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

[Daniel6312]

Can you post the passage?

You mention that a single person can remain a virgin their whole life without detrimental effects, but an active homosexual can do the same thing.

I think this confusion is common among non-believers. If you accept that there is a spirit as well as a body, then you accept that there are things which damage the spirit and not the body, and vice versa, as well as things that damage both. For example, if you burn a Bible, you are not damaging your own body and no one gets hurt - but your spirit is damaged because every choice you make affects your spirit. In the case of homosexuality, it’s just like any fornication. Fornication may not cause you physical damage, but it is sin, and so your spirit is harmed and tainted by that action. Your question of “What if you’re wrong?” is less about homosexuality but religion itself. If we were wrong, we’d all be idiots, like another poster said. But we don’t think our religion is wrong or else we wouldn’t follow it, and we’d just run around having random sex and drinking and doing whatever else we felt like. This isn’t the proper venue to question faith itself, because this forum is for people who are sure in their faith to discuss their faith.

 

[bingbang]

forums are awesome. i love having the ability to voice my opinion to a faceless group of people and waste my precious time checking on what they have to say about it. this is fun and possibly the most useful and constructive way i can spend my time.

 

[edwest2]

That doesn’t make any sense. Why HAS Artificial Birth Control prospered? Why is the priestly vocation dying? There are more things that effect this stuff. 500 years ago you would have been able to argue that freedom of speech was a terrible thing.

I was there as Artificial Birth Control was popularized. It gained momentum because prospective priests in seminaries in the 1970s were taught that they could tell parishioners it was a personal conscience issue even though they knew about Pope Paul VI’s document, Humanae Vitae.

The priestly vocation is not dying. There has been an increase in both the number of Catholics and people entering the seminaries.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1000750.htm

God bless,
Ed

 

[ForAll]

forums are awesome. i love having the ability to voice my opinion to a faceless group of people and waste my precious time checking on what they have to say about it. this is fun and possibly the most useful and constructive way i can spend my time.

With your heavy tone of sarcasm, I have to question your motives for posting here.

If the Church is wrong about homosexuality, but not on anything else (which is impossible but I’ll “maintain the fiction”), then God is still in control. Do you think the errors of man thwart the plans of God for our salvation? We have been fallen from the beginning, but His ways have always been beyond our ways.

As for how we would answer to Him upon death, we can never know and speculation is futile. He could be merciful to us in our error, he could let justice win over mercy; in the end, but our “precious time” is better spent walking “humbly with [our] God.” Micah 6:8

 

[TheQuestioner]

Just because something is natural doesn’t make it moral. In terms of humanity there are a lot of things I could do that could be considered natural that certainly aren’t moral. I could even make an argument that rape is natural and impregnating as many women as possible would help our species grow. Many animals practice this type of “natural morality.” Seems pretty moral, right?

You don’t seem to understand what people are trying to say here.

“Moral” and “Immoral” are determined by an objective truth. They are strongly attached to religion. They are attached to religion. As soon as we remove religion (as you have wanted to do) then we can no longer use these terms. All we can say is something is “natural” or “unnatural” or “beneficial” or “non beneficial”. By correcting you here we are trying to meet you on your own ground.

That being the case the question would be whether homosexuality is natural or unnatural. You and several others have agreed that it is indeed unnatural. Not something fitting for a human being to do and it is not part of the normal human life cycle.

That being the case, we have to ask ourselves if homosexuality is beneficial or non-beneficial. Well, in terms of the homosexual himself, because of his attraction to the same sex he will not pass on his genetic material, since he will be inhibited by his lack of desire to mate with a female. That being the case, it is non-beneficial in that sense. For society, because homosexuality would decrease the number of humans born, it is non-beneficial as well, as any species should want to spread its genetic material (by having kids) and as such anything that hinders that is non-beneficial. So we can see that on a grand scale homosexuality is unnatural, and non-beneficial.

 

[TheQuestioner]

I think the golden rule is the backbone of any good moral system.

But why is the golden rule a good moral system? That is what everyone is asking. What makes one action moral and another immoral to you. For us, any action that hinders yourself or anyone else from getting to heaven is immoral, and any that does the opposite is moral. But we are just crazy religious people.

What makes one action for you moral and the other immoral? Then maybe we can have a better discussion.

 

[mcteague]

You don’t seem to understand what people are trying to say here.

