Is Gay Sex Morally Wrong.

[Don John of Austria]

Do you really think that most insects are having a great time?

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1909005' date='Jul 3 2009, 02:27 AM']No, I am not making an assumption. Assuming you believe in evolution, sex evolved as a form of reproduction that mixed genes of differant individuals. This is its purpose, to procreate while increasing genetic diversity among the offspring. That is its purpose. That is why it evolved. Most creatures do not have fun when they have sex, that is reserved for the higher life forms.

If you are a strict 7 day creationist then "The bible said so" should do, so i am assuming you believe in evolution.[/quote]

Well you should also know that a key component of evolution is diversity. Evolution doesn't propose that it is natural that every single organism be heterosexual or that procreation is the sole reason for sex.

Edited July 3, 2009 by OraProMe

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1909007' date='Jul 3 2009, 02:29 AM']Do you really think that most insects are having a great time?[/quote]

You realize that homosexual behaviour has been found in 1 500 species (insects included), not just humans.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1909014' date='Jul 3 2009, 01:35 AM']Well you should also know that a key component of evolution is diversity. Evolution doesn't propose that it is natural that every single organism be heterosexual or that procreation is the sole reason for sex.[/quote]
A key component of evolution is random mutations. Diversity is a key component of survival, which is what we assume both individuals and a species are geared towards.
However diversity isn't really a part of evolution in the strictest sense.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1909021' date='Jul 3 2009, 02:40 AM']A key component of evolution is random mutations. [b]Diversity is a key component of survival, which is what we assume both individuals and a species are geared towards.[/b][/quote]

In which case it would be part of evolution, not a deviation from it like the other poster was arguing.
That's what I was trying to say, thanks (even though I don't think it was intentional hahahha

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1909005' date='Jul 3 2009, 01:27 AM']If you are a strict 7 day creationist then "The bible said so" should do, so i am assuming you believe in evolution.[/quote]

works for me

[OraProMe]

Oh my, I know you're a sedevacantist but this......

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1909016' date='Jul 3 2009, 01:36 AM']You realize that homosexual behaviour has been found in 1 500 species (insects included), not just humans.[/quote]

As is killing among species', taking multiple partners, eating your own children... I don't think that should be an argument in favor of it.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1909031' date='Jul 3 2009, 01:54 AM']Oh my, I know you're a sedevacantist but this......[/quote]

but nothing

[OraProMe]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1909032' date='Jul 3 2009, 02:55 AM']As is killing among species', taking multiple partners, eating your own children... I don't think that should be an argument in favor of it.[/quote]

No my point being that insects don't just have sex for procreation either. Read it in context
I was replying to someone else, not just making a vague comment

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1909034' date='Jul 3 2009, 01:57 AM']No my point being that insects don't just have sex for procreation either. Read it in context
I was replying to someone else, not just making a vague comment [/quote]

I've read the whole thread and I know what you're saying. Doesn't matter. If you're argument is that it's okay for humans to have sex only for fun because animals do it, then where does it stop? Can we eat our offspring or murder others or have multiple spouses (among a plethora of things I could mention).

Whether or not homosexual intercourse is allowable or not, this argument is not one to use.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1908774' date='Jul 3 2009, 12:15 AM']Any attempts to establish, through the use of reason, the immorality of gay sex can be submitted here and we can look at its merits. Or sexual acts between straight couples which isn't deemed kosher by the Church (anal, oral what have you).


I suspect that this thread will not get a lot of replies. And I suspect there is a reason for that.

Primarily that no such argument ca be supplied.[/quote]

Hassan, for better or worse, I am going to attempt to write out a methodical case for the immorality of gay sex and to use your turn of phrase "acts between...couples which *aren't* deemed kosher by the Church" and I would add " and by the Bible" since we draw the teaching originally from the Bible.

If one accepts the understanding, as the Church does, that there is a God, He created the Universe with order and purpose and created it good, and that He is a personal God caring about each and every individual He creates and the actions such creations take, then this is where we shall start since this is not a thread about whether such a God exists.

From such an understanding one necessarily must view the human body as ordered and with purpose since it is part of the Universe that God created as such. One would necessarily then understand Science as the way in which we can understand the order of such a creation. Thus the human sexual organs have order, dignity, and purpose. My pre-med Biology teacher who is an agnostic once said "Sorry kids, the reproductive system was designed to do one thing, that's right you guessed it, have babies and ensure the survival of the species. So when you use contraceptives your body will work against them as best it can. This is why implanted birth control methods are often chewed up because your white blood cells attack it." This is the first part of human sexuality and one can see that it is designed to procreate. This is undeniable. I would also argue that the way we are built also gives insight into a second function of sexuality. It shows that sex is also supposed to be unitive. This can be seen from the simple argument that "parts fit" or a more substantive argument of complementarity between the sexes but also with the body's use of hormones. During sex hormones are released that provide pleasure by sending signals to contract muscles and in many ways help bind couples together. An example of this oxytocin (this same hormone is also released after birth and helps to solidify the link between mother and child- things of this world are physical representations and participations in the spiritual reality.)

Since sex has this dual function of not only being procreative but also unitive, our bodies, namely in our sex organs, also have this dual function. To remove these ends and purposes from our bodies and from the sexual acts that we take and to which such actions are directed towards goes against the Natural Created and Moral Order. Masturbation does this and so does Gay Sex since with the first both unity and procreation are not the ends desired or chosen and with the latter procreation is not an option. To remove any of these ends and created purposes is a breach of the Natural Order.

