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

[Garyjohn2]

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.

Maybe we have to have a discussion about the difference between ethics and morality then.

Also, you said that incest is “disordered” but not morally wrong. What is the difference between disorder and morality, in your view?

Also, there is a previous post explaining how priestly celibacy is not unnatural. I can’t find it. In my opinion, it is completely natural for humans to resist their more base urges for a higher purpose.

 

[bingbang]

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.

I feel so bad for you. I just wonder what it be like to be in your shoes. I can tell you that I would turn my back on the church. But the thing is, wouldn’t you feel horrible if the church was wrong about homosexuality all along? That is something I would ponder every day in your situation.

 

[bingbang]

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.

This just isn’t true. There are plenty of moral atheists. A belief in God is not needed to be a moral person and not all good moral systems come from religions.

 

[Garyjohn2]

I feel so bad for you. I just wonder what it be like to be in your shoes. I can tell you that I would turn my back on the church. But the thing is, wouldn’t you feel horrible if the church was wrong about homosexuality all along? That is something I would ponder every day in your situation.

Some things are more important than desire.

 

[Garyjohn2]

This just isn’t true. There are plenty of moral atheists. A belief in God is not needed to be a moral person and not all good moral systems come from religions.

There are many moral Atheists, but I would argue all good moral systems do come from God, or religion per post #39 and #58.

 

[Aboveallbereal]

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.

Of course it is his belief based on faith. What do you expext of a faith?

It is the faith of the Church that She does not teach but rather enunciates the will of the Spirit in a given time. If one accepts this premise one is a believing catholic. If one does not one isn’t. It really is that simple.

You must remember also that ultimately nothing is proven. All so called human knowledge is really simply axiomatic assumption based on observation. At a profoundly real level nothing is ever conclusively proven about anything.

 

[TheQuestioner]

This just isn’t true. There are plenty of moral atheists. A belief in God is not needed to be a moral person and not all good moral systems come from religions.

Nietzsche would disagree. Morality (a system where things are objectively right and objectively wrong) follows a system of laws. When you remove religion from the equation the only laws left to base morals off of are natural laws. If something is against the natural law, it is then “immoral” not in the sense that it is bad, but in the sense that it is non-beneficial. That being the case, though you may know “moral” atheists as well as I, we both look at them from a religious standpoint where words like “moral” and “immoral” make sense. Outside of that system, the only thing left are the natural laws. That being the case, since you said homosexuality is unnatural, you are then in a way saying it is “immoral”. So it stands…you’re kinda stuck at a loss.

 

[Anrando]

This started out as an interesting discussion, however; as soon as the OP stated that sex between “consenting” parents and children was not immoral it became quite clear that there is no point to it at all.

I’m afraid it is nothing more than another secular relativist coming to a “Catholic” forum to bait the faithful, to elicit faith based responses so that he can pounce on them to ridicule belief.

I guess in the modern progressive world we are nothing more than rutting pigs. Sex “hurts” no one therefore; all sex is “moral”. Fornicate with whomever can be convinced to partake, seek pleasure in any act that “feels good”, it is all “moral” as long as no one is “hurt”.

Long term monogamous loving male homosexual relationships, who are you kidding? The homosexual “lifestyle” as I have witnessed in West Hollywood and San Francisco, (NOT the individual homosexual trying to live like anyone else) is based on the love of sex, not people. How can a person claim that he has “loved” all 1000 of his sexual partners. The famous “patient 0”, the French flight attendant who brought HIV to the US famously had 20 something “loving relationships” within a week to begin the AIDS epidemic back in the 70’s. He KNEW he had "gay cancer as it was called at the time, but that did not deter his pursuit of pleasure. All involved consented so I guess that was moral too.

The OP continues to totally IGNORE the fact that male homosexual sex does indeed “hurt” others in a very real medical sense. Last I read the life expectancy for active male homosexuals is 10 years lower than others of the same population group. Also what percentage of active anal sodomites become incontinent and end up wearing diapers? Not hurting anyone? Open your eyes.

The OP doesn’t like natural law, doesn’t like theologically based law, doesn’t like any kind of law it seems other than situational ethics where any activity may be OK depending on the circumstances.

What exactly is the point of continuing? Believers in the Church can never endorse the OP’s point of view. He will not “allow” faith based responses on a CATHOLIC discussion forum. What nonsense. I think what is really desired by this thread is to be able to “get to” believers, to make them angry and frustrated, to goad them into turning to faith in their responses so that he OP can wave his banner of objective superiority and belittle their statements with such derisive comments as “you should be on a debating team”.

It seems to me that this thread has no where left to go.

