite natural. And it is natural to drive in a car because man was provided with intellect and knowledge, and was able to create a device for speedy transportation. I’m just not sure what your basis of ‘not natural’ is unless you think we should all revert back to the nomadic lifestyle.

If you remove the Church as the basis of moral authority, then correlation with nature is the next obvious boundary. Because homosexual sex goes against nature, as detailed many times above, it is wrong.

Look, you got several answers about ‘what if the Church were wrong’ which is a mindless hypothetical. You yourself have focused on the idea that “the Church shouldn’t be believed simply because it says so” in regards to homosexuality, and we then dispute the nature of it. I’m not sure what else you are looking for, but I pray you find some peace with it soon.

 

[buckr02]

As for homosexuality being immoral because it is unnatural, I don’t accept that reasoning. Just because something is not natural doesn’t mean it is immoral. It isn’t natural for me to fly in an airplane, or drive in a car, or for a priest to choose to be celibate. None of those things are natural.

You are comparing two different types of unnatural. Flying in airplanes and driving cars are unnatural in the sense that they do not occur in nature. Homosexual acts are unnatural in that they are diametrically opposed to the natural order. Even from a secular, evolutionary point of view, you must be able to see the difference.

 

[estesbob]

Just because there are two genders it means that people of one gender being together romantically is wrong? Am I missing the link here? There are two genders, yes, but I don’t understand how that then leads to homosexuality being wrong.

Why is anything wrong? Why the prohibition , for instance ,on sex between a father and his adult son? Do you believe anything done by consenting adults that does not physically harm another should be considered moral?

 

[SonCatcher]

You misunderstand my argument.

I said that the teachings on contraception, fornication, and masturbation were not likely to impede on one’s happiness. I didn’t say that these things were immoral.

I didn’t say you conceded they were immoral. I observed that you conceded non-religious arguments against them.

Also, I don’t think that homosexuality is “against their own nature.”

Please explain how not. The action plainly frustrates (or is frustrated by) the natural design of complementarity.

And if it is, it is probably no more against one’s nature than being a celibate priest.

Not so. A celibate person (whether priest, religious or just a regular ol’ single person) validly chooses to not express his sexuality physically. That is not a denial against their nature (though it may entail a greater struggle against concupiscence - but that is not the topic of this thread). It also does not necessitate a denial of sexuality nor does it require total nonexpression of sexuality.

Indeed, a man who attempts to suppress his masculinity (as you charge) would be denied ordination (presuming the bishop is aware of his problem).

 

[thevoiceofone]

My name is bingbang…no reference to the big bang.

It would be better if everyone was heterosexual. It would work out better for everyone involved. That doesn’t have anything to do with the morality of it though.

bingbang,
If you are looking for some one to agree with you that homosexuality is not immoral, you are simply looking in the wrong place. The Church teaches it is wrong, the Bible says it is wrong, etc., etc… We believe it is wrong. And, besides our faith, we have offered plenty of “rational evidence” to the same effect. To the contrary, you (nor anyone else in the world) has offered any rational evidence that it’s *not *wrong.

 

[Mumbles140]

TOTALLY UNRELATED!!!

If anyone is sick of seeing anime pornography posted by Nanashi, you can block him/her by going to Profile - Control Planel - Edit Ignore List, and entering in the username.

 

[estesbob]

TOTALLY UNRELATED!!!

If anyone is sick of seeing anime pornography posted by Nanashi, you can block him/her by going to Profile - Control Planel - Edit Ignore List, and entering in the username.

The moderators have eliminated him and his porn

 

[bingbang]

bingbang,
If you are looking for some one to agree with you that homosexuality is not immoral, you are simply looking in the wrong place. The Church teaches it is wrong, the Bible says it is wrong, etc., etc… We believe it is wrong. And, besides our faith, we have offered plenty of “rational evidence” to the same effect. To the contrary, you (nor anyone else in the world) has offered any rational evidence that it’s *not *wrong.

It isn’t wrong because it doesn’t hurt anyone any more than heterosexual relationships…other than closed minded people that are offended by it. That is why it isn’t wrong.

 

[estesbob]

It isn’t wrong because it doesn’t hurt anyone any more than heterosexual relationships…other than closed minded people that are offended by it. Shat is why it isn’t wrong.

Does that also apply to incestuous relationships between consenting adults? Are only close minded people offended by this?
?