Why is being gay considered wrong? (priest, morals, celibacy, homosexuality)

[Ryan2065]

I'll reply to the first half of your post, the second half is off topic.

Originally Posted by Sabio

The rational argument you are looking for is the argument from nature - though rarely do people agree on what is "natural" and what is not.

What is natural is what is from nature. Truthfully I am not sure why you are bringing up the natural argument again. We have already established that natural does not mean good or bad. You were asked to provide non-biblical examples of why homosexuality is bad.

Originally Posted by Sabio

Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.

And nature?

The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.

The processes and functions of the body.

I assume that this is your definition of "natural" and I will accept this.

Originally Posted by Sabio

So we see nature as something that adheres to order - there are "laws" of nature. We see that it involves biological processes. We see that for something to be natural, it is seen to follow a certain course. This means that any natural act would be something that is not only biologically proper to the acting being but also follows a course from beginning to end.

Also follows a course from beginning to end. So I take it this means that it follows the natural way all the time for it to be considered natural?

Originally Posted by Sabio

Trees grow toward light because they need it to accomplish photosynthesis, not because they choose to. They are acting toward the natural end of generating food. Animals are more adaptive, and have learned behaviors, and though they act according to nature, they also follow impulses with a degree of volition that plants do not have. Human beings, on the other hand, have complete volition. Though they act in accordance with the laws of nature that govern them, they have control over their impulses. We can subject our impulses and control our nature according to our intellect and will. As nature goes, we are at the pinnacle, yet we do not have the ability to circumvent it.

So we do not have the ability to break the laws of physics but we do have the ability to break the laws of nature? I'll buy that. Here the author starts his argument for animals by noting that animals have the ability to break the natural law. Usually animals use this ability to break the natural law for their own survival, which is actually in accordance with natural law. I'll start my argument for homosexuality now, since the author starts his arguments now. Who is to say homosexuality is not in accordance with nature? Overpopulation is an issue and a species of animals that have say half of the population homosexual and half heterosexual, while they will not reproