Why are homosexuality threads so popular?

[Exalt]

Amen.

Homosexuality is that - behavoir and you can rant on but all you have presented is the same old tired false premise that homosexuality is anything, but a behavoiral choice that opposes the nature functionality and purpose of sex.

Homosexuality is normally defined as the sexual attraction ***or ***behavior directed towards someone of the same sex.

Bennie, I wonder if we have gone outside the realm of rational discussion when we can’t agree that the attraction is very rarely a choice. The behavior, of course, is a conscious choice (that is, “do I act on this impulse/feeling/desire or not?”). The attraction, however, is widely recognized (even by your own church) to not be a choice.

You cannot build anything that stands logically if you totally throw away that basic foundation to build on. Is sex only purpose to re-populate the world? No, but if you don’t build your sexuality on the foundation based on its basic function and purpose, then you are building a straw house in the wind.

Though you reject the idea of God, the teachings of the Church on sexual morality, not just homosexuality, but all the “laws” and teachings concerning sexual morality, if not followed or, rejected, expose a person and those they love, claim to love and those that love them, to risks of sickness and death- physical, mentally and for us that believe in God, spiritually.

That is very weak inductive reasoning and doesn’t look at the evidence honestly or objectively. You look at the Church teaching on homosexuality, and then look for the evidence that might support it. Scientists in the business of psychology, however, actually look at the evidence objectively, and find that though homosexuality does incur a slightly higher rate of depression, drug addiction, and so on, they never conclude that the solution is for all people with homosexual tendencies to be totally celibate for the rest of thier lives. (Which is *your *conclusion.)

And when I said “behavior determines your risk” - I meant that sexual behavior that includes unprotected sex with multiple partners will mean a vastly higher chance of getting some sort of disease than sexual behavior that includes protected sex with one partner - regardless of sexual orientation.

By the way, I don’t comdemn anyone and I demand nothing from no one. Your are free to do whatever you like, I will not stop you. So if think someone is knocking on your door, you might want to open up and see who it is, for in the words of Bob Dylan, “it ain’t me, babe.”

Fair. Thanks for that, by the way.

 

[Exalt]

The Catholic Church doesn’t advocate telling teens and adults that SSA are something to be hidden and ashamed of. People with SSA have no control over their desire, therefore there’s no need to be ashamed. The only control they have is how they act in response to those desires. If they act on them they probably naturally feel shame and guilt, just as a person who acts on heterosexual lust naturally feels shame and guilt.

You also confuse not acting on lustful desires with repression. This is untrue whether those desires are homosexual or heterosexual. There are proper ways for two men or two women to express their love to one another just as there are proper ways for a husband and wife to express their love for one another. Repression will only create problems, but finding a proper outlet is healthy. Admittedly this is much more difficult for people with SSA, but there are other ways to express love besides erotic actions.

I think you’re confusing well-catechised Catholics with under-catechised Catholics and people from other religions who don’t understand the distinction between who a person is and what a person does. Again, the Catholic Church teaches that there is no guilt associated with having SSA - the taboo of coming out of the closet you talk about does not come from orthodox Catholic teachings.

You claim that rates of depression for openly SSA people who choose to be celibate are higher than normal. Why would they be any higher than the average for all people who choose to live celibate lives?

 

[brianwalden]

I was talking about same-sex attracted people who are not open about it. And I think it would be higher than all those who choose celibacy because those SSA people *must *choose it or go to hell. (Homosexual activity, even of the monogamous, healthy kind is a mortal sin, is it not? Unless they have some sort of extenuating circumstances, or God grants them special mercy, they recieve the natural result of that mortal sin - eternal separation from God, i.e., Hell, right?) In that case, is it really a reasonable choice? If the choice is eternal pain and suffering forever and ever or the lack of sexual expression for the next 60 or 70 years, what sane person would choose the eternal pain and suffering? Because of that lack of reasonable choice, a Catholic homosexual pretty much has no alternative but to choose celibacy.

By your logic everyone who believes in God is extremely depressed. To use your words, every Catholic *must *choose to not do certain things they desire or go to hell. Do you think I don’t have urges to masturbate, or use contraception, or cheat on my wife? I’d dare to say that we all have desires for sexual sins, yet there are many people who don’t indulge in them and they’re not depressed.

 

[Cecilia_Selby]

Sigh…

I knew it wouldn’t take long to slide off topic; we’ve seen enough threads about homosexuality; I wanted to know why we feel a need to talk about it, not just to start yet another thread talking about it.

