Engaging in

[dairygirl4u2c]

Is the concensus in the Catholic Church that homosexual tendencies are not natural? I don't believe this to be the case. I believe they actually admit, which is very cool I might add, that they do not know what causes homosexual tendencies.

I do realize, mentioning for a better picture and because I know someone will mention it, that the Catholic Church teaches that it's not wrong to have homosexual tendencies, but it is wrong to act on them. They call it disordered, and I assume they base this on the natural law. (also to the coolness of the Catholic Church they say that the homosexuals should be loved)

My question is this. How can they say that homosexual behavior is contrary to the natural law to the point of not allowing people to act on it? If we assume that the tendency is natural, and by natural I mean genetic, why isn't acting on it part of the natural law? True, I realize that while natural it is not the norm (make sure you make this distinction), but why can't it be a healthy exception? It seems that the only reason to not embrace acting on homosexual desire is just because the Catholic Church has said not too, not because of an objectivly obvious notion that everyone with a brain can see like some would have you believe.

The Catholic Church would have a case if they could prove that God intended for the homosexuals to be biologically deviants naturally and that they shouldn't act on the deviation, but the Catholic Church cannot make this case not to act objectivly to the skeptic. It can make a rational claim to its stand, not one of a necessary objectivity; the rational can only reach a certain point where reasonable people could disagree it seems to me.

Another twist in this is that perhaps someday it will be proven to be natural. As such, it will be part of the natural law, while not the norm, to be a homosexual and perhaps this new knowledge will allow the Catholic Church to say that engaging in homosexual activity is a beautiful thing. Of course cue the gates of hell won't be prevailed and cue the "liberals" who say it could possibly happen if we understand it in a different light. Anyway, I don't want to focus on the Catholic Church changing so much as the philosophical arguments I've mentioned (let's not get too sidetracked).

Just some thoughts on this matter. thanx

Edited November 2, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dUSt]

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." [b]They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. [/b]

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. [b]They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. [/b]

2359 [b]Homosexual persons are called to chastity.[/b] By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, [b]they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.[/b]

[dairygirl4u2c]

Thanks for the clarification dust. I see that I had the right idea in regards to homosexuality and the Catholic Church.



It also would be productive of me to point out thenature of sex according to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church says sex must be unitive and procreative. Most protestants would say that unitive is enough. The Catholic Church cannot prove that procreative is a necessary condition without faith. (this said perhaps the notion that change is possible is becoming less and less likely)

That said, I would like if someone would try to address my post. If you think I'm correct that it comes down to who you believe and not really an objective standard that doesn't even require faith, then please admit that. Otherwise please refute my post. :ph34r:

Edited November 2, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 2 2004, 04:37 PM'] Thanks for the clarification dust. I see that I had the right idea in regards to homosexuality and the Catholic Church.



It also would be productive of me to point out thenature of sex according to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church says sex must be unitive and procreative. Most protestants would say that unitive is enough. The Catholic Church cannot prove that procreative is a necessary condition without faith.

That said, I would like if someone would try to address my post. If you think I'm correct that it comes down to who you believe and not really an objective standard that doesn't require faith, then please admit that. [/quote]
I don't really have time to debate it right now, but it is observable from natural law that sex must be both unitive and procreative.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Observable, yes, in that an arguemnt (by argument I mean rational, not as in proof) is there.

Final, no. Not that I can see.

[Guest Aluigi]

Regardless of Catholic Teaching, homosexuality CANNOT be geneitc, it is an absolute impossibility. it wouldn't be passed down.

look at every historical account of homosexuality, the ancient greeks and all that... not until modern times did homosexuals really adopt the belief that they were soley homosexuals who had to be homosexuals because that was who they were. The Ancient greeks were basically almost all bi, because of their culture.

But nowadays the gay community has pumped the society full of propaganda that says if you're gay it's because you're born that way. The Ancient greeks that participated in same sex actions didn't see it that way, they were gay because to them it was alright to just do both, because that's what their culture taught.

based on all historical examples of homosexuality and an honestly objective analysis of it, it would be absurd to propose that homosexuals are born that way. If this were so, there wouldn't be so much evidence of the environmental factor actually causing it.

[thessalonian]

No "gay gene" has yet been found. However even if this gay gene is found, your conclusion that it will then be natural is false. Genetics can be defective as well. There are cancer causing genes so if one has cancer do we say "let him die, it's who he is anyway?".

Homosexual acts are gravely sinful. From the very beginning God created man and woman "and the two shall become one flesh". It never says that two men or two women shall become one flesh.

More later.

Edited November 2, 2004 by thessalonian

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 2 2004, 05:47 PM'] look at every historical account of homosexuality, the ancient greeks and all that... not until modern times did homosexuals really adopt the belief that they were soley homosexuals who had to be homosexuals because that was who they were. The Ancient greeks were basically almost all bi, because of their culture. [/quote]
I can testify to the historical accuracy of this.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Regardless of Catholic Teaching, homosexuality CANNOT be geneitc, it is an absolute impossibility. it wouldn't be passed down.[/quote]

As for your argument, you have demonstrated that being gay could be the result of the environment. But being gay could cause the environment. What do you base the notion on that the Greeks thought their activities were not natural but did them anyway as a cultural thing? I don't think you have much basis for saying that. And even if you were right that Greeks did participate in sexual matters just for the sake of itself and not as a genetic tendency, then that doesn't mean that all homosexuals are like that. I've known some people who wanted to get off just to get off, but others who insist that's not their case. You do have the argument that it MIGHT be the environment, but based on what people say, I don't think you have a case for it yet.

I definitely think it's ironical that you even admit that regardless of Catholic teaching, you think that it is absolutely impossible that it cannot be genetics. If it were so absolute, you'd think it would be taught that way by the Catholic Church.


[quote]Genetics can be defective as well. There are cancer causing genes so if one has cancer do we say "let him die, it's who he is anyway?". [/quote]

ou would argue that the genes are still inherently bad in both cases. As for this, I don't think you can make this call. What do you have to prove that genetically different gay genese are bad and not the way it'ssuppose to be? You could even argue that for cancer yes I agree, maybe cancer genes are good.

Two things regarding this. One is that the person who has cancer does not want to die, so we should not force him to. The person who has homosexual genes wants to use them.

Maybe the cancer is bad and the gay is good, or maybe it'seven the other way around. You have not made the case that gay genes are bad just because cancer genes are bad.

Plus, I don't think you guys are going to make much head way arguing about this with someone that you'd deem a "relativist". I don't think I'm a relativist so much as just someone with a moderate view. But I do recognize you can argue anything you want. It seems you are going to have to argue that you do have a rreason for yoru belief, and as to whether or not your reasons are adequate for someonse else it seems that you're going to have to say "just because" (remembering in the context of that reason).

I do not want you to brush off my argument as just whacky relativist. I think my argument as merit. Remeber you can argue that just because cancer is bad means that gay genes are bad. Maybe they are bad, but I don't think you've shown that. If you think otherwise, then show me more thoroughly.

Edited November 2, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

The "gay gene" theory (i.e. that homosexuality is a genetically inherited fixed feature like blue eyes) is false. Not only has no "gay gene" conclusively been found but it is proved wrong by something often used to prove its existence.

It is sometimes noted that gay people who have a gay identicle twin are more likely to be gay tha people in the general population. However, the flip side of this is that there are significant numbers of pairs of identical twins in which one is straight and one is gay. Since identical twins have identical genes (and are often remarkably similar), this rules out genetics as the sole cause of homosexuality. If sexuality was genetically fixed, then the identical twin of a gay person would always be gay in every case. Since id. twin siblings are sometimes of different sexual orientations, the theory that sexuality is genetically fixed is proven false. (note also, that id. twins, unless seperated, also have similar nurture).

While some people are probably genetically more inclined to be gay than others (as is true with any other type of behavior), it is not fixed or determined by genetics. There is much more significant evidence that homosexual orientation is rooted in psychological factors, such as weak or absent fathers.

Edited November 2, 2004 by Socrates

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Dairy girl']My question is this. How can they say that homosexual behavior is contrary to the natural law to the point of not allowing people to act on it? If we assume that the tendency is natural, and by natural I mean genetic, why isn't acting on it part of the natural law?[/quote]
Just curious: are you saying that any behavior that can be corrolated to a particular genetic sequence (BTW, without any real causal link) should be deemed "natural" and not hindered by a government?

