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

[thevoiceofone]

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.

Sorry… that just doesn’t sound like rational evidence to me. But, this does however make your feelings on the matter much clearer to me. Thanks (and good luck).

 

[Alexander_Smith]

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.

Actually it does. There’s a certain method of argumentation that applies something universally and views the consequences. If everyone was blind, would that be good? Nope, because cars would be useless, as would 90% of technology and daily conveniences. We love blind people just like anyone else, but we can’t let them drive cars because it would be unsafe.

Now, this argument does not work for things that have a function, such as most jobs. If everyone was a carpenter, that would be kind of stupid, but there’s nothing wrong with being a carpenter. Similarly, if everyone was a male, there would be no population after a time, but there’s nothing wrong with being male (obviously), and we know we need men AND women to continue the human race.

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.

Actually that’s not even true. Despite the popular intention to label it a myth, it is a fact that HIV rates are generally higher, sometimes much higher in homosexual populations than in heterosexual populations. In fact, STDs in general are largely spread by fornication, adultery, and other sexual acts outside of marriage. The more sex partners a person has the higher their likelyhood of getting an STD. The pornography industry has extremely high rates of STDs.

Heterosexual sex within marriage is the only moral, safe, and functional way to go.

 

[qOLOp]

I would be interested in a study that compared large groups of people going through the courage program and large groups of homosexuals to see who was actually happier.

The happiness that God gives us is one that is not found in this world and this is why we are called to a life of sacrifice. It is only through the crucible of trials are our virtues tried and purified. Only through this processes of purification are we united closer to God by the strengthening of the three virtues: faith, hope, and charity. Someone who is worried about missing out on the pleasures of the world, or of their human nature not only does not understand where their true happiness resides (in GOD only) but does not understand the purpose for which they were created. We should be happy when our life is filled with trials because God tries those whom he loves. When my life is hard I am happy, and this is a happiness that only God can supply and the world cannot take away. Medicine does not feel good or taste good but is good for you. Hardships and trials do not make you “feel” good but are good for you. We are all called to sacrifice the pleasures of this world for the greater treasures of heaven.

 

[Philology]

I am someone who has to deal with SSA (same sex attractions) on a daily basis, and I just would like to make it clear that I did not choose to be attracted to my own sex. If I had been given a choice the answer would have been clear (heterosexuality), because then I wouldn’t be treated like scum by members of my own faith. I will certainly live the rest of my life celibate, and will just as certainly never have any sexual interaction with my own sex. Does this entitle me to a life of loneliness and despair? Maybe, but I will follow any path in order to please my God. All I ask of the people on this forum is this; if ever you meet a follower of Christ who is dealing with my condition be a friend to them. In a world where you can’t find true love, friends matter the most.

 

[TheQuestioner]

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.

hmmm this is a very good point.

bingbang, when we remove God and the Church from the equation there is no longer “right” or “wrong” or “moral” and “immoral”. There is only what can be classified as “natural” and “unnatural”. Now we know that homosexuality cannot be natural (as it is not part of the regular human life-cycle) so it can be classified as “unnatural”. Whether or not it “hurts” anyone is up for question, though when a behavior is “unnatural” then natural selection dictates that it most likely does (otherwise it would not have been an issue, or be part of the regular human life-cycle). That being the case, we can only argue morality within a system of morality, whether it be Christianity, Islam or Judaism, etc. You kinda lose here my friend.

 

[Holly3278]

What an argument. The church is protected by the Holy Spirit so it cannot be wrong. And who told you that the church was protected by the holy spirit? The church. And since the church is protected by the holy spirit, it can’t be wrong about the church being protected by the holy spirit. Do you see where I am going with this? Your circular logic doesn’t prove anything…it is just your belief based on faith.

The argument originates from Scripture and Tradition, so yes, it does originate with the Church because the Church is the rightful owner of Scripture and Tradition. However, it also originates with Christ and Christ is God. God is definitely infallible so He can definitely say things that are infallible such as the fact that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit.

And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
(Matthew 16:13-19 DRB)

He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
(Luke 10:16 DRB)

It is also laid out in other places in Scripture:

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
(1 Timothy 3:15 DRB)

 

[Newbie2]

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.

I didn’t think you would get the math.

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.

Seriously? The guy that wrote nearly half of the New Testament makes such a bold statement about what our entire hope and faith stands on and it “doesn’t prove much”. If Jesus himself was quoted to say the very same thing, would you then accept the statement as siginifcant?

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.

Spoken like a true rationalist. You still don’t understand the concept of faith. Sure, there are levels of faith, but if you’re depending on rationalist (objective) criteria, it isn’t faith at all.

If my wife places a red ball on the floor in front of me and I’m looking at it, it doesn’t take an ounce of faith for me to believe that there is a red ball on the floor in front of me. Now if I have on a blindfold, and my wife places a red ball on the floor in front of me, I can either believe i.e. have faith that there is a red ball on the floor in front of me, I can have doubts i.e. that the ball might be blue instead of red, or I can disbelieve that she placed a ball on the floor at all.

