Why is Homosexuality Wrong?

[PumpkinBunny]

You obviously are not listening and have some huge gay agenda.

I am listening. It really bothers me when I come to a religion’s apologetics website, which is designed with the purpose of answering questions about the religion’s teachings, and I get accused of this kind of thing just for asking serious questions. Somebody already called me a troll. I don’t know why people are being so hostile.

Nothing about this is “obvious” to me. There is the possibility that these teachings are very complex and use ill-defined language or very abstract logical foundations. If this were so easy to understand, there would be no reason for this site to exist. It’s not easy.

So far, all the information I have gathered is that God orders marriage and sexual relations to be only between a man and a woman. But since it is also clear that the religion teaches that it doesn’t matter what is produced by such a union, I am confused as to why it is important. But if I’m just going to met with more hostility and suspicion, then nevermind. I don’t need to be here. Just forget I asked the question. I would like a moderator to remove this thread, please.

 

[Baelor]

How can two women or two men consummate a marriage? It’s impossible!!!

The Virgin Mary is a special case. I don’t know what to say about that, except she was a virgin and the mother of GOD!

I don’t know what you are talking about in regard to sexless marriages. In any case,
Catholic canon law defines a marriage as consummated when the “spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.”

Exactly. So the ability to procreate is not necessary for sexual intercourse. What is necessary is that man and woman in general “fit” together. PB’s question is now answered.

 

[classica87]

I am sorry that you are feeling attacked, PB. I think, as others have said, your question has been answered. As a part of His divine plan for humanity, God ordered marriage in such a way as to be complimentary, to be between one man and one woman. This relationship is evident in our first parents, Adam and Eve. Homosexuality is wrong because it goes against this natural law ordered by God.

The purpose of marriage goes far beyond sex and procreation, although those aspects are a part of it. Wether or not a couple can conceive a child is not a hindrance to marriage. Infertile couples are in a properly ordered marital relationship, and miracles are always possible because they are open to life.

This is not true of homosexual couples. Their relationship is not complementary and as I said before, goes against natural order established by God. They cannot have marital relationships because they are not properly ordered. It is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole—it doesn’t work. Homosexual relationships are closed to life and are an abuse of sexuality.

Homosexuals, like all persons, are called to rise above their disordered attractions and live a life of chastity, as are all people. As a single woman, I too am called to chastity. Even married couples must exercise chastity. Asking homosexuals to embrace chastity in their service to God is not “singling them out” for a life of loneliness. As Christians, we are called to serve and love God and others. We are not defined by our sexual desires or preferences. We are defined by the love of our Maker, by the souls He has placed within us and inscribed on His heart. We are not gay or straight. We are not back or white, or republican or democrat. We are children of God, and as such we are called to be obedient to our Father. Sometimes that means living a hard life, but God calls us to do hard things.

PB, I hope this thread has been helpful to you in your discernment. I see that you list “not certain” as your current religion; I will be praying for you. May the Holy Spirit be with you always, to enlighten you and guide you to Truth in Christ Jesus!

Please don’t be angry with your fellow CAFers. I think sometimes we all get a little frustrated, and it’s very easy to snap or be short when we are mist understood but feel we have made ourselves clear. No one is perfect; we aren’t quite saints yet! May the Lord bless you always!

Sincerely,
Classica

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I am sorry that you are feeling attacked, PB. I think, as others have said, your question has been answered. As a part of His divine plan for humanity, God ordered marriage in such a way as to be complimentary, to be between one man and one woman. This relationship is evident in our first parents, Adam and Eve. Homosexuality is wrong because it goes against this natural law ordered by God.

The purpose of marriage goes far beyond sex and procreation, although those aspects are a part of it. Wether or not a couple can conceive a child is not a hindrance to marriage. Infertile couples are in a properly ordered marital relationship, and miracles are always possible because they are open to life.

This is not true of homosexual couples. Their relationship is not complementary and as I said before, goes against natural order established by God. They cannot have marital relationships because they are not properly ordered. It is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole—it doesn’t work. Homosexual relationships are closed to life and are an abuse of sexuality.

Homosexuals, like all persons, are called to rise above their disordered attractions and live a life of chastity, as are all people. As a single woman, I too am called to chastity. Even married couples must exercise chastity. Asking homosexuals to embrace chastity in their service to God is not “singling them out” for a life of loneliness. As Christians, we are called to serve and love God and others. We are not defined by our sexual desires or preferences. We are defined by the love of our Maker, by the souls He has placed within us and inscribed on His heart. We are not gay or straight. We are not back or white, or republican or democrat. We are children of God, and as such we are called to be obedient to our Father. Sometimes that means living a hard life, but God calls us to do hard things.

PB, I hope this thread has been helpful to you in your discernment. I see that you list “not certain” as your current religion; I will be praying for you. May the Holy Spirit be with you always, to enlighten you and guide you to Truth in Christ Jesus!

