What makes 'gay' wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter167
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Peter167

Guest
So I just got done with this thread and I am wondering something…

When someone who is agnostic or otherwise not Catholic asks me why the Church says missing Mass is important, or why masturbating is bad, or why I shouldn’t go around punching people in the face, I have something to tell them that makes logical sense. Examples:


  1. *]Murder: Hurts people. Lots of people
    *]Lust: Objectifies people. Forgets dignity
    *]Missing mass: Takes you out of the community, makes it easier to go astray
    *]Divorce: Splits up a family, doesn’t teach children integrity
    *]Abortion: Hurts moms, kills babies

    What do you tell someone about opposition to Gay marriage? Without quoting the Bible, why is it wrong?
 
I’m confused on this one, to be honest…the basic reason is because you deny what is natural and the cycle of creation.
Something like that…
 
I would find better words than the ones I am going to use because some of them have bad connotations, but I am using them strictly in accordance with their definition.
  1. Gay sex is a perversion of the natural instinct. Now, then some people say “fruit flies and manatees have gay sex, so therefore it is natural.” To that I reply “Chimpanzees wage war on other family groups and practice cannibalism, does that make it ok for humans?”
  2. Marriage is not simply about love. Homosexual activists would like to have you believe that, but marriage is more like a business contract that is there to create a family and hold it together. In every society marriage has been about the family. Gay marriage does not allow for a natural family. Why do you think the divorce rates for people with arranged marriages are so low?
  3. Love does not validate anything! That sounds odd I know, but the presence of love is not enough to justify the changing of an age-old structure because it would give some people the warm-fuzzies. Don’t tear down a fence unless you know why it was put there…
I am very sorry, this post seems horribly inadequate. My brain is not working at the moment. I’ll think and pray for a bit and maybe come up with something better…
 
A lot of what makes gay sex and marriage wrong comes with Catholic definitions, it seems.
Were this just any day marriage, sex, or romance, it’d be fine.
But, since the Catholic love doesn’t involve sex/lust of any kind (I think) and marriage is a contract for maintaining a family, then it IS understandable.
I dunno, I kinda wish differently, but I do see where it comes from, and I respect it and for the most part, live by it.
 
Now, I’m just playing the Devil’s advocate here but…
  1. Gay sex is a perversion of the natural instinct. Now, then some people say “fruit flies and manatees have gay sex, so therefore it is natural.” To that I reply “Chimpanzees wage war on other family groups and practice cannibalism, does that make it ok for humans?”
Click to expand...
Chimps wage war, and eat other chimps - does that make it any less natural? Perhaps the ‘natural instinct’ isn’t a good benchmark
Marriage is not simply about love. Homosexual activists would like to have you believe that, but marriage is more like a business contract that is there to create a family and hold it together. In every society marriage has been about the family. Gay marriage does not allow for a natural family. Why do you think the divorce rates for people with arranged marriages are so low?
Click to expand...
According to who is Marriage not only about Love? The same societies that thought slavery was OK?
you deny what is natural and the cycle of creation.
Click to expand...
Why is this important to a lay person? How does this harm society? When I get a heart transplant I deny what is natural. When I abstain from sex I deny the cycle of creation. Neither is bad for society. Why is homosexuality?
 
Marriage is a legal union of two people whose primary purpose is the creation and raising of children. Any other union just can’t be a marriage any more than a four-sided object can be a triangle.
 
Well it takes two triangles to make a four sided polygon… Divide the four sided polygon by it’s vertices.
 
once again, devil’s advocate here…
Marriage is a legal union of two people whose primary purpose is the creation and raising of children. Any other union just can’t be a marriage any more than a four-sided object can be a triangle.
Click to expand...
Just because it’s illegal, that makes it wrong? Is it also morally reprehensible to let a 20 year old drink a beer?

And who’s definition of marriage are we talking about here? What makes your definition more valid than a gay persons’?

Murder hurts people.
Lust hurts people.
Hurting people hurts people.

