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

[TheQuestioner]

It is so funny that all of your arguments against homosexuality also go against celibate priests and nuns.

Don’t change the subject, that’s not the point. We are talking about homosexuality right now.

 

[Spirithound]

If Jesus endorses people becoming eunuchs, then why must Catholic priests have at least one working testicle?

Really? You can’t recognize a metaphor when you read it?

 

[Spirithound]

Decided? Decided!? Decided!?!

Excuse me!?

My friend was clearly talking about the decision to live the gay lifestyle, not the decision to experience same-sex attractions.

 

[Spirithound]

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?

It is off-topic to declare which one is right and which one is wrong. Suffice it to say that if one of them is right, then the other one is wrong. Or they might both be wrong. But please note that you cannot logically get to the conclusion that both societies were right (and therefore morality is relative) unless you start off with the premise that morality is relative, and that is begging the question.

For the record, my objective standard of morality is God Himself, and He has revealed His will through the Catholic Church. Further discussion of this would warrant a new thread.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

My friend was clearly talking about the decision to live the gay lifestyle, not the decision to experience same-sex attractions.

Granted, but ultimately, it stands that if a person is cursed with same-sex attractions, the chances of getting married and having kids diminishes to near zero, yes?

 

[Seeker2010]

Changing standards and public opinion are not a reason why morality is relative.

A reason? Perhaps not, but it is evidence that morality, over time, changes for any given society. When my dad was my age, the idea of gay marriage was so ridiculous it wasn’t even up for discussion. Today it’s controversial, but it is being discussed. By the time a toddler today is my age, gay marriage will be the law of the land and no longer even given a second thought.

The general rule of the wild is, if you can afford to procreate, then do so.

Really? Whose rule is that?

In fact, while others are not procreating, it is your advantage to have many kids so that your offspring could be more numerous.

Really? Why is that?

Again, I said nothing about the spread of homosexuality. I never implied that it could be spread (though the number of people who claim to be homosexual has increased over the years), but said that for the human race as a whole, homosexual behavior when viewed merely from an evolutionary perspective is detrimental.

Then what’s your point? If you’re endorsing demonizing homosexuality, but don’t think accepting it will cause it to grow, so where’s the beef?

 

[TheQuestioner]

A reason? Perhaps not, but it is evidence that morality, over time, changes for any given society. When my dad was my age, the idea of gay marriage was so ridiculous it wasn’t even up for discussion. Today it’s controversial, but it is being discussed. By the time a toddler today is my age, gay marriage will be the law of the land and no longer even given a second thought.

I would say that the change in what is acceptable isn’t necessarily a change in morality, but merely a change in public opinion, which is therefore becoming more and more immoral in that specific part of our society. How would you respond to this?

Really? Whose rule is that?

The natural world’s. Animals don’t stop procreating and become homosexual when food is short. They continue to procreate. Most of them die, but they continue, even during starvation. If a batch of the offspring survive, it is a sign that the starvation is coming to an end.

Really? Why is that?

DNA seeks to replicate itself (selfish DNA theory). A member of a species is not successful if it merely has the most territory or the most food, but if said member has the most offspring. Then, compared to others, that member is the winner. Y chromosomal Adam is the most successful male in history. Every male is descended from him.

Then what’s your point? If you’re endorsing demonizing homosexuality, but don’t think accepting it will cause it to grow, so where’s the beef?

The point is that whether or not it grows, it is detrimental to the survival of the species. If 18 out of 20 people were immune to the plague, the plague is still detrimental to the genetic pool because you are losing genetic information (2 people), even if it cannot spread. For any population the more people you lose, whether or not the reason is infections or a behavioral trait that is non-beneficial (like goats who when they are startled faint, thus leaving them open to predation).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What if the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is wrong? IT’S NOT

There, solved that conundrum…

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Have you guys ever considered this?

When it comes to morality, looking at the morality system that the church uses objectively, it seems to be a pretty good system. Treat others the way you want to be treated is, in my opinion, the greatest moral rule of all. It is something that should be followed by everyone.

Anyway, I recently stumbled across the website for courage, which is a group that helps homosexual Catholics. It uses a 12 step program based off of Alcoholics Anonymous’ 12 step program. It treats homosexuality as an addiction that needs to be overcome, and this group (as well as the church) wants these people to fight their urges and stay celibate.

So my question is, what if the church is wrong with their teaching on homosexuality? I like to look at moral systems based on religion in an objective way…as in, if the religion is wrong, does the moral system still work. Now I actually don’t really agree with the church teachings on birth control but I can see why it makes sense. Following church teachings on birth control is unlikely to make someone less happy. The same goes with the teachings on pre marital sex and masturbation. Following these teachings is likely to make someone happier in the long run to be honest. And obviously treating others the way you want to be treated will make someone happier as well.

The only church teaching on morality that would likely lower someone’s happiness (at least that I can think of right now) is the church’s opinion on homosexuality. I can only imagine that a person in a long committed relationship with the person they love (be it two men or two women) would add to their happiness…and trying to fight these feelings would lower their happiness.

So what if the church is wrong about their teaching on homosexuality. If the church is wrong on other teachings, it is unlikely to substantially lower the quality of life of people, EXCEPT for their teaching on homosexuality. So, how would you feel if you went to heaven and God said the church was wrong about homosexuality all along.

I’m not trying to have an argument about how the church can’t be wrong, and this is a stupid hypothetical because of it, but how would you feel if it wasn’t really against God’s will to be in a monogamous homosexual relationship? In my opinion this teaching is severely lowering the quality of life of the people that are following it and that isn’t in line with Jesus’ message.

