What makes Homosexuality Ok compared to Bestiality, Statutory Rape, and Incest?

[ScrupulousMonk]

*I am not condoning any crimes against nature. I simply want to understand why…

Perhaps I am a bit biased due to my Catholic education, but I just can not seem to figure out why society seems so extremely tolerant of same-sex relations but yet be so condemning of intercourse with animals, intercourse with underage persons, and intercourse between persons of similar genetic histories. Let’s just pretend and say some of the comedians I watch proclaim that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and that homosexual persons should not be judged, but would also condemn, insult, or make light of bestiality, statutory rape, and incest and the people that commit them. Sometimes, they would do both in the same skit!

But, I know that there has to be some sort of philosophy or reasoning that would allow for this seeming contradiction (hence, why I am in this forum). So, good people of this forum, may you please explain to me the philosophical reasoning that is intolerant of all forms of unnatural intercourse excluding homosexuality? I thank you all in advance for your replies.

 

[GuyNextDoor]

*I am not condoning any crimes against nature. I simply want to understand why…

Perhaps I am a bit biased due to my Catholic education, but I just can not seem to figure out why society seems so extremely tolerant of same-sex relations but yet be so condemning of intercourse with animals, intercourse with underage persons, and intercourse between persons of similar genetic histories. Let’s just pretend and say some of the comedians I watch proclaim that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and that homosexual persons should not be judged, but would also condemn, insult, or make light of bestiality, statutory rape, and incest and the people that commit them. Sometimes, they would do both in the same skit!

But, I know that there has to be some sort of philosophy or reasoning that would allow for this seeming contradiction (hence, why I am in this forum). So, good people of this forum, may you please explain to me the philosophical reasoning that is intolerant of all forms of unnatural intercourse excluding homosexuality? I thank you all in advance for your replies.

It is not okay at all on any level. Apart from Homosexuality being generally accepted by alot of people as compared to bestiality etc, the word Homosexuality probably sounds okay to the secular world, the same way Heterosexuality does. Bestiality is also called Zoophilia while sex with children is called Pedophilia. Bestiality and such will probably ‘seem’ alright too to them by just changing those words to “Oh I am Zoosexual” or “Hi I am a Pedosexual”.

My 2 cents.

 

[ScrupulousMonk]

**To GuyNextDoor **

Somehow, I am not all that surprised that society’s morals can collapse just by using different terms. My reading of “1984” has prepared me for that. But, there must be something more to it than that. A pyramid is not built with a single stone overnight.

 

[GuyNextDoor]

**To GuyNextDoor **

Somehow, I am not all that surprised that society’s morals can collapse just by using different terms. My reading of “1984” has prepared me for that. But, there must be something more to it than that. A pyramid is not built with a single stone overnight.

Couldn’t agree less. The sinful deeds of men existed since ancient times. We can find it in the Scriptures, in ancient civilizations especially Greek & Egypt, etc. Homosexuality, zoophilia and pedophilia are found in many parts of the world during that time. Despite what God teaches, mankind have been ignoring Him since day 1. And it has continued to this day.

For anyone who is interested on why Homosexuality is wrong:

Leviticus 18:22 ESV

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Romans 1:26-28 ESV

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

Leviticus 20:13 ESV

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

1 Timothy 1:10 ESV

The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

1 Corinthians 7:2 ESV

But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

Romans 1:27 ESV

And the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

 

[newcalling]

I’m not arguing for nor against any position. However, since you asked, the common thinking is that homosexual relations between consenting adults are none of our business. Beastiality and pedophilia both involve parties who cannot give consent. Incest may involve consenting adults, but heterosexual incest is far more likely to produce birth defects than a coupling of nonrelated or distantly related couples. Homosexuality doesn’t produce children.

Now, none of that takes the Bible into account, but society rarely does unless it serves selfish interests.

 

[robertmidwest]

Children and animals can’t give consent. Without arguing for or against homosexuality, there is a very clear difference.

 

[ssa_fellow]

There’s a difference between homosexuality and homosexual relations.

I found the name of the thread very offensive, because obviously homosexuality is ok. Homosexuality doesn’t imply an action has taken place. Whereas Bestiality does and so does statutory rape. And no, “zoosexual” couldn’t be a thing. I’m a homosexual, ok? I don’t want to be compared to a person who ****s sheep.

What makes heterosexuality ok for priests?

Its a sexuality. Not an action. Its an adjective, not a verb. You should specify in the thread heading, homosexual ACTS.

Heterosexual acts are not ok for most priests to commit. Heterosexuality isn’t a problem for priests, it is their sexuality. :doh2:

---

If I wanted to answer your question, I would just note how the last part of your question says: “may you please explain to me the philosophical reasoning that is intolerant of** all forms of unnatural intercourse** excluding homosexuality?”