What does homosexuality do? Implicitly why is it wrong?
 
Opposition to gay marriage is not a Catholic idea…I know many non-Catholic Christians who do not believe in gay marriage or the gay lifestyle…
 
Opposition to gay marriage is not a Catholic idea…I know many non-Catholic Christians who do not believe in gay marriage or the gay lifestyle…
Click to expand...
But is that what makes it wrong? Because others oppose it?
 
Belle777 said:
But, since the Catholic love doesn’t involve sex/lust of any kind (I think) and marriage is a contract for maintaining a family, then it IS understandable.
Click to expand...
I think Pope Benedict disagrees. In his encyclical God is Love he mentions that often a distinction is made between eros and agape, and that eros is deemed lacking. But the Pope lays out the reasons why eros is fundamental to human nature and why humans are fulfilled by it (in its proper expression of man and woman coming together in marriage.)

The encyclical implies why homosexual acts are wrong. Man and woman are complementary - as humans we are completed by our love for our spouse. This is God’s design. In contrast, male-male or female-female love is not complementary, and does not fulfill our natures.
 
Peter167 said:
once again, devil’s advocate here…

Just because it’s illegal, that makes it wrong? Is it also morally reprehensible to let a 20 year old drink a beer?

And who’s definition of marriage are we talking about here? What makes your definition more valid than a gay persons’?

Murder hurts people.
Lust hurts people.
Hurting people hurts people.

What does homosexuality do? Implicitly why is it wrong?
Click to expand...
If marriage isn’t a legal union of two people whose primary purpose is the creation and raising of children, then what purpose does it play in furthering society? Why should the government be involved in this at all? From a strictly secular viewpoint, gay marriage isn’t wrong, it’s just pointless, as all marriages are if they are not intended for the creation and rearing of children.
 
Peter167 said:
But is that what makes it wrong? Because others oppose it?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure if the Catholic Tradition would argue that, within the context of a secular government, same-sex civil union is inherently wrong. I haven’t seen anything in the catechism about the issue of same-sex civil union.

The Catholic Tradition’s definition of homosexual acts as being disordered would not necessarily be accepted by non-Catholics in a secular society such as the U.S.

If that’s the case, then the Catholic Tradition has some options: (1) try to convince everyone, non-Catholics included, that such acts are disordered, and thus that same-sex civil union is not healthy for society and should not be legalized under any circumstances whatsoever; or (2) realize that convincing everyone in a secular society such as the U.S. is unlikely to happen anytime soon, and instead work for encouraging monogamous civil unions as something that people on both sides of the issue can agree on. I think choice 2 is a more fruitful choice.
 
Ahimsa said:
I’m not sure if the Catholic Tradition would argue that, within the context of a secular government, same-sex civil union is inherently wrong. I haven’t seen anything in the catechism about the issue of same-sex civil union.

The Catholic Tradition’s definition of homosexual acts as being disordered would not necessarily be accepted by non-Catholics in a secular society such as the U.S.

If that’s the case, then the Catholic Tradition has some options: (1) try to convince everyone, non-Catholics included, that such acts are disordered, and thus that same-sex civil union is not healthy for society and should not be legalized under any circumstances whatsoever; or (2) realize that convincing everyone in a secular society such as the U.S. is unlikely to happen anytime soon, and instead work for encouraging monogamous civil unions as something that people on both sides of the issue can agree on. I think choice 2 is a more fruitful choice.
Click to expand...
The problem with the Church allowing or approving same-sex civil unions is that it is a fairly accurate assumption that those unions would include same-sex sex acts. By approving or allowing them, the Church would then be giving tacit approval of homosexual acts, which are gravely sinful. Doing such would be scandalous.
 
It violates basic biology. Orifices are being used for which we were not created to use them.

Often then that gets into a birth control, oral debate or a debate about controlling their choices with children–

But when we were created by “whomever” if we aren’t to mention God–there would be no real purpose for a species that reproduces via heterosexual union to suddenly (or over time) have members of the species be born homosexual–except for 1 reason. That reason is for the species to become extinct.