So, what if the church is wrong about its teaching on homosexuality?

THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL! DON’T ARGUE THAT IT IS WRONG AND GIVE ME REASONS FOR IT. THAT ISN’T THE QUESTION. IF YOU CAN’T POSSIBLY IMAGINE THIS HYPOTHETICAL THEN DON’T RESPOND ABOUT HOW THE TEACHING IS TRUE BECAUSE IT ADDS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO THE DISCUSSION.

If we had no light would everything be dark?

 

[Spirithound]

A reason? Perhaps not, but it is evidence that morality, over time, changes for any given society.

Those are the opinions of those societies. You need to present evidence that each of those societies were correct in their opinions to bolster your argument.

 

[Lutheranteach]

If it’s wrong than the Church is responsible for the disownment of countless children, the misery of many otherwise “normal” people, and who knows how many suicides.

 

[bingbang]

Empathy is an emotion. What if i don’t have empathy? What if I have dehumanized my victims and no longer feel sorry for them? Empathy is not an answer as to why we should treat others good, only why we ever would.

It seems you have little understanding of the basis of morality, or any moral system. A better answer would have been survival, benefit, logic, happiness, pleasure even. But empathy is not good enough. You need to do better.

Survival, benefit, logic, happiness, and pleasure are not good enough to base your morality on.

I just find it hilarious that you are trying to say that without God nothing is right or wrong, so only religious morality has a purpose. Not everyone has compassion or can feel empathy, but that doesn’t mean that these things aren’t good reasons to treat others the way you want to be treated. In fact, the golden rule doesn’t mention God at all. Jesus preached the golden rule, but he wasn’t the person to invent it. It is a secular moral system.

Your argument stands that without God, nothing is right or wrong. I am here to say that argument is stupid because you don’t have to be religious to know what is right and what is wrong.

 

[bingbang]

Don’t change the subject, that’s not the point. We are talking about homosexuality right now.

Change the subject? What are you talking about. Your arguments against homosexuality is that they are immoral because they don’t help the human race. Choosing to be celibate is equally as detrimental to the human race. Both homosexuals and celibate priests and nuns produce 0 offspring, yet you think one group is sinful because of this and one group is admirable because of this. Obviously your logic is faulty.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

It does make sense. You’re looking at a short history compared to a long term history. Priestly vocation is not dying. Perhaps there are fewer priests in North America, but there’s plentiful elsewhere. ABCs in its present form has been around only for a hundred years or so. I’m talking long-term view of history. Homosexuality has existed for thousands of years and yet you cannot point on a society that thrived with a large homosexual population. It always comes and goes and always seem to accompany a dying empire.

 

[bingbang]

It does make sense. You’re looking at a short history compared to a long term history. Priestly vocation is not dying. Perhaps there are fewer priests in North America, but there’s plentiful elsewhere. ABCs in its present form has been around only for a hundred years or so. I’m talking long-term view of history. Homosexuality has existed for thousands of years and yet you cannot point on a society that thrived with a large homosexual population. It always comes and goes and always seem to accompany a dying empire.

What society has ever had a large homosexual population? You could say Rome or Greece, but these people weren’t actually homosexuals as they had wives and obviously had children. No society will ever be mostly homosexual unless homosexuals from other places move there. Rates of homosexuality hover at about the same rate in just about every society in the world.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Change the subject? What are you talking about. Your arguments against homosexuality is that they are immoral because they don’t help the human race. Choosing to be celibate is equally as detrimental to the human race. Both homosexuals and celibate priests and nuns produce 0 offspring, yet you think one group is sinful because of this and one group is admirable because of this. Obviously your logic is faulty.

It is the same arguement as NFP. One is selflish the other is not.

 

[Newbie2]

Monogamous same sex relationships. It is only “immoral” because the church says so. There really isn’t any good secular, non religious, reason for why it is immoral.

You forgot to add, “…that I find acceptable.”

There are plenty of valid reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum on the CAF. You just seem to reject them all.

 

[bobolink]

Great rebuttal! What if I don’t take the Bible or the Church’s teachings as authority? Just tell me a hypothetical…what if the teaching is wrong?

Maybe I should rephrase the question. IF the teaching were to be wrong (hypothetically), would you agree that it would negatively effect the people’s lives who were celibate as homosexuals because of the church teaching? Do you think that their life would be better or worse for listening to this teaching that was hypothetically false.

If the Church teaching were wrong, all that is lost is some pleasure and hedonism, nothing more. If the Church is right, and we follow the teaching, we gain everything. If we assume the Church is wrong and do our own thing, we risk losing everything. The smart money, therefore, is on the Church teaching being right and worthy of belief.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Monogamous same sex relationships. It is only “immoral” because the church says so. There really isn’t any good secular, non religious, reason for why it is immoral.

On a Catholic forum…hmmmm. I guess you could use the same argument with any concept. If you think about it without God might makes right. Justification is not needed not desired for any topic. In fact Darwinism would rule and in a society with no souls to worry about homosexual conduct would be tolerated because offspring could be limited from that branch?..Rape would of course be the rule in order to have as much DNA around as possible…Yep without God it seems like we would be just like animals… horses, cattle, dogs and pigs.

 

[bobolink]

Originally Posted by bingbang
Monogamous same sex relationships. It is only “immoral” because the church says so. There really isn’t any good secular, non religious, reason for why it is immoral.

Just by looking at the consequences and bad fruits of homosexuality, you can see it is wrong.