I think people recognise that if we put a seal of approval on this behaviour we are elavating sin above God’s will.We all know is happening in the Episcopal Church.

Cecilia
Remember there is no structure for the function!!

 

[Exalt]

By your logic everyone who believes in God is extremely depressed. To use your words, every Catholic *must *choose to not do certain things they desire or go to hell. Do you think I don’t have urges to masturbate, or use contraception, or cheat on my wife? I’d dare to say that we all have desires for sexual sins, yet there are many people who don’t indulge in them and they’re not depressed.

You do realize that homosexuals following Church teaching can’t have a wife, right?

 

[brianwalden]

You do realize that homosexuals following Church teaching can’t have a wife, right?

Yes, you realize that homosexual sex isn’t the only sin out there, right?

If it makes you feel better we hold divorced people and those with SSA to the same standard.

 

[Bennie_P]

Homosexuality
Homosexuality is normally defined as the sexual attraction ***or ***behavior directed towards someone of the same sex.

Here is the proper definition. Common and/or normal is not the same thing as proper and correct.
**Main Entry: ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty **
Function: noun
**Date: 1892 1 : the quality or state of being homosexual 2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex **
Main Entry:1ho·mo·sex·u·al
Function: adjective
**Date: 1892 1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex 2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex **

Bennie, I wonder if we have gone outside the realm of rational discussion when we can’t agree that the attraction is very rarely a choice. The behavior, of course, is a conscious choice (that is, “do I act on this impulse/feeling/desire or not?”). The attraction, however, is widely recognized (even by your own church) to not be a choice.

**The Church teaches that same-sex attraction in some people is “Deep Seated”, it doesn’t teach, nor claim to know why, or how those attractions evolve. “Gay” apologist try to indicate that homosexuality is something someone is born with, but being “deep seated”, does not indicate that same notion. I have in previous post, if not in this thread then on others, indicated that persons with same-sex attraction may in many instances **have had outside influences shaping their SSA that were outside of their control. That doesn’t indicate that it is widely acceptable that all that have SSA have the same “deep seated” attraction. The one size fits all when it comes to SSA, IMHO, is an excuse promoted by “gay” activist and “gay” apologist to push those that are young and confused to act out on those impulses, urges and desires. Denying that for some those attractions will fad and for others they can be overcome. “Rarely” a choice, has not been scientific proven.
And you are correct it is always a choice to act on it. And the more one acts out on the attraction, it reinforces that disorder behavior thus making it more difficult to resist those disorder desires.

That is very weak inductive reasoning and doesn’t look at the evidence honestly or objectively. You look at the Church teaching on homosexuality, and then look for the evidence that might support it. Scientists in the business of psychology, however, actually look at the evidence objectively, and find that though homosexuality does incur a slightly higher rate of depression, drug addiction, and so on, they never conclude that the solution is for all people with homosexual tendencies to be totally celibate for the rest of thier lives. (Which is *your *conclusion.)

The scientist and psychologists that you claim look at the subject objectively and espouse your view happen to be homosexuals and “gay” activists. Many in the psychology field disagree with those claims. And Psychology is unlike all other sciences, based on many unfounded theories. The most famous and looked up to in the field are known, please excuse my use of this phrase, to be “nuts”. The higher rates of depression, drug use, alcoholism, etc. are more likely due to self-hate and guilt along with the lifestyle most “homosexuals” choose to live. I’ve seen people become alot more understanding over the decades, yet the rates of the types of problems are on the increase.

**My conclusion is that all people should attempt to live chaste lives according to their vocation in life. And though it may be difficult, many with SSA can overcome their attraction and live full heterosexual lives. Some in the vocation of marriage and others called to single life. **

.

continued…

 

[Bennie_P]

And when I said “behavior determines your risk” - I meant that sexual behavior that includes unprotected sex with multiple partners will mean a vastly higher chance of getting some sort of disease than sexual behavior that includes protected sex with one partner - regardless of sexual orientation.

Fair. Thanks for that, by the way.

Me too.

Your Welcome

 

[goofyjim]

Because people from both sides of the issue like to provoke the other while those of us in neutral territory sit back and let them salughter each other. The peacemakers will win out and some day have a world where the acts are not committed but sexual orientation is openly accepted.

 

[Publisher]

Quaker’s don’t really believe anything anymore accept that you can believe whatever you want. They are essentially unitarians now. Because of this, Quaker’s can range from strict conservative Christians to hedonistic atheists and everything in between.

Actually your response is quite inaccurate. Friends do have a very deep understanding of things that matter…we just come at it from another angle.

