What in essence makes homosexuality wrong?

[fms]

I noted your religion as “Weak Atheist”

I would say that to understand, the starting point would be God.

If I am a maker of something, say a car, it comes with a set of instructions - an owner’s manual. Use the car the way I intended it I am happy (giving glory to God) and the car achieves the end to which it was made (for man = happiness).

The set of instructions are written on a man’s heart (natural law) so we tend to know when we are doing wrong or know it from the consequences e.g. to kill another is wrong.

 

[iloveangels]

I noted your religion as “Weak Atheist”

I would say that to understand, the starting point would be God.

If I am a maker of something, say a car, it comes with a set of instructions - an owner’s manual. Use the car the way I intended it I am happy (giving glory to God) and the car achieves the end to which it was made (for man = happiness).

The set of instructions are written on a man’s heart (natural law) so we tend to know when we are doing wrong or know it from the consequences e.g. to kill another is wrong.

fms, that’s when the conscience is properly formed. It is possible that a person can’t read the “instructions” due to a malformed conscience. This is more and more common in society now because of the things people are exposed to that harden and coarsen them.

Nevertheless, the impulse to be recognized and to cause trouble is in a way, the perverse expression of this glimmer of understanding that there is something written there. It’s just perverted at that point and so it takes another visible form.

 

[meltzerboy]

NO. Sex outside marriage is gravely sinful. And you know full well that’s not what I asked you.

If they were validly and licitly married and one was homosexual, one was heterosexual, then sex would be okay within that marriage. But not outside of it.

This rarely happens, but I think it’s possible that it might happen sometimes. I don’t know how sustainable it is. I suspect not very.

Triumphguy, homosexual inclination is disordered and a violation of natural law.

I was not talking about sex outside of marriage. Please refer again to my original post. Yes, sometimes the marriage does break up because of unfaithfulness on the part of the gay person. This usually happens when the heterosexual spouse was not informed by the gay person before they got married. It’s not as rare as you might think.

 

[iloveangels]

I was not talking about sex outside of marriage. Please refer again to my original post. Yes, sometimes the marriage does break up because of unfaithfulness on the part of the gay person. This usually happens when the heterosexual spouse was not informed by the gay person before they got married. It’s not as rare as you might think.

This is why people should be very careful to have long discussions and counseling BEFORE they marry. This is a disaster.

 

[triumphguy]

Triumphguy, homosexual inclination is disordered and a violation of natural law.

But to be a homosexual is not to be an aberration: they are still created in the image and likeness of God. In the same way same sex attraction is not sinful, though it may be an occasion of sin, and the homosexual act IS sinful. .

 

[iloveangels]

But to be a homosexual is not to be an aberration: they are still created in the image and likeness of God. In the same way same sex attraction is not sinful, though it may be an occasion of sin, and the homosexual act IS sinful. .

All human beings are created in the likeness of God, even human beings with psychoses and all manner of diseases, Triumphguy. It is possible to have a disorder even when you are made in the image of likeness of God. This is not a contradiction.

Homosexuality is an objective disorder. The inclination is disordered and a violation of natural law. The act itself, as you say, is a grave sin as well as being a further violation of natural law.

 

[JimmytheButcher]

If you re-read my comments, you’ll see I was not talking about homosexual sex. I was talking about gay people who have heterosexual sex with a particular person whom they love, and the fact that this can and does happen.

You are correct in a sense.

Men and women are punctuated by varying degrees of disorder. In this way, there is no such thing as a homosexual nor a heterosexual (unless we are speaking of beasts). There is man and woman. One is by natural impulse male and the other female. One is tasked with masculinity and the other feminity. Any discussion outside the frame of reference of Mankind being in His Image is a red-herring. Modernism has poisoned our fonts of love. The Divine Physician has allows provided us with the medicine before the disease sets in. How appropriate that C.S. Lewis penned ‘The Four Loves’ which our dear Papa in Rome highlighted with his encyclical concerning ‘Deus Caritas Est’.

The question arising from this is what is masculine and what is feminine? For sake of resting our brains on the vigil of the beginning of the Pasqual cycle, let us be content to dwell upon the Canticles of Solomon.

 

[iloveangels]

You are correct in a sense.