“Moral” and “Immoral” are determined by an objective truth. They are strongly attached to religion. They are attached to religion. As soon as we remove religion (as you have wanted to do) then we can no longer use these terms.
–CUT
So we can see that on a grand scale homosexuality is unnatural, and non-beneficial.

There are some problems with your reasoning. First, you are implying that Atheists are amoral. You are able to this only because you are choosing to define morality as something requiring religion. This is a completely biased and subjective definition. It often is connected with religion, but it does not have to be.
Second, it would be easy to construct a senario where homosexuality is beneficial. You just choose to only come up with examples that support your beliefs.
Let me help you. Suppose an isolated group of animals, perhaps human, living in an isolated area where facing a long term food shortage. An increase in homosexuality would help reduce the population and thereby help prevent the starvation of the entire population. If you really try it is easy come up with examples where it could be beneficial. You just have to be willing to be objective.

 

[mcteague]

There are some problems with your reasoning. First, you are implying that Atheists are amoral. You are able to this only because you are choosing to define morality as something requiring religion. This is a completely biased and subjective definition. It often is connected with religion, but it does not have to be.
Second, it would be easy to construct a senario where homosexuality is beneficial. You just choose to only come up with examples that support your beliefs.
Let me help you. Suppose an isolated group of animals, perhaps human, living in an isolated area were facing a long term food shortage. An increase in homosexuality would help reduce the population and thereby help prevent the starvation of the entire population. If you really try it is easy come up with examples where it could be beneficial. You just have to be willing to be objective.

 

[bingbang]

But why is the golden rule a good moral system? That is what everyone is asking. What makes one action moral and another immoral to you. For us, any action that hinders yourself or anyone else from getting to heaven is immoral, and any that does the opposite is moral. But we are just crazy religious people.

What makes one action for you moral and the other immoral? Then maybe we can have a better discussion.

It is right to treat others the way you want to be treated because all humans deserve respect. Just as I want someone to treat me properly, I should want to treat others properly. The reason why this is right is because I can relate with others.

 

[PatrickSebast]

I was there as Artificial Birth Control was popularized. It gained momentum because prospective priests in seminaries in the 1970s were taught that they could tell parishioners it was a personal conscience issue even though they knew about Pope Paul VI’s document, Humanae Vitae.

The priestly vocation is not dying. There has been an increase in both the number of Catholics and people entering the seminaries.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1000750.htm

God bless,
Ed

Dying might have been a little harsh, but the number of priests versus the number of Catholics is down quite a bit versus a hundred years ago. And your point about WHY birth control became popular means nothing, the fact is it still DID become popular, and by the argument given it should not have. Bad and unnatural things CAN prosper despite being sinful and/or unnatural. Good things CAN dwindle despite being good. It doesn’t help anyone to just throw out statements about such a sensitive issue without thinking them through or backing them up further. It is obvious that if someone believed homosexuality was right they could give an excuse, just like you did for ABC, as to why it hasn’t been accepted. They could also give plenty of counter examples to the original point such as the relatively new concept of freedom of speech. Weak and unsupported arguments do not help anyone and just end up making the Church look worse.

 

[stevejosemkat]

This thread isn’t so much about homosexuality as it is about the lack of faith in God. That is the question behind the question.

 

[bingbang]

This thread isn’t so much about homosexuality as it is about the lack of faith in God. That is the question behind the question.

less about lack of faith in God and more about doubting the church (though I am sure many people on these forums would say they are basically the same thing).

 

[Spirithound]

IF the teaching were to be wrong, would you agree that it would negatively effect the people’s lives who were celibate as homosexuals because of the church teaching?

No, I would not agree. Celibacy is an objectively higher state of life than non-celibacy, as St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 7:7-8. More to the point, Jesus speaks of men who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom (Matthew 19:12). For a man who has same-sex attractions to willfully give up those attractions because he feels God is asking him to, is for that man to make himself a eunuch for the kingdom of God, which Jesus recommends.

Do you think that their life would be better or worse for listening to this teaching that was hypothetically false.

And so I say that their lives would be better for having needlessly obeyed the hypothetically false teaching.

 

[Seeker2010]

“Moral” and “Immoral” are determined by an objective truth. They are strongly attached to religion. They are attached to religion. As soon as we remove religion (as you have wanted to do) then we can no longer use these terms.

Wrong.

Morality is relative, and that can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt merely by studying history. It was once considered immoral for a proper lady to expose her ankle. It now is. Tis a simplistic example, to be sure, but proves my point, and there are many other examples if you look around.