Now, it is recognized that ultimately the family is the basic building block of society. The greeks often called it the first political society. To say that society is not built on family is ludicrous since citizens must come from families in a stable society. If no one had families, the society would not really be stable and even orphans eventually are either adopted or start their own families. Sexuality since it is unitive helps solidify the family and since it is procreative adds to it. This helps society in that it promotes, but does not in itself ensure, stable families which enable people to develop in peace and without psychological harm in the ways we see arise from disfunctional families. This is the Natural Moral Order as I understand it. Now a common attack on this is "well what about sterile or infertile straight couples should they not marry or have sex if married?" Studies have shown that every now and again a sterile person will get lucky if you'll pardon the pun or actually be fertile every now and again and be able to conceive. This is not unheard of and it can happen because both sides are there. Also there are many things that couples can do to help with infertility. In gay couples both sides are not there even if one has certain psychological or personality characteristics associated normally with one sex and that person's partner has certain characteristics normally associated with the opposite sex. In this way, there is no possibility of even conceiving since the necessary requirements of specific organs are not met and thus procreation is not an end or purpose which can be chosen in sexual acts of gay couples, a purpose for which parts of their bodies were designed to accomplish. This then is a breach of the Natural Order and as such is immoral and sinful since it goes again Divine Law as established in the created and ordered Universe.

This seems to me to be a rational argument in so far as it takes one premise and then draws from it meanings that are coherent with lived experience (the data from other specific fields). I hope this helps. If I am wrong it is not a problem with the revealed truth of the Bible or the accounts of the Church but rather the fault lies with me.

Edited July 3, 2009 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[OraProMe]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1909035' date='Jul 3 2009, 02:02 AM']I've read the whole thread and I know what you're saying. Doesn't matter. If you're argument is that it's okay for humans to have sex only for fun because animals do it, then where does it stop? Can we eat our offspring or murder others or have multiple spouses (among a plethora of things I could mention).

Whether or not homosexual intercourse is allowable or not, this argument is not one to use.[/quote]
No, that's not my argument at all. Please read again.
What I'm saying is that to believe that sex must be procreative because insects & other species don't neccesarily enjoy having sex (read above, again) is stupid.

Are we done? Because there are more important things to talk about than bugs getting it on.

Edited July 3, 2009 by OraProMe

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1909037' date='Jul 3 2009, 02:08 AM']No, that's not my argument at all. Please read again.
What I'm saying is that to believe that sex must be procreative because insects & other species don't neccesarily enjoy having sex (read above, again) is stupid.[/quote]

Ok, I don't see anything different in what you say here, but I'll take you're word for it. I don't care which side (pro or anti) uses the argument, to argue that something is either okay or not okay because animals do it is not a sufficient argument.

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1909037' date='Jul 3 2009, 02:08 AM']Are we done? Because there are more important things to talk about than bugs getting it on.[/quote]

You can stop this anytime you wish. As for me, I have nothing else to do

[OraProMe]

That was my point exactly.

[goldenchild17]

Then I apologize and we're on the same page (on this point anyways.) I took your post (#23) to mean that since 1500 species practiced homosexual actions that this made it okay for humans, since it was somehow natural.

sorry. peace

[CatherineM]

I actually aspire to be more intelligent and rational than insects.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1909070' date='Jul 3 2009, 07:55 AM']I actually aspire to be more intelligent and rational than insects.[/quote]

You realize that the insect comment came from someone supportive of the Church on this issue? That I only commented on it because it didn't make sense in the first place and was not factual.

Seriously, anyone want to provide a logical argument to why sex must be procreative? If you can't you're basing your entire opposition to homosexuality (and a host of other things) on a massive assumption.

One person has argued that the procreative nature of sex is part of evolution and homosexuality is a deviation from this. But diversity (including sexual) is an instrinsict part of evolution rather than a deviation from the natural "norm" (whatever that is).

Edited July 3, 2009 by OraProMe

[PeteWaldo]

Romans 1:18 [color="#000080"]For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 [b]Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. [/b] 20 [b]For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:[/b] 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became f ools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 [b]Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:[/b] 25 [b]Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. [/b] 26 [b]For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for [size=3]even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:[/size] [/b] 27 [b][size=3]And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.[/size][/b] 28 [b]And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, [size=3]God gave them over to a reprobate mind,[/size][/b] to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. [/color]

As a side note it's interesting to consider the modern environmental movement in light of:
25 [color="#000080"]Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and [b]worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator[/b], who is blessed for ever. Amen.[/color]
Particularly since the costs of frivolous law and regulation must necessarily be passed down through our economy, and ultimately injure the poorest and least able among us, the most.
If you want to respond to this thread unrelated sidebar definitely start another thread.

Apparently this forum software changes the word "f ools" into "geniuses". Gave me a little shock when I read the verses above!
Try it.
geniuses
have to add a space
f ools

Edited July 3, 2009 by PeteWaldo

[CatherineM]

Sex doesn't have to always be procreative, or we would have to be looking for a couple of more planets. It has to always be open to life though. This may be hard for you to understand, but I have met many times more gay people in my life than you have, or maybe ever will. 20+ years ago, I was one of the only attorneys who would take on clients with AIDS. Back then it was a pretty quick death sentence, and I did a lot of estate and disability paperwork. Those experiences, going to the funerals of so many young men permanently marked my soul. The sex they were having wasn't open to life, it was only open to death. I didn't really understand how much until I had myself experienced sex within a sacramental marriage. It is open to life. It is life-giving on so many levels. It isn't just about sexual gratification and genital stimulation. Until/unless you experience this yourself, there is no way for you to truly understand the difference.