In any case, objectively, the ball exists. Christians have that belief that (our ball) exists, even though we may be in the next room and not be able to see what we hold as true. That is faith, not having measurable evidence that there is our ball sitting there.

That being said, we (as a group) have plenty of evidence to “prove” our faith. It’s a matter of to what degree an individual accepts that evidence, part of which is a matter of faith.

 

[SonCatcher]

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.

Rational evidence has been presented by numerous posters. You have responded irrationally to some and ignored the rest.

Also, the rational response is uncertainty since the rational mind acknowledges that not all evidence may be present. Only faith can be absolute (that is, 100%).

 

[bingbang]

Post #2 proves this beyond a doubt. Thanks.

Post number two says that homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible. It doesn’t in any way prove that the Bible is the word of God or is authoritative.

 

[bingbang]

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

Your argument is foolproof. Have you thought of joining a debate team?

 

[bingbang]

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.

I refuse to accept “natural law morality.” It is a horrible moral system. Helping strangers isn’t natural. The good samaritan was breaking natural law.

 

[Garyjohn2]

Post number two says that homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible. It doesn’t in any way prove that the Bible is the word of God or is authoritative.

Post #80 addressed that.

I think this thread is complete.

 

[estesbob]

Your argument is foolproof. Have you thought of joining a debate team?

How about you jumpstart debate by answering this question:

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?

Until we can determine what you base morality on it is nearly impossible to discuss it. We have laid out clearly and succinctly how we determine morality. Why can’t you do the same?

 

[bingbang]

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.

Isn’t choosing to be celibate unnatural as well though? I see you left that one out of your rebuttal? If is is natural and right to have a wife and kids, then it certainly is unnatural to choose to be celibate. As someone said earlier in the thread, celibacy is unnatural because if everyone was celibate our species would go extinct. Obviously this is going against the natural order of things.

So if homosexuality is against natural law, so is priests being celibate.

 

[mark_a]

So what if the church is wrong about their teaching on homosexuality.

**THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL! DON’T ARGUE THAT IT IS WRONG AND GIVE ME REASONS FOR IT. **

I think Al Kresta nailed it when he posed the same question about beastiality, polygamy, and bisexuality.

 

[bingbang]

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?

Morally neutral at least. As long as there are safeguards against pregnancy between family members, and it is consensual and both parties are adults, I don’t really think it is wrong. It might be disordered, but morally I see no problem with it.

 

[mark_a]

The good samaritan was breaking natural law.

Say what???

 

[bingbang]

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).

Being celibate certainly IS a denial against one’s nature…or at least just as much as homosexuality. And even still what is natural and what is not has absolutely NOTHING to do with morality. I don’t even understand how natural law is a valid moral system. While in College taking an ethics class “natural law” was never brought up once. It is a silly system used by mostly religious people because it is a “secular” system that supports their views on homosexuality.

 

[bingbang]

Actually it does. There’s a certain method of argumentation that applies something universally and views the consequences. If everyone was blind, would that be good? Nope, because cars would be useless, as would 90% of technology and daily conveniences. We love blind people just like anyone else, but we can’t let them drive cars because it would be unsafe.

Now, this argument does not work for things that have a function, such as most jobs. If everyone was a carpenter, that would be kind of stupid, but there’s nothing wrong with being a carpenter. Similarly, if everyone was a male, there would be no population after a time, but there’s nothing wrong with being male (obviously), and we know we need men AND women to continue the human race.

Actually that’s not even true. Despite the popular intention to label it a myth, it is a fact that HIV rates are generally higher, sometimes much higher in homosexual populations than in heterosexual populations. In fact, STDs in general are largely spread by fornication, adultery, and other sexual acts outside of marriage. The more sex partners a person has the higher their likelyhood of getting an STD. The pornography industry has extremely high rates of STDs.

Heterosexual sex within marriage is the only moral, safe, and functional way to go.

Homosexual sex between 2 celibate homosexuals is just as safe as heterosexual sex between 2 celibate heterosexuals (at least when it comes to STD’s).

 

[bingbang]

The happiness that God gives us is one that is not found in this world and this is why we are called to a life of sacrifice. It is only through the crucible of trials are our virtues tried and purified. Only through this processes of purification are we united closer to God by the strengthening of the three virtues: faith, hope, and charity. Someone who is worried about missing out on the pleasures of the world, or of their human nature not only does not understand where their true happiness resides (in GOD only) but does not understand the purpose for which they were created. We should be happy when our life is filled with trials because God tries those whom he loves. When my life is hard I am happy, and this is a happiness that only God can supply and the world cannot take away. Medicine does not feel good or taste good but is good for you. Hardships and trials do not make you “feel” good but are good for you. We are all called to sacrifice the pleasures of this world for the greater treasures of heaven.

For your sake I hope you are right. Because as it stands, if you are wrong about your opinions on God and hardships, then your life is a whole lot harder than it needs to be.