That being the case the question would be whether homosexuality is natural or unnatural. You and several others have agreed that it is indeed unnatural. Not something fitting for a human being to do and it is not part of the normal human life cycle.

I suppose that can be true if you view procreation as humanity’s primary purpose. While male on male sex is not my thing, for those who enjoy it, they derive pleasure from it, ergo it is absolutely part of the normal human life cycle, as we do many many things for the sole purpose of deriving pleasure from it.

For society, because homosexuality would decrease the number of humans born, it is non-beneficial as well, as any species should want to spread its genetic material (by having kids) and as such anything that hinders that is non-beneficial.

If homosexuality were spreadable by some kind of virus, you might have a point. But homosexuals are, well, homosexual, ergo they are statistically less likely to have children. However, societal acceptance of homosexuality, the legality of homosexual marriage, nor any other conceivable legal ‘acceptance’ will cause heterosexuals to spontaneously decide to change teams. I don’t see your point.

 

[Spirithound]

Morality is relative, and that can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt merely by studying history. It was once considered immoral for a proper lady to expose her ankle. It now is. Tis a simplistic example, to be sure, but proves my point, and there are many other examples if you look around.

Straw man argument. You’re confusing a culture’s understanding of morality with the actual objective standard of morality itself. To quote Pope Benedict XVI, truth is not determined by a majority vote.

 

[Seeker2010]

You’re confusing a culture’s understanding of morality with the actual objective standard of morality itself.

Really?

So which society was right and which was wrong. The puritanical one 300-400 years ago that declared the sight of an ankle as immoral, or the one of today that does not. By what objective standard do you decide?

 

[PAboy57]

Mankind requires reproduction if it is going to survive the long haul. It seems the last 6,000 years has been a long haul therefore it is good that we reproduced. It is also good to do it according to the rules of God.

Homosexuality leads to death of a species therefore it is not good and should not be accepted.

We don’t dislike the person but only the act. We will leave judgement to God.

Why do people want to support acts that only lead to extermination??? Had your biological mother and father decided a homosexual lifestyle you wouldn’t be here.

Logic forces mankind to mate man and woman. What percentage of non-contributors is acceptable in the development of man before he becomes seriously disadvantaged or extinct? We are seeing it happen right now in sections of the world like Europe.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Its true…what IF all of these things are wrong? I just feel as though it is something everyone should think about. No one can be 100% sure of things that can’t be proven and Catholicism can’t be proven. You should always consider the other side in matters you can’t prove.

Sorry but I disagree here and see this as your fundamental mistake.

Catholicism can not be proven by the critera you have established as necessary for proof.

For myself, it is proven, otherwise I would not have have given my life so wholly (in religious consecration) to God and His Church.

 

[Seeker2010]

It seems the last 6,000 years has been a long haul therefore it is good that we reproduced.

You should read books other than those purported to have been written by God, mankind has been around for a heck of a lot longer than 6,000 years. That’s an indisputable fact.

Homosexuality leads to death of a species therefore it is not good and should not be accepted.

Homosexuality will not ‘spread’ regardless of whether or not it’s ‘accepted’. We are in ZERO danger of extinction from rampant queerness.

Had your biological mother and father decided a homosexual lifestyle you wouldn’t be here.

Had either of my parents actually BEEN homosexual, you are probably correct. However, people don’t ‘decide’ to live a homosexual lifestyle, they either are or they are not.

Do you guys actually think or do you just parrot what others have said?

 

[TheQuestioner]

There are some problems with your reasoning. First, you are implying that Atheists are amoral. You are able to this only because you are choosing to define morality as something requiring religion. This is a completely biased and subjective definition. It often is connected with religion, but it does not have to be.
Second, it would be easy to construct a senario where homosexuality is beneficial. You just choose to only come up with examples that support your beliefs.
Let me help you. Suppose an isolated group of animals, perhaps human, living in an isolated area where facing a long term food shortage. An increase in homosexuality would help reduce the population and thereby help prevent the starvation of the entire population. If you really try it is easy come up with examples where it could be beneficial. You just have to be willing to be objective.

I know I don’t have to

But I will attack your scenario. What would reduce the population so that the species will survive? The same thing that does so in the animal kingdom. Starvation. The ones who need alot more food die and those who don’t live. That’s the way it is, that’s the way it’s always been. Homosexuality is not needed in the animal kingdom to reduce the population, famine does a good job of this on it’s own. Sad, but true.