B
buffalo
Guest
A child has a right to his male and female biological parents.
- Status
R
Rau
Guest
Might this be described as “masturbation in company”. Do the prisoners form romantic attachments?
F
Freddy
Guest
So if you can’t reproduce then…it is the end function. Not much point in having sex if you can’t have kids unless it’s just for pleasure. It’s the only reason I do it. Am I sinning?nicholasG:
Pleasure is not the end function of the reproductive organs. It is the stimulus to make the reproductive act desirable and the desire to repeat. If it was not pleasurable there would not be a human race.
I wonder how many people don’t have sex just for pleasure…
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
This can explain motivation. But of itself does not make the act good (not bad). The homosexual inclination is odd in that it drives one to act in ways inconsistent with the body. Evidently, the males sexual process delivers sperm - which only makes sense in the context of man+woman. The Catholic standpoint is that that is the only proper context for sexual acts.
R
Rau
Guest
Not quite. The natural ends of sexual relations always include reproduction though that end cannot be fulfilled due to circumstances Eg age. The church position is that our acts should be in conformance with the natural ends.
I don’t have reason to believe you are sinning by not desiring a child or if age makes conception impossible.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
It is. But it matters not that the woman could conceive or not. You just have to make sure that…well, no need to go into graphic details. But some of ‘this’ has to end up in ‘there’ and everything’s good.nicholasG:
This can explain motivation. But of itself does not make the act good (not bad). The homosexual inclination is odd in that it drives one to act in ways inconsistent with the body. Evidently, the males sexual process delivers sperm - which only makes sense in the context of man+woman. The Catholic standpoint is that that is the only proper context for sexual acts.
B
buffalo
Guest
Being open to life is the key.
I
Ilija
Guest
There were “many” homosexuals also in OT too, read “Sodom and Gomorrah”, Genesis 19
homosexuals are nothing new and are definitely not product of modern way of life.
The only difference is that today they don’t have to hide, so it looks like there is many of them but it’s not.
Problem is that, modern way of life contributes to homosexuality as being normal, and even let’s them having childs.
I don’t think anyone would like to be a child of homosexuals, would you?
F
Freddy
Guest
I’m not open to life. Neither is my wife. But as long as this goes there it seems we’re good. Is that right?Freddy:
Being open to life is the key.
F
Freddy
Guest
R
Rau
Guest
“This going there“ (assuming no contraceptive pills etc) suggests the act is open to life, quite apart from desires of the actors.
M
Metis2
Guest
For a long time homosexuality was considered a mental illness (even though it most definitely is not ) so people who were gay could lose everything. This fortunately has changed so gay people won’t lose their job because of their sexual orientation. There are religious people, quite a few of them in fact, who have no problem with homosexuality. Homosexuality is a fact of nature (there are homosexual animals) and this does not damage society. Besides, even if homosexuality was unnatural (which it is DEFINITELY not) what would be the problem? Clothing is not natural, neither are buildings or medication, yet they are not damaging to society or sinful.
I
Ilija
Guest
Well the definition of “Normal” is something that is common in relation to overall population, or something that does not deviate from majority.
for example it’s normal to be believer because majority (more than 50%) of humanity are believers.
homosexuality can’t be considered normal and it was never normal, because in no time in history majority of people were homosexuals.
The fact that homosexuals existed since ever does not qualify homosexuality as normal according to this definition.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
The word normal is tricky. Things happen routinely, but we still regard them as abnormal or aberrant. To be born blind happens, but is not normal as we humans are sighted creatures having 2 eyes. To experience no sexual attraction to the opposite sex happens (we’ve no idea why) but is not normal because we humans are equipped to reproduce by that means.
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
No. This is where the difference between “internal sin” vs “external sin” comes into play.buffalo:
I’m not open to life. Neither is my wife. But as long as this goes there it seems we’re good. Is that right?Freddy:
Being open to life is the key.
Also knows sinful actions vs sinful thoughts.
Objectively speaking, most of us can only comment or notice external sins (sinful actions) that are objectively observable.
However, there are also internal sins (sinful thoughts and/or sinful motivations) that are very subjective to the person. An outsider cannot objectively observe these sins, and can only know of them with subjective information.
An example of this would be a married couple using Natural Family Planning (NFP). The act of NFP is morally neutral. Abstaining from sex in order to prevent pregnancy is not a sinful action because abstaining isn’t sinful. So objectively speaking, NFP is not sinful.
HOWEVER, subjectively, if a person is NOT open to life and they are practicing NFP, then their motivations are sinful. Perhaps not mortally sinful, but they are sinful nonetheless.
So just because a person (or couple) isn’t doing something that is externally sinful, does NOT mean that they are not sinning internally.
I’m hope I’m making sense.
F
Freddy
Guest
So we do have a different definition. I thought ‘normal’ meant expected or usual. So if you said that you knew a hundred people and at least one of them was gay, that would be normal.Freddy:
Well the definition of “Normal” is something that is common in relation to overall population, or something that does not deviate from majority.
for example it’s normal to be believer because majority (more than 50%) of humanity are believers.
homosexuality can’t be considered normal and it was never normal, because in no time in history majority of people were homosexuals.
The fact that homosexuals existed since ever does not qualify homosexuality as normal according to this definition.
About 5% of the population have hazel eyes. I guess me having that colour makes me abnormal.
B
buffalo
Guest
“Unbiased, Open Research [on Homosexuality] Was Never Done,” Says Former A.P.A. President in Interview
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
F
Freddy
Guest
Then Catholicism uses the term quite unlike the way it is used in any other situation by anyone. If I say ‘I’m open to the idea of going to the beach’ then I am saying that it’s an idea I am quite prepared to entertain.Freddy:
“This going there“ (assuming no contraceptive pills etc) suggests the act is open to life, quite apart from desires of the actors.
I am not prepared to entertain the idea of having more children. Which is actually a physical impossibility on two counts, neither artificial
It stretches credulity way past breaking point to claim that two people who neither want nor can have children and only have sex because they enjoy it are somehow ‘open to life’ because of the mechanics of the act.
I
Ilija
Guest
Haha, you’re trying to trick me into answering “yes” because that would imply that this one gay is normal.
It makes you exceptional.
My definition of “normal” is used in statistics.
And statistics is just a branch of mathematics.
For example, if you play European roulette (37 numbers) and bet on number 8 then the expected result is:
1/36 = 0,027
Meaning it’s expected that you lose 2,7% of your money on avereage. (in long run)
It also means it’s normal to lose 2,7% of your money.
Obviously “expected” and “normal” are closely related
Last edited:
- Status