As a whacky relativist, would you say that those with a genetic tendency toward bestiality be allowed to follow their "personal natural law"? If their behavior was deemed disordered, would this judgment be nothing more than a subjective viewpoint that should not translate into laws prohibiting such behavior?

I'm also curious if you feel there is an "objectively obvious" standard for the prohibition of two adults committing incest. If so, I'd like to understand your perspective so that I have a feel for what kind of "burden of proof" you need in order to believe that homosexuality is contrary to "Natural Law."

Maybe we should step back and think about just what the term "Natural Law" means, particularly to a non-Catholic (non-Christian?).

[thessalonian]

"Is the concensus in the Catholic Church that homosexual tendencies are not natural? I don't believe this to be the case. I believe they actually admit, which is very cool I might add, that they do not know what causes homosexual tendencies."

Look, either you believe Romans 1 is a lie or you believe that what you think is cool is true. It cannot be both ways. God condemns homosexual acts in no uncertain terms. Regardless of a gay gene or not. Genetics have many flaws in them. Diabetes and Cancer for instance. So do we let these people die? Does the diabetic or cancerous gene make it natural?


1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,



1 Timothy 1:10
and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,

Now if you want to help these people in to the eternal lake of fire based on what you think is cool, I would not want to be in your shoes when your judgement comes around. God created man and woman that there flesh may be joined. The very fact that men and men and women and women don't fit together if you know what I mean is evidence enough that your thinking is out there. Compound this with the fact that these acts are incapable of giving life which is the greatest act of love and one of the ways in which we imitate God in his greatest act of love and you have a false teaching straight out of hell. Sorry to be so blunt but you need to face the truth. "WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM".

God bless

[thessalonian]

Here's a pandora's box you have opened with your isn't this cool. It might be genetic.

Well, can you say marriage is genetic. Because a man (and I am going to be delicate with this post) is attracked to multiple women, this must be natural. Therefore promiscuity must be just fine also according to your method of analyzing the homosexual issue. And a man thinks marriage is unnatural and so he is attracked to married women. Well let's just go totally hedonistic now. A man genetically is much stronger than a woman. Therefore genetically there is no reason to ask for the womans consent. Polygamy, wife swapping, bi, tri, quake, beastophillia, why who is even to say pedophillia is wrong. The pandora's box is wide open and your contributing to it dairy. Once again excuse the bluntness. As for me and my house, we shall follow the Lord and HIS WORDS.

Blessings

Edited November 3, 2004 by thessalonian

[Guest JeffCR07]

It seems to me that we are not going about this conversation in the correct manner. Dairygirl, if you are interested, I would love to hear your response to some of my thoughts:

I believe that it can indeed be known that homosexual acts are, in and of themselves, wrong.

1.) Do you believe that sex is a thing made specifically for marriage by God?

2.) If so, the question then arises as to why sex was made specifically for marriage. It seems to me that the beauty of sex is in the fact that it images the Most Holy Trinity. In the Trinity, the Father infinitely loves the Son, the Son perfectly returns the infinite love of the Father, and the Love between them [i]is[/i] the Spirit. Marriage - specifically the Marriage Act (sex) - images this reality because in it, the husband unconditionally loves his wife, the wife returns unconditional love to her husband, and the love between them begets a third person, namely, a child. Thus we see that the "goodness" of sex is found in the fact that it is an icon of the Trinity.

3.) Recognizing the fact that sex is "good" precisely because it images the Trinity, we must, by logical necessity, accept the contrapositive: that when sex doesn't image the Trinity, sex cannot be good. This is a basic First Order Logic: the phrase "if A then B" is the tautological equivilent of "if not B, then not A." Thus, by the phrase we have established "If sex is good, then sex mirrors the Trinity" we know also that "If sex does not mirror the Trinity, then sex is not good."