Men and women are punctuated by varying degrees of disorder. In this way, there is no such thing as a homosexual nor a heterosexual (unless we are speaking of beasts). There is man and woman. One is by natural impulse male and the other female. One is tasked with masculinity and the other feminity. Any discussion outside the frame of reference of Mankind being in His Image is a red-herring.

You sound confused. Don’t you ever notice anything when you take a bath? Hint, hint.

The question arising from this is what is masculine and what is feminine? For sake of resting our brains on the vigil of the beginning of the Pasqual cycle, let us be content to dwell upon the Canticles.

newadvent.org/bible/son001.htm

This is Ash Wednesday. Try Isaiah 49: 8 - 15, Psalm 145:8-9, 13-14, 17-18 and John 5:17-30.

 

[triumphguy]

All human beings are created in the likeness of God, even human beings with psychoses and all manner of diseases, Triumphguy. It is possible to have a disorder even when you are made in the image of likeness of God. This is not a contradiction.

Homosexuality is an objective disorder. The inclination is disordered and a violation of natural law. The act itself, as you say, is a grave sin as well as being a further violation of natural law.

I don’t think I’m in disagreement with you. This is Pope Benedict XVI
“although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”

And it’s very much what I said: "But to be a homosexual is not to be an aberration: they are still created in the image and likeness of God. In the same way same sex attraction is not sinful, though it may be an occasion of sin, and the homosexual act IS sinful. "

 

[iloveangels]

I don’t think I’m in disagreement with you. This is Pope Benedict XVI
“although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”

And it’s very much what I said: "But to be a homosexual is not to be an aberration: they are still created in the image and likeness of God. In the same way same sex attraction is not sinful, though it may be an occasion of sin, and the homosexual act IS sinful. "

I think we’re splitting hairs here. Homosexuality is an objective disorder. The act is sinful.

This is not all that complicated.

 

[sw85]

After thirteen years of catholic education no teacher has been able to explain what is seemingly a simple explanation, in the meantime this and other incompetencies by theology classes have driven me away from the faith my parents raised me in. After reading I still can find no answer, what makes homosexuality wrong and to extend it, why do people want it outlawed? What is the basis for it as a sin?

Please Note: I have read many a thread in these forums and have noticed trends of hostility whenever issues are brought up (from “both” [though there are really more than two] sides, not just one), so please civility

Just for clarification’s sake I’m going to assume that by “homosexuality” you mean “homosexual acts” (i.e., sodomy), not merely “homosexual desires.” The desires are disordered but not sinful unless acted on.

Homosexual acts are sinful because, like any sin, they represent a perversion or a privation. That is to say it represents the misuse of a natural faculty. Our sexual faculty is ordered toward procreation, therefore it must be used in a manner consistent with this end (i.e., intravaginal, noncontraceptive ejaculation in the context of marriage).

Our “goodness” really just means our obedience to God’s will as expressed in our natures. God gave us sexual complementarity for a reason. Using it for any other reason is a sin.

 

[iloveangels]

Just for clarification’s sake I’m going to assume that by “homosexuality” you mean “homosexual acts” (i.e., sodomy), not merely “homosexual desires.” The desires are disordered but not sinful unless acted on.

Homosexual acts are sinful because, like any sin, they represent a perversion or a privation. That is to say it represents the misuse of a natural faculty. Our sexual faculty is ordered toward procreation, therefore it must be used in a manner consistent with this end (i.e., intravaginal, noncontraceptive ejaculation in the context of marriage).

Our “goodness” really just means our obedience to God’s will as expressed in our natures. God gave us sexual complementarity for a reason. Using it for any other reason is a sin.

Correct. Homosexual desires are objectively disordered. The homosexual act is a mortal sin, in every case. It is a misuse of the human ability to procreate, and it’s a misuse of the human potential for conjugal love.

This really is not all that complicated.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

After thirteen years of catholic education no teacher has been able to explain what is seemingly a simple explanation, in the meantime this and other incompetencies by theology classes have driven me away from the faith my parents raised me in. After reading I still can find no answer, what makes homosexuality wrong and to extend it, why do people want it outlawed? What is the basis for it as a sin?

Please Note: I have read many a thread in these forums and have noticed trends of hostility whenever issues are brought up (from “both” [though there are really more than two] sides, not just one), so please civility

I apologize Zmm3r that nobody has given a rational justification of the faith. They have simply asserted the validity of dogma, or asserted that it is a disorder. All, accept for perhaps one poster, have failed to touched on the fundamental logical flaws of homosexuality. What you require is a teleological synthesis of Gods nature and the intrinsic value of heterosexuality over other forms of attraction.

Given that this is the philosophy forum, what you are looking for is why it rationally follows from the existence of Gods metaphysical nature that homosexuality should be considered wrong. You don’t want dogmas dictated to you. For that i am sorry, because it is all because of people like this that i had to struggle mostly by myself in-order to achieve a rational understanding of traditional Christian morality.

And i am going to have to apologize again, because i do not feel well enough to give you complete philosophy. But here is some of what i posted on another thread.

Why is it a Sin to be Gay?

Having same sex attraction is not a sin. But the Church will say that a gay life style is a sin (It is a sin to be romantically involved with or having sex with somebody of the same gender). However your understanding of this fact will ultimately be dependent on what you mean by the word “wrong”. Pragmatically speaking there is nothing wrong with it; and the moral attitude of today’s society is for the most part pragmatic. Metaphysically speaking, however, a homosexual relationship contradicts what we are essentially. Catholic morality is for the most part essentialist in nature. You are essentially a Man; your sexual identity begins with the fact that you are a Man. Thus you ought to value that fact absolutely; since if you are an essentialist you cannot deny that your gender has a fundamental role to play when defining what you are sexually and therefore what you do with your sexuality. Thus any attractions that are contrary to the self-evident fact that you are a man is by definition an impediment insofar as it stops you from fully expressing the intrinsic nature of your gender identity and encourages you to act or behave in a way that does not reflect the intrinsic value of your gender identity. It is in this very real sense that you have disordered attractions, and this is why it would be wrong to act on it, quite simply because it does not reflect the good of what you are essentially.

A lot of people treat their human experiences like a “user identity”; they are very pragmatic and utilitarian when it comes to desire. And so it is easy to treat gender as an irrelevant attribute when faced with competing desires or attractions. But If you value your Gender identity and admit that it is fundamentally relevant in defining your sexual identity, then you will come to the same conclusion that I myself as a supposed bi-sexual am aware of. It is impossible to live a gay lifestyle and fulfill the intrinsic value of your gender-identity at the same time. It is either one or the other.

The question is, are you willing to express your attractions even if they conflict with the intrinsic value of your gender identity. I am not, because it is evident to me that my gender is fundamental to what I am sexually and that the reality of sexual attraction is contingent upon that fact. Thus my gender is what ultimately defines my sexuality and therefore my sexual dignity. Homosexuality undermines that dignity.

What is your sexual identity?

You should not say to your self that you are gay. Gay means more than simply being a attracted to the same gender, it is also a political identity which promotes the homosexual lifestyle. You have homosexual attractions, this is true; but even if you lack heterosexual attractions, you are essentially a heterosexual insofar as that is the natural end - and therefore the purpose of - your gender identity.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Are you in the closet?

Gay rights activists try to portray the “xgay”, or the person who does not act on his or her attraction, as being delusional, cowardly, or dishonest (in the closet). But this is completely false, and is for the most part a moral excuse to emotionally blackmail and bully people into homosexuality (In some cases the negative effects are not much different from a witch hunt). The truth is that for some people, it is not simply a matter of not wanting to be found out, but rather some people find it very difficult to live with the idea of not being able to fully express their gender-identity like other people of the same gender; and thus they experience humiliation and alienation as a result of not being able to fully express what they are essentially. Thus they rightly perceive themselves as having an impediment according to their desire to fully express their nature as either a man or a women. Because of society many SSA people feel forced to remain silent since they do not wish to be pigeon-holed into identifying as gay or be excluded as freaks by the straight community. Such people do not hate gays, but rather they simply recognize an impediment insofar as they attempt to relate to people of the same gender, and there is nothing dishonest or wrong with them trying to live a life that is more reflective of their gender insofar as they value their gender identity over their attractions.