But then they get into issues with overpopulation of the planet and overabundance of orphans–but it misses the point.

Why would a species evolve to have homosexuality? It is not a means of survival. It is certain death of a species.

It is often noted that there are other species that have homosexual members, but then I point out that we cannot use other species as examples of sexual freedom that fit our agenda and ignore others in which humans are “programmed” to do–such as rape and incest. Those folks are clearly sick in the head, but we would never point out the normalcy in other species as a means to justify it within our own.
 
bugz2007 said:
The problem with the Church allowing or approving same-sex civil unions is that it is a fairly accurate assumption that those unions would include same-sex sex acts. By approving or allowing them, the Church would then be giving tacit approval of homosexual acts, which are gravely sinful. Doing such would be scandalous.
Click to expand...
The Church Herself doesn’t have to approve same-sex civil unions.

One question, though, is should the Church actively try to fight against the secular legality of same-sex civil unions, if such civil unions serve a secular purpose of encouraging stable, monogamous couples?
 
I am not one of those atheists who think that religion is morally reprehensible and we would definitely be better off without it. But I do think that the position of Catholicism on homosexuality is doing harm and there are no good secular reasons for opposing gay marriage. If Catholicism is wrong, then the church’s position is preventing millions of people from ever having a shot at true love. I have heard many arguments against homosexuality and gay marriage, and in the end it all comes down to religious beliefs. If there is no God (which is my conclusion after looking at all the arguments for and against his existence), then denying gay people the right to live happy fulfilling lives is doing great harm. If someone is confident that the Catholic Church is right, then I think it is clear that homosexuality is wrong because both the Bible and the pope say it is. But I hope that those who grow up gay and Catholic at least try to carefully examine the evidence on both sides and see whether Catholicism is right. Because if Catholicism is wrong, they are sacrificing their one shot at finding a person to love and raise a family with.
 
Florida_mom said:
It violates basic biology. Orifices are being used for which we were not created to use them.
Click to expand...
It does not violate biology. From an evolutionary perspective, no body parts were created with a specific purpose in mind, we merely gradually evolved to have traits that made us more likely to survive.
Florida_mom said:
But when we were created by “whomever” if we aren’t to mention God–there would be no real purpose for a species that reproduces via heterosexual union to suddenly (or over time) have members of the species be born homosexual–except for 1 reason. That reason is for the species to become extinct.
Click to expand...
There are a variety of evolutionary reasons why homosexuality exists. I suggest you take a look at these two articles: newscientist.com/article/dn6519-survival-of-genetic-homosexual-traits-explained.html and newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html.
 
Ahimsa said:
The Church Herself doesn’t have to approve same-sex civil unions.

One question, though, is should the Church actively try to fight against the secular legality of same-sex civil unions, if such civil unions serve a secular purpose of encouraging stable, monogamous couples?
Click to expand...
The Church has a responsibility to teach the Truth. And members of the Church (aka Catholics) have a responsibility to not tacitly approve of sinful behavior, either. So even if the Church isn’t actively fighting (though I don’t know what you are referring to them doing other than preaching on the subject and encouraging the members of the Church to not do anything scandalous), Catholics have a responsibility to avoid scandal by being clear about their beliefs in their actions, which include their political practices, like voting.
 
anEvilAtheist said:
It does not violate biology. From an evolutionary perspective, no body parts were created with a specific purpose in mind, we merely gradually evolved to have traits that made us more likely to survive.
Click to expand...
Except that is one of the parts of the theory that they still need evidence for.
anEvilAtheist said:
There are a variety of evolutionary reasons why homosexuality exists. I suggest you take a look at these two articles: newscientist.com/article/dn6519-survival-of-genetic-homosexual-traits-explained.html and newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html.
Click to expand...
Read both. Very bad reasoning. Pure homosexuality is only good for getting rid of genes of the bearer.

Paul
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top