William Unland

 

[Aboveallbereal]

Nietzsche would disagree. Morality (a system where things are objectively right and objectively wrong) follows a system of laws. When you remove religion from the equation the only laws left to base morals off of are natural laws. If something is against the natural law, it is then “immoral” not in the sense that it is bad, but in the sense that it is non-beneficial. That being the case, though you may know “moral” atheists as well as I, we both look at them from a religious standpoint where words like “moral” and “immoral” make sense. Outside of that system, the only thing left are the natural laws. That being the case, since you said homosexuality is unnatural, you are then in a way saying it is “immoral”. So it stands…you’re kinda stuck at a loss.

The “moral atheist” is rather like the cafeteria catholic. He signs up but doesn’t accept the logic of the thing signed up to. A truly convinced atheist is an absolute fool to himself if he isn’t breaking the rules whenever it is possible not to be found out. Whyever not? No one is watching. No one will know. Blame the other guy. Any other position arguing for “moral atheism” is just weak willed post Christian nancying about. Dive in and enjoy the ride.

Logically moral atheism is an oxymoron since the atheist regards himself as animate carbon used as a vehicle for genes to propagate themselves.

 

[buckr02]

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.

I left that one of my rebuttal because it really wasn’t necessary to include every piece of your argument. If a hammer’s intended purpose (call it a natural purpose) is to build things, and you use it to kill someone, you are using it against it’s intended purpose. However, if I don’t use it, it says nothing to what the natural purpose is. It is neutral.

 

[SonCatcher]

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.

By that reasoning, married couples who enjoy relations daily are in “denial” over 95% of the time.

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.

I did not use the term “natural law” yet within the course of this thread but since it is pertinent, we can address what it is. Natural Law is a philosophical system. Strictly, it is not an ethical system, though some ethical systems do use Natural Law as a basis. I am sure that at least one of these systems was included in your class even though the exact term did not surface.

While in college, I encountered Natural Law in a political science class and a philosophy class. I did not take any ethics courses. It seems I have not missed much.

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).

If they’re celibate, they’re not having sex and if they’re having sex they’re not celibate.

 

[SonCatcher]

This started out as an interesting discussion, however; as soon as the OP stated that sex between “consenting” parents and children was not immoral it became quite clear that there is no point to it at all.

I’m afraid it is nothing more than another secular relativist coming to a “Catholic” forum to bait the faithful, to elicit faith based responses so that he can pounce on them to ridicule belief.

Attempt ridicule, anyway. He did not succeed in my assessment.

The OP doesn’t like natural law, doesn’t like theologically based law, doesn’t like any kind of law it seems other than situational ethics where any activity may be OK depending on the circumstances.

What exactly is the point of continuing? Believers in the Church can never endorse the OP’s point of view. He will not “allow” faith based responses on a CATHOLIC discussion forum. What nonsense. I think what is really desired by this thread is to be able to “get to” believers, to make them angry and frustrated, to goad them into turning to faith in their responses so that he OP can wave his banner of objective superiority and belittle their statements with such derisive comments as “you should be on a debating team”.

It seems to me that this thread has no where left to go.

Agreed. Since the OP refuses to engage rationally, I’m canceling my subscription.

 

[estesbob]

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.

So so you’re morality is based on anything goes as long as nobody gets hurt?

It is interesting that you find sex between a father and son not problematic but find a priest being celibate to be so. And this is a great example of the convoluted thinking one must engage in when they believe all morality is subjective.

I find your comments about the celibate priest telling in another way and that is you seem to think that our basic indenity(who we are) is derived from the manner in which we engage in sex. You feel there’s something wrong with a priest because he doesn’t have sex but the father having sex with his adult son is okay because he is just affirming his sexual identity.

 

[estesbob]

This started out as an interesting discussion, however; as soon as the OP stated that sex between “consenting” parents and children was not immoral it became quite clear that there is no point to it at all.

No doubt that is where the thread jumped the shark. When you run into comments like that you have to believe that either the poster is not serious and just came here to rattle the Fundamentalists chains or they’re trying ,in their mind ,to justify their sexual behavior.

 

[Newbie2]

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.

Why have safeguards? What do such safeguards have to do with morality?

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).

You’ve apparently not heard of the medical problems that frequently occur with homosexual sex. I won’t go beyond that in terms of details, but let’s just say that certain body parts are not meant for certain activities, and when they’re used for such, they develop problems, and I’m not just talking about infections.

This just isn’t true. There are plenty of moral atheists. A belief in God is not needed to be a moral person and not all good moral systems come from religions.

What do you believe is their origin?

So so you’re morality is based on anything goes as long as nobody gets hurt?

It is interesting that you find sex between a father and son not problematic but find a priest being celibate to be so. And this is a great example of the convoluted thinking one must engage in when they believe all morality is subjective.