Please don’t be angry with your fellow CAFers. I think sometimes we all get a little frustrated, and it’s very easy to snap or be short when we are mist understood but feel we have made ourselves clear. No one is perfect; we aren’t quite saints yet! May the Lord bless you always!

Sincerely,
Classica

This was very well written, and much nicer than mine!

 

[CopticChristian]

I did not dispute the validity of the claim, merely its isolated relevance. It is rather rude to withhold part of your argument in order to school another poster when you could lay out your argument in its entirety and ask where the problem lies. If that post is your entire argument, it is missing substantial components. If it is not, then post the whole thing instead of feeding it to others piecemeal.

You have the privelege and the right to post as you choose and I have the right and privelege to post as I choose. You have no right or credentials to tell anyone how to post.

 

[CopticChristian]

Then why does the type of sex matter? I don’t understand what other posters are saying. Some seem to be saying that procreation is necessary. Other seem to be saying that procreation isn’t necessary, only the situation which would allow procreation if both spouses were healthy. But that doesn’t makes sense to me.

What is the difference between a couple who can’t have children due to permanent ailment, and a couple who can’t have children due to their sex? The end result is the same from a practical standpoint.

Then why does the type of sex matter?

It matters because there is no such thing as…

a type of man
a type of woman

there is man and woman

when you signify “types of sex” then you infer that there is other than man and woman sex as you have continually asked and been told that…

male/male sex
female/female sex

is not ordered…as created…whatever is done with sexual organs may be properly seen as a “type of use”…not necessarily sex, if you accept that sex occurs only between men and women and what others do with their parts is a “type of use of sexual organs for other than their desinged purpose” or “type of use”

and perhaps it may be better understood for you if you understand that your digestive tract has a purpose. Your mouth to anus constitute the digestive tract. It was created and made for a purpose and the colon absorbs water and prepares for expulsion of waste.

There are people that believe it is ok to use the digestive tract for other than what it was created for and regardless of what you call it…it is not ordered towards its purpose.

If you want to call using the digestive tract a “type of use”…Ok…but it was not designed for intrusion, it was designed for expulsion.

So, while you argue for a “type of sex”, it is a “type of use” similarly to using the digestive tract for other than what it was designed for.

 

[Baelor]

You have the privelege and the right to post as you choose and I have the right and privelege to post as I choose. You have no right or credentials to tell anyone how to post.

That is the not the case. I have the right to post as I choose, which includes telling others how to post. You are welcome not to take said advice.

Note that your post, which told me that I could not tell others how to post, was in fact telling me how to post. Consider the implications of your hypocrisy.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Why did God make it a sin?

Homosexuality (the disposition) isn’t wrong. It is simply disordered.
Ideally we should be attracted to the opposite sex.
Wounded humanity (due to original sin) is often frustrated in its inherent purposes even at the “physical” level.

Homosexual acts are a misuse of human sexuality which necessarily requires the union of a male and a female to fulfill its purpose of regeneration of humanity. That doesn’t mean the union of male and female is sufficient condition for regeneration but it is a necessary.

 

[CopticChristian]

That is the not the case. I have the right to post as I choose, which includes telling others how to post. You are welcome not to take said advice.

Note that your post, which told me that I could not tell others how to post, was in fact telling me how to post. Consider the implications of your hypocrisy.

Baelor,

Give it a rest. I find your thoughts adding little to understanding and your thoughts on this topic lend little to any understanding. Do as you wish. I shall block you if you continue this harrassment. I have had enough of what I see as immaturity that has no foundation to aid a discussion. This is the last post I have for you to read. My boundaries require me to dismiss anyone I choose and you would be the first I do dismiss. I would anticipate that after 9649 postings it would happen sooner or later. I pray you have a good day.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Then why does the type of sex matter? I don’t understand what other posters are saying. Some seem to be saying that procreation is necessary. Other seem to be saying that procreation isn’t necessary, only the situation which would allow procreation if both spouses were healthy. But that doesn’t makes sense to me.

What is the difference between a couple who can’t have children due to permanent ailment, and a couple who can’t have children due to their sex? The end result is the same from a practical standpoint.

One thing I want to point out (which may help you understand this issue) is that you have implicitly started thinking in terms of consequences. This form of consequentialism only considers the physical and measurable effects of acts. Since our perception of physical effects cannot take in to account the far reaching implications of human actions with accuracy and since there is a spiritual component that we cannot directly know at all, consequentialism is rightfully a rejected position of the Church.

So in order to understand this issue, you need to understand what a sin is. A sin is not necessarily something that results in a bad physical consequence. Example: You may want to kill an innocent person and go on to shoot that person. Regardless of whether the bullet hits (which leads to good or bad consequences), it does not change the fact that you have sinned in acting with the intent to kill an innocent person.