All forms of unnatural intercourse? Um, the prevailing philosophy is tolerant of anal sex, oral sex, and whatever obscenities that millions of people saw in 50 Shades of Gray this past weekend. …

 

[AyJSimon]

Children and animals can’t give consent. Without arguing for or against homosexuality, there is a very clear difference.

And as for incest, I think it’s clear that we’ve evolved a predisposition against its practice. It’s not just a societal taboo based in a religious or superstitious doctrine. I think that, generally speaking, we are hard-wired against it. Exceptions exist, of course, but you’d expect them to. I think people are simply articulating that hard-wired aversion to familial relations when they come down on the concept of incest.

 

[spes_salvi]

What makes it seem Ok to other people is simply that they are unthinking and have been brainwashed by the media and pop culture.

Not a few decades ago, it is self-evident that homosexual relations is unnatural. People instinctively cringe at the sight of two men kissing. But because of the scandal of many people and the media normalizing and romanticizing homosexual relations, it has confused people and dulled them into not seeing this previously obvious fact.

But if people would just step back and remove their biases and look at the nature and biology of sex for a moment, they would arrive by rational thought that sex is designed for a man and a woman, not between people of the same sex.

If people remain unthinking and not use their reason… if people would continue to be swayed by media brainwashing, then the approval of all kinds of immoralities is possible. I won’t be surprised if bestiality, pedophilia, or incest would be perceived as normal in the future. It will be the rule of irrationality.

 

[spes_salvi]

Another thing is the culture of relativism. It is an ideology that rejects any objective truth about man. With this kind of thinking, people will reject the rule of reason and let their emotions and preferences rule instead. Thus, people holding to this ideology will accept anything, even irrational perversions, as long as they fancy them - to their own harm, of course.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

*I am not condoning any crimes against nature. I simply want to understand why…

Perhaps I am a bit biased due to my Catholic education, but I just can not seem to figure out why society seems so extremely tolerant of same-sex relations but yet be so condemning of intercourse with animals, intercourse with underage persons, and intercourse between persons of similar genetic histories. Let’s just pretend and say some of the comedians I watch proclaim that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and that homosexual persons should not be judged, but would also condemn, insult, or make light of bestiality, statutory rape, and incest and the people that commit them. Sometimes, they would do both in the same skit!

But, I know that there has to be some sort of philosophy or reasoning that would allow for this seeming contradiction (hence, why I am in this forum). So, good people of this forum, may you please explain to me the philosophical reasoning that is intolerant of all forms of unnatural intercourse excluding homosexuality? I thank you all in advance for your replies.

Gay sex and fornication are comparable sins, after all both occur between consenting partners, outside of marriage and both are condemned as intrinsically disordered by the Church.

 

[Rhubarb]

There are clear distinctions between homosexuality and the other things listed. Like. Very clear. I’m going to leave it there, as others have pointed out, because there is a laundry list of other things I could say (mostly incredulously) about the way the question is posed.

 

[odhiambo]

Homosexuality is not Ok, it can never be OK no matter what others may say.
The fact that many people the world over, practice it, does not make it OK.

 

[Bradski]

So you’re having a dinner party. You think you might invite one or two of the neighbours around.

The guy next door keeps a goat in his garden and has sex with it when he thinks no-one is looking. The guy next to him has boasted to you that he slept with a number of children when he went on holiday to Vietnam. The guy on the other side mentioned once that he seduced his grandmother after she’d had a few drinks. And there’s a middle aged female couple living opposite who seem quite friendly. Attend church regularly. Someone suggested that they are probably gay.

Who do you invite?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

*I am not condoning any crimes against nature. I simply want to understand why…

Perhaps I am a bit biased due to my Catholic education, but I just can not seem to figure out why society seems so extremely tolerant of same-sex relations but yet be so condemning of intercourse with animals, intercourse with underage persons, and intercourse between persons of similar genetic histories. Let’s just pretend and say some of the comedians I watch proclaim that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and that homosexual persons should not be judged, but would also condemn, insult, or make light of bestiality, statutory rape, and incest and the people that commit them. Sometimes, they would do both in the same skit!

But, I know that there has to be some sort of philosophy or reasoning that would allow for this seeming contradiction (hence, why I am in this forum). So, good people of this forum, may you please explain to me the philosophical reasoning that is intolerant of all forms of unnatural intercourse excluding homosexuality? I thank you all in advance for your replies.

You are generalising of course.
By “society” you prob mean TV news or glossy magazines?

That aside, society by and large condones or rejects on the basis of exaggerated rights of personal freedom, political correctness or “feelings” or custom or peer group pressure or whatever brings in the votes or money.

To exagerrate, the reason that acts of sodomy (which is not the same as a same-sex relation ship) are no big deal is prob for the same reason that masturbation is no big deal (so long as you do it in private and don’t scare the horses).