I find your comments about the celibate priest telling in another way and that is you seem to think that our basic indenity(who we are) is derived from the manner in which we engage in sex. You feel there’s something wrong with a priest because he doesn’t have sex but the father having sex with his adult son is okay because he is just affirming his sexual identity.

I agree, Bob. Methinks even the most “rational rationalist” would have moral difficulty accepting homosexual sex between a father and a son. Heck, I think most homosexuals would have moral problems with that one.

 

[bingbang]

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)

I could quote passages in the Koran that state that Jesus isn’t God. Would you accept those passages?

 

[bingbang]

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%).

Faith is not objectively absolute…it is just absolute in the mind of the person who believes it. Which really doesn’t say much at all.

 

[antiochgirl]

I asserted in post #42 that homosexual behavior is equally disordered due to the lack of complementarity and that those engaging in it knowingly do so against their own nature.

Since nobody has offered a rebuttal, should that be regarded a concession, as well?

I’m rebutting this… the Catholic Church has conceded that homosexuals are by nature, and therefore made by God to be, homosexual. Thus it is not against their nature to be gay. They as human beings need love, and cannot marry with happiness as straight people can. I agree that the severely uncelibate lifestyles of many gays is wrong, (just like straight people sleeping around is wrong) but if we could allow them to marry, they could form more cohesive bonds of love where there isn’t the added pressure of half the nation hating them. This would make more successful relationships and allow them to lead better lives.
And for WHY God would make people gay, maybe as the world becomes more and more overcrowded, God makes more gays so that people can find happiness without needing kids. Or maybe this is His plan to encourage more open-mindedness–we need to stop fearing what is different. If we can learn to accept gays, we learn a major lesson in tolerance that could be used to advance us beyond the mentality of difference that also causes wars. :slapfight: Think of the big picture with this.

 

[Newbie2]

I’m rebutting this… the Catholic Church has conceded that homosexuals are by nature, and therefore made by God to be, homosexual. Thus it is not against their nature to be gay. They as human beings need love, and cannot marry with happiness as straight people can. I agree that the severely uncelibate lifestyles of many gays is wrong, (just like straight people sleeping around is wrong) but if we could allow them to marry, they could form more cohesive bonds of love where there isn’t the added pressure of half the nation hating them. This would make more successful relationships and allow them to lead better lives.
And for WHY God would make people gay, maybe as the world becomes more and more overcrowded, God makes more gays so that people can find happiness without needing kids. Or maybe this is His plan to encourage more open-mindedness–we need to stop fearing what is different. If we can learn to accept gays, we learn a major lesson in tolerance that could be used to advance us beyond the mentality of difference that also causes wars. :slapfight: Think of the big picture with this.

Yeah, God made pedophiles, too. Maybe his plan is for us to be more open-minded and not so judgmental about them. After all, Pedophiles need love and happiness too.

If we can learn to accept pedophiles, we learn a major lesson in tolerance that could be used to advance us beyond the mentality of difference that also causes wars. C’mon, people! Think BIG PICTURE!!



Seriously? The world is getting overcrowed, so we should accept homosexual relations as they don’t add to the overcrowding?

Now I’ve heard it all.

This is by far the most bizarre notion I’ve ever read on this forum. Gold Star.

 

[crazzeto]

I’m rebutting this… the Catholic Church has conceded that homosexuals are by nature, and therefore made by God to be, homosexual. Thus it is not against their nature to be gay. They as human beings need love, and cannot marry with happiness as straight people can. I agree that the severely uncelibate lifestyles of many gays is wrong, (just like straight people sleeping around is wrong) but if we could allow them to marry, they could form more cohesive bonds of love where there isn’t the added pressure of half the nation hating them. This would make more successful relationships and allow them to lead better lives.
And for WHY God would make people gay, maybe as the world becomes more and more overcrowded, God makes more gays so that people can find happiness without needing kids. Or maybe this is His plan to encourage more open-mindedness–we need to stop fearing what is different. If we can learn to accept gays, we learn a major lesson in tolerance that could be used to advance us beyond the mentality of difference that also causes wars. :slapfight: Think of the big picture with this.

I’ve pondered your theory as a possible justification for homosexuality previously in a purely scientific context (there is none theologically), and it falls completely flat. If what you say is true, that this is “natures way” (or Gods way as you suggest) of protecting the earth from over population then you would see very high instances of homosexuality (percentage wise) in heaveily populated nations like China or India.

But you don’t see that, you also don’t see it in the animal kingdome. We are made to go forth and multiply, period. By the way, as I stated earlier there is no clear indication for what causes homosexuality. What we do know is that it is not genetic. You aren’t born that way, evironmental conditions of some sort change you to become this way.