Unfortunately; given the violent nature of society, for some people it is simply not a good idea to reveal the fact that you have SSA anymore than it would be a good idea to reveal the fact that you struggle with attractions toward children or animals. I would not stigmatize such people as cowards; rather i would criticize the hateful nature of society as a whole that they should feel the need to hide in humiliation.

Humiliation is something that also inflicts people who lose limbs; it is not uncommon that people who lose an arm or a leg feel very depressed and struggle to live a normal life. It would be evident to any reasonable person that their unhappiness is not due to them not facing up to the idea that they really don’t have a defect. It would be unreasonable to think that a religious organization is stopping them from identifying as creatures who have a “limbless-nature”. And while people should be free to personally identify as having a “limbless-nature”, it would not be prejudice to acknowledge the obvious fact that they have a defect. Such people, just like the man or women with SSA, feel depression because they don’t feel essentially complete and thus they feel like they have less value compared to somebody who is able to fully express their nature without conflict. Thus their confidence is trashed.

What is the right way?

It would be right to instill people with confidence and the will to live despite their inflictions. To an extent gay rights organizations give people confidence; and i think they are winning this battle partly because some Christians, who use their religion as a platform for disguised prejudice and hate, fail to address the issue with sensitivity and intelligence. But while the gay community is helping young people with their confidence, they are also robing them of their intrinsic value insofar as it is at the expense of their true essential identity as men and women. Trying to convince somebody that losing an arm is not an impediment to their true nature is not dealing with the issue honestly. Neither is it honest or correct to tell people who have same sex attractions that “gay” is what they are essentially, and that they should embrace it.

 

[iloveangels]

spamming

 

[mitex]

I am just going to sit back and watch this oneopcorn:

No need to get worked up anymore

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Hello Zimm3r
I am disappointed that discussion has so quickly become impersonally technical rather than entertaining a dialogue between imperfect, searching beings trying to grow beyond our present moral, intellectual and volitional limits before God (that is all of us by the way).

I would like to hear more from your good self and your reaction to what you have heard thus far and whether it is helping you with the concern behind your original question?

Thanks.

After thirteen years of catholic education no teacher has been able to explain what is seemingly a simple explanation, in the meantime this and other incompetencies by theology classes have driven me away from the faith my parents raised me in. After reading I still can find no answer, what makes homosexuality wrong and to extend it, why do people want it outlawed? What is the basis for it as a sin?

Please Note: I have read many a thread in these forums and have noticed trends of hostility whenever issues are brought up (from “both” [though there are really more than two] sides, not just one), so please civility

 

[jhigh]

God gave man the act of sexual intercourse for two reasons: unification and procreation. If we deny either of these functions, we are committing a mortal sin. Homosexual acts deny the procreative function, and are therefore sinful.

Where I believe that the Church has done a grave disservice to society is that they treat homosexuals differently than they do, for example, men that engage in masturbation. Masturbation is arguably the ultimate act of sexual evil, as it is the ultimate perversion of the sex act in that both functions are being denied. Because homosexuals make us feel comfortable, however, and masturbation is a far more common sin for red-blooded males to struggle with, we ostracize homosexuals and make them feel unwelcome while ignoring the other very grave sins being committed by people sitting in the pews next to us.

This is not to say that I disagree with one shred of the Church’s teachings on faith and morals. However, I do think that we, the faithful, should be far more charitable in how we treat individuals that struggle with forms of sexual sin that we are not as familiar with, and hold everyone to the same standard of purity.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This is not to say that I disagree with one shred of the Church’s teachings on faith and morals. However, I do think that we, the faithful, should be far more charitable in how we treat individuals that struggle with forms of sexual sin that we are not as familiar with, and hold everyone to the same standard of purity.

I agree.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

After thirteen years of catholic education no teacher has been able to explain what is seemingly a simple explanation, in the meantime this and other incompetencies by theology classes have driven me away from the faith my parents raised me in. After reading I still can find no answer, what makes homosexuality wrong and to extend it, why do people want it outlawed? What is the basis for it as a sin?

Please Note: I have read many a thread in these forums and have noticed trends of hostility whenever issues are brought up (from “both” [though there are really more than two] sides, not just one), so please civility

All sexual acts that are intrinsically closed to life are inherently wrong, oral and anal sex are wrong regardless of if heterosexuals or homosexuals do it.