Therefore, what many in this thread have told you is how the Church decides what is a sin and what is not a sin. As they have described it, actions that violate the intended order of things by the creator is a sin. So this is how you need to start thinking. You have to move away from the consequentialist thinking.

P.S. You can read more on why consequentialism is problematic in this article if interested

catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=680

 

[Baelor]

Give it a rest. I find your thoughts adding little to understanding and your thoughts on this topic lend little to any understanding. Do as you wish. I shall block you if you continue this harrassment. I have had enough of what I see as immaturity that has no foundation to aid a discussion. This is the last post I have for you to read. My boundaries require me to dismiss anyone I choose and you would be the first I do dismiss. I would anticipate that after 9649 postings it would happen sooner or later. I pray you have a good day.

You are welcome to your “findings” about my posts. You may do as you wish – blocking is a feature available to all users at any time.

 

[Rau]

In the Catholic Church, infertility is not a barrier to marriage, but impotence is. If the couple cannot consummate their marriage, the marriage is not valid.

Can someone explain the rationale for the above, and relate it to the following scenarios?

1. Woman born without ovaries (or man born without testicles), and is thus infertile; the marriage will produce no offspring.
2. Man unable to produce erection for any medical reason; sexual intercourse is not possible. The marriage will produce no offspring.
3. The woman is born without a vaginal opening. Sexual intercourse is not possible. The marriage will produce no offspring.
4. The woman has passed menopause (prior to marriage). The marriage will produce no offspring.

Which marriages are valid and why/why not?

 

[josh987654321]

Why did God make it a sin?

**Mathew 19:4-6

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”**

Here we see that God clearly designed us male and female, thus the very nature of homosexuality means to use the bodies organs in a manner in which they were not designed to be used for.

Not everything we desires is good for us, just because we desire something doesn’t make it right, when discussing the issue of homosexuality, too many people are considering the morality of the homosexuals sexual desires rather than considering the morality of the homosexuals sexual acts.

It is the sexual acts of homosexuality that are sinful, two of the same gender simply do not have the right parts for moral sexual relations, they do not share any physical sexual compatibility/complementarity.

Hope this clears it up for you PumpkinBunny, if not please feel free to ask me any questions.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[fix]

Can someone explain the rationale for the above, and relate it to the following scenarios?

1. Woman born without ovaries (or man born without testicles), and is thus infertile; the marriage will produce no offspring.
2. Man unable to produce erection for any medical reason; sexual intercourse is not possible. The marriage will produce no offspring.
3. The woman is born without a vaginal opening. Sexual intercourse is not possible. The marriage will produce no offspring.
4. The woman has passed menopause (prior to marriage). The marriage will produce no offspring.

Which marriages are valid and why/why not?

Likelihood of conception is not the standard. Ability to engage in the marital act is.

 

[josh987654321]

I find it funny that the LGBT community doesn’t include pedophiles, I guess it’s because that would draw peoples attention away from sexual orientation and onto conduct.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Rau]

Likelihood of conception is not the standard. Ability to engage in the marital act is.

Ok, I hear what you say. But what is the reasoning that leads to that being the standard for whether a marriage is permissible?

 

[Rau]

I find it funny that the LGBT community doesn’t include pedophiles, I guess it’s because that would draw peoples attention away from sexual orientation and onto conduct.

Thank you for reading
Josh

I guess by “funny” you mean “strange”? But even still, I find that a fairly extreme view. I doubt that support for pedophilia is any higher amongst the gay community than in the community generally.

 

[josh987654321]

Ok, I hear what you say. But what is the reasoning that leads to that being the standard for whether a marriage is permissible?

I don’t mean to intrude, I apologise if I am intruding Rau/fix.

It is because Mariage includes the “Love of Eros.”

**Love of Eros **- is passionate love, with sensual desire and longing.

If they are incapable of the marital act, this kind of love will drive them to act sexually immoral in a union that shares this love of eros such as marriage.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I guess by “funny” you mean “strange”?

Yes.

But even still, I find that a fairly extreme view. I doubt that support for pedophilia is any higher amongst the gay community than in the community generally.

None should support the act of pedophilia, it just shows that there are many different kinds of sexual orientations and people should be looking at the sexual conduct rather than the sexual orientation when making decisions on morality I think.

So it shows that the LGBT communities arguments on sexual orientation being a part of homosexuals and the reason for supporting same sex marriage etc is “bs” It should have nothing to do with sexual orientation when making such decisions.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I find it funny that the LGBT community doesn’t include pedophiles, I guess it’s because that would draw peoples attention away from sexual orientation and onto conduct.

Thank you for reading
Josh

I think LGBT is only the beginning. Pedeophiles, beastiality partakers etc. will soon be included in their list of whom the normal world must pay homage to.