The reason that other grave matters you mention (eg bestiality) are still abhorred by significant sectors of society is more a matter of feeling and aesthetics. That is prob changing as due to exaggerated notions of liberty nobody really cares what you do in the privacy of your own stable in western societies.

 

[GuyNextDoor]

Yeah. That must be it. The “secular” people all get confused because the words homosexuality and heterosexuality sound so alike.

But what about bi-sexuality? That sounds different. And yet, many in this “secular world” you speak of accept that.

And what about the people in the non-secular world who accept homosexuality?
Do they have problems with word confusion, too?

.

I did not say they sound alike, you did.

You are too quick to assume that I have claimed that the secular world thinks Homosexuality is okay by the similarities of both words. Read my full post. Its either you are confused, drunk or have chosen to talk outta your *** in order to prove something.

No one seemed to have an issue understanding what I posted but you…

facepalm

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

So you’re having a dinner party. You think you might invite one or two of the neighbours around.

The guy next door keeps a goat in his garden and has sex with it when he thinks no-one is looking. The guy next to him has boasted to you that he slept with a number of children when he went on holiday to Vietnam. The guy on the other side mentioned once that he seduced his grandmother after she’d had a few drinks. And there’s a middle aged female couple living opposite who seem quite friendly. Attend church regularly. Someone suggested that they are probably gay.

Who do you invite?

I’d personally be about as likely to invite a gay couple v. a cohabiting heterosexual couple.

 

[ScrupulousMonk]

To All

Thank you for all of your replies. I am now getting a better understanding on this issue. However, I would like to articulate and point out a few things because I noticed there have been some misunderstandings and some lack of tact (perhaps on my part as well).

1. I am **not **saying homosexuality is ok. I stated in the first line of my post that I do not condone any crime against nature.
2. When I asked what makes homosexuality ok compared to bestiality et al, I meant “What makes homosexuality ok compared to bestiality et al in the eyes of Modern Western Society?” Please pardon me for not making that clear.
3. I know I used some terms and said some things that ranged from societally impolite to politically incorrect. Some would say I am too nice in real life. So nice, that I would compromise Catholic doctrine for the sake of “remaining in good standing with current societal values.” That is why I am trying to practice being truthful and getting my point across without fear of offending anyone. I am not saying we should all be jerks. I believe we should all try to tell to be nice to each other as possible but without distorting the truth or compromising our faith.
4. I noticed that there has been some needless aggression and off-topic responses in this thread. I am not saying that you should not act out of zealotry or righteous indignation. And I am not saying that it is wrong to add some humor to the situation. I just want the responses to be more focused and more civil. So, please, enough with the implied “bad words” and such.
5. I guess I should articulate my stance on this issue. I know our society has some really, really relativistic morals. That is why I find it odd that homosexuality is the only unnatural crime to be completely tolerated by today’s world. Ever since I changed my stance on gay relationships (I used to condone them, myself), I have found there is hardly anything that makes homosexuality, in essence, any different than bestiality et al. Sure, one can argue that it is different from the others because of mutual consent between two adults, but we do not ask if animals want to be taken in as pets or butchered to be in our burgers, do we? Not to mention, the age that one is considered an adult is relative, is it not? Back in ancient times, was not a 30-year-old considered an old man and were not pre-teens considered eligible for marriage? And what about incest? Obviously there would be genetic complications, but…cringes… if consenting adults are involved and they use contraceptives or abort the child, then there would be no problems, would there? And what about this stuff about being genetically hard-wired to not have sex with animals or people who are related to you? Is not sexual interest cognitive as well? Have you not heard of the various fetishes that people engage in (please pardon me for the bad thoughts)? Now that I have said it, I guess I should be glad that things are not worse than they are. I am not saying that I am fine with the gay marriages and gay relationships going on in the world, but I am just glad that we have not condoned bestiality et al…yet.

So, please continue your replies. I would really like to have a better understanding of this issue. And please let me emphasize that I believe, as the Church decrees, that all people, regardless of their sexual interests, should still be loved and treated as our human brothers and sisters.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m not arguing for nor against any position. However, since you asked, the common thinking is that homosexual relations between consenting adults are none of our business.

Well, it is our business since it is a menace to the public health. The diseases that frequently result from homosexual behavior are catastrophic, not only for the homosexual, but also for the bisexual, who is then in a position to pass them on to heterosexual women who can transmit them to heterosexual men. It is a horrible and stupid fiction that same-sex sodomy is a victimless crime.

 

[simpleas]

Well, it is our business since it is a menace to the public health. The diseases that frequently result from homosexual behavior are catastrophic, not only for the homosexual, but also for the bisexual, who is then in a position to pass them on to heterosexual women who can transmit them to heterosexual men. It is a horrible and stupid fiction that same-sex sodomy is a victimless crime.

That’s assuming every gay man sleeps around…