4.) So, when does sex not mirror the Trinity? The answer to this is quite simple: When any essential aspect of the Trinity is forcibly removed. This is where the unitive and procreative aspects come in. If the love from the husband to the wife or the wife to the husband is removed, then sex no longer images the Trinity. In the same way, if the possibility of the Love begetting another person is removed, then sex no longer images the Trinity.

5.) So, lets take the case of homosexual acts. Certainly there is a unitive aspect to it. However, by biological necessity (not biological accident, they are two very seperate things) there simply is not the natural possibility of that love begetting a third person. As such a homosexual act cannot image the Trinity.

6.) The conclusion, therefore, is that if homosexual acts can never image the Trinity, then the sex can never be "good" because we have already shown, by the Law of Contrapositives, that "If sex does not image the Trinity, then the sex is not good"

7.) Thus we see that homosexual acts are never good.



If you do not agree with my initial assumption, namely that sex was made specifically for marriage by God, then I can provide a proof of the same fact from an ontological standpoint, using natural law theory.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[jasJis]

Dairy,
I don't understand your question. Are you saying that if homosexuality can possibly be genetic, then it is natural and okay by God in those persons?

[Theoketos]

Look at it this way:

Homosexual desires are automatically lustful, because of many reasons, but most especially because it is intrinsically against procreation.

Homosexuality is of the same source then as Lust: Concupiscence

I am not sure whether certain people are biologically more susceptible to lust are not, I do not think the Church says this either but I am sure that all of us do suffer from concupiscence, it just manifests itself indifferent ways.

However this fallen nature is not natural, because “In the beginning it was not so.” Then, we fell.

But

Christ Died and Redeemed us, and in our weakness His strength is perfected, and thus our true whole self in the Spirit is found to be fully alive in Christ.

[track2004]

Ok so this question came up the other week at RCIA and no one had a good answer:

Can a homosexual person have a relationship, though not sexual yet more than friends, that does not violate the Catholic Church's beliefs on engaging in homosexuality?

The reasoning is that the whole arguement against homosexual acts is a sexual act, and that without that, like in dating relationships, it would not be wrong. It would basically be an unmarried couple kind of relationship, but forever if that makes sense. Anyway, thoughts...

[Guest Aluigi]

NO, not a romantic relationship.

#1- Temptation to sin
#2- Same-sex relationships, not just sex, are intrinsically disordered

[Guest JeffCR07]

track 2004, Al is correct: homosexual romantic relationships, even if not actually sexual, are indeed disordered.

This makes sense too. All too often we forget that any sort of romantic relationship is ordered towards marriage (that is, any romantic relationship has marriage as a future goal). Because romantic relationships are ordered towards marriage, and the Sacrament of marriage involves the consummation thereof, any romantic or "more than friends" relationship among homosexuals is not right.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[dairygirl4u2c]

I don't have time to respond fully yet but I will soon. There are two things I want to mention though.

[quote]Are you saying that if homosexuality can possibly be genetic, then it is natural and okay by God in those persons? [/quote]

I am not saying that it is natural because it can possibly be genetic. That would be an error if I ever did see one. I'm saying that it might be natural since it's genetic, and as such, we should allow it.

Also for I think Jeff (I didn't read enough) and a few others. Even if I believed that marriage was made for a man and a woman, that would be my personal faith that I would not want to "impose" on others. This gets into my questions regarding abortion in that I hold recognizing when others do their own thing when I think it is reasonable (I think homosexuality marriage is reasonable) above insisting on how God might have intended or I might even say when he clearly intended it. I know you'll be flopped by me saying that but I'll just say that I think God intended for a democracy the way we have in America and that I am describing for those who do not believe.

Example that's less controversial for something against what God clearly intended. Someone wants to eat dirt. I don't think laws should exist that says they can't eat dirt since that's not what God intended. I hold society recognizing their choice to eat dirt if they want if society is recognizing something else that is arguably arbitrary. (ie marriage) (and recognizing the fact that eating dirt is much more arbitrary) Of course I can see that some might say they have genetic predispositions to eat dirt etc etc. I dorealize it's all arbitrary. But these gays are sincere in insisting that it's genetic, so I tend to think that it is. Not much of a basis but God help me for allowing the benefit of the doubt. Anyway, post got long fast.. more later.

Edited November 4, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c