However, I do not wish to derail a thread that has nothing to do with “Moral Theology” by discussing Quaker belief and practice.

 

[guanophore]

What facts? That God exists and that such a thing as hell exists? And you’ll go there unless you follow the rules that he decided?

That’s definitely a good start!

That he wrote all these rules down in a Bible (with punishments, I might add, which aren’t talked about very much)? And that one of those rules included a ban on homosexual expression?

For the most part, true.

Those things are based on *faith *and I don’t think you can call them facts. Beliefs is a more accurate term.

True. They are facts for those who accept them in faith as being true.

Now, the only facts that have any real weight in this discussion are facts you have alluded to numerous times - things like slightly higher rates of depression, substance abuse, suicide attempts, and other similiar things in homosexuals. I agree that those things are distressing, but it disturbs me greatly that you (and others) read into those facts that homosexuality is immoral.

I think it is the other way around, actually. These are symptoms of living an immoral life. It does not matter if the immorality is sexual, or of another kind. Living a sinful life has consequences in the present time, and in eternity.

Nevermind the fact that the vast majority of psychologists and psychiatrists around the world attribute those higher rates of depression, etc, to negative reactions from family, friends, and society at large - and that often includes family members who would otherwise find homosexuality to not be immoral or objectionable.

What you seem to be implying here is that, if Catholics would stop making homosexuality immoral, everyone would feel better and there would not be so many socio-emotional consequences.

That couldn’t possibly be the cause for slightly higher rates of self-destructive behavior, would it? It’s *got *to be because homosexuality is unnatural, right?

Self destructive behavior is not the fault of other people who have contrary religious beliefs. However, I do agree with you that practicing an immoral lifestyle in the presence of moral persons who object to it does cause a significant amount of mental distress for many people. I also agree with your premise, that the immoral tend to blame others for their own actions.

I wonder what the rates of depression and suicide are for those teens and adults who have been told all thier lives that homosexuality is something to be hidden,

Very high, as well as substance abuse rates.

ashamed of, and can never, ever be expressed - lest they risk the fires of hell because of it. It’s too bad it will be pretty much impossible to gather such numbers, because of the intense taboo placed on coming out of the closet - even if it’s coming out of the closet as a celibate same-sex-attracted person. I’d imagine, though, that rates of depression are much higher among those sorts of people.

No doubt. I think the Church can do a lot more in supporting the healthy expression of sexuality in all venues. Theology of the Body is AWESOME!

Thus, there is a significant lack of role models for gay people who don't wish the strict celibacy that you demand of them.

Understandably. It stands to reason that living a sinful lifestyle makes one a poor role model.

Now, all that said, I’m quite certian you have very strong reasons for your condemnation of homosexuality.

For myself I have to say that I don’t condem homosexuality,a nd neither does the Church. God condemns sin, in any form.

I respect that.

No, I think not!

But the objective evidence against it just isn’t there and isn’t conclusive enough. On the contrary, it seems to be the taboo against homosexuality itself that is the cause for the vast majority of the problems you and others have attributed to openly gay people.

I agree that it does produce signficant social and mental/emotional stress for people so afflicted. I am not sure it is any different than the taboos on other sinful behaviors, though.

 

[Bennie_P]

Because people from both sides of the issue like to provoke the other while those of us in neutral territory sit back and let them salughter each other. The peacemakers will win out and some day have a world where the acts are not committed but sexual orientation is openly accepted.

Jim, You are not neutral. Riding the fence maybe, but not neutral May, God bless you with a good laugh today, He sure used you to give me one. Keep Hanging in there:thumbsup:

 

[guanophore]

Originally Posted by bilop
Two thoughts.

1. Homosexual conduct has traditionaly been considered a more grievous sin than other sexual sins.

It is among the 4 sins in the Bible that “cry to heaven for vengeance”

I got the quote here. catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9202qq.asp

but I believe the citation should be Genesis 18:20, NOT 17:20

In Genesis 18, the Lord is talking about the sin of Sodom and how it has cried out to him, right before he decides to destroy the cities.

God Bless

I am not trying to minimize sexual sin, but I don’t see that this was any more serious than any of the other abominable behaviors in Sodom:

Ezek 16:49-50
49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it.

Is it generally thought that sexual sin “cries out” to God for vengence more than these others?

 

[guanophore]

People with SSA have no control over their desire, therefore there’s no need to be ashamed. The only control they have is how they act in response to those desires. If they act on them they probably naturally feel shame and guilt, just as a person who acts on heterosexual lust naturally feels shame and guilt.

You have to admit, though, it is hard to have a peachy warm feeling if one is being told their sexual orientation is “gravely disordered”. Maybe it helps to be told it is not their fault, but it is still a difficult state to accept.

You also confuse not acting on lustful desires with repression. This is untrue whether those desires are homosexual or heterosexual. There are proper ways for two men or two women to express their love to one another just as there are proper ways for a husband and wife to express their love for one another. Repression will only create problems, but finding a proper outlet is healthy. Admittedly this is much more difficult for people with SSA, but there are other ways to express love besides erotic actions.

This is a good point. Christian freedom is about being free of repression, and free from law. It is about having the desire to live according to what God created, rather than being coerced into sin by the fallen nature.

 

[guanophore]

Scientists in the business of psychology, however, actually look at the evidence objectively, and find that though homosexuality does incur a slightly higher rate of depression, drug addiction, and so on, they never conclude that the solution is for all people with homosexual tendencies to be totally celibate for the rest of thier lives. (Which is *your *conclusion.)

Don’t you think that is because one is based on the findings of science, and the other is the result of Divine Revelation? That is not to say that Divine REvelation cannot occur in science, but the method of drawing conclusions is quite different.

 

[brianwalden]

You have to admit, though, it is hard to have a peachy warm feeling if one is being told their sexual orientation is “gravely disordered”. Maybe it helps to be told it is not their fault, but it is still a difficult state to accept.

I agree. Calling the orientation disordered is a clinical or theological term. There are times for using the precision of theological terms and times for stating it in a more pastoral manner.

I think that one of the difficulties on these forums is that so many people read the threads coming from different perspectives. Using the clinical terminology may be more helpful overall to prevent confusion with so many people reading the threads, but it may be unhelpful or even harmful to particular individuals.

I also think its important to draw the distinction between the desire being gravely disordered and the person being gravely disordered. Suffering from gravely disordered desires does not intrinsically make someone a gravely disordered person.

 

[guanophore]

I was talking about same-sex attracted people who are not open about it. And I think it would be higher than all those who choose celibacy because those SSA people *must *choose it or go to hell. (Homosexual activity, even of the monogamous, healthy kind is a mortal sin, is it not?

The position would be that all sexual activity that is outside God’s plan for marriage is unhealthy. Why would somone want to live eternally with someone whose Creation they despise?

 Unless they have some sort of extenuating circumstances, or God grants them special mercy, they recieve the natural result of that mortal sin - eternal separation from God, i.e., Hell, right?)

I think it is the other way around. We are born in a state separated from God, and without His special mercy and grace we will not be able to find eternal union with Him.

In that case, is it really a reasonable choice? If the choice is eternal pain and suffering forever and ever or the lack of sexual expression for the next 60 or 70 years, what sane person would choose the eternal pain and suffering?

I don’t see that this choice is different than choices about any other sin.

 Because of that lack of reasonable choice, a Catholic homosexual pretty much has no alternative but to choose celibacy.

I think there is something that you are leaving out. I agree that it is unreasonable to spurn God’s offer of eternal life. However, people do it every day, and over other things besides sex. But you are not taking into consideration that a life of consecration to God brings with it unimaginable gifts and happiness. What He wants to do for us is so much more than we can ever ask or imagine! His grace is made perfect in weakness, and by His stripes, we are healed.

 

[guanophore]

You do realize that homosexuals following Church teaching can’t have a wife, right?

Many people with SSA do get married, and live successful married lives, and have kids. Having SSA does not preclude any of these.

People get married and have kids that have all KINDS of grave disorders.

 

[rlg94086]

I agree. Calling the orientation disordered is a clinical or theological term. There are times for using the precision of theological terms and times for stating it in a more pastoral manner.

I think that one of the difficulties on these forums is that so many people read the threads coming from different perspectives. Using the clinical terminology may be more helpful overall to prevent confusion with so many people reading the threads, but it may be unhelpful or even harmful to particular individuals.

I also think its important to draw the distinction between the desire being gravely disordered and the person being gravely disordered. Suffering from gravely disordered desires does not intrinsically make someone a gravely disordered person.

Bravo. :clapping: This is the distinction that is lost on many people.

 

[Bennie_P]

Don’t you think that is because one is based on the findings of science, and the other is the result of Divine Revelation? That is not to say that Divine REvelation cannot occur in science, but the method of drawing conclusions is quite different.

The first part of your sentence is incorrect It should say "Don’t you think that is because one is based on the findings of “bad” science." *As in not very “sound” science as, opposed to science is bad. So the conclusions from unsound science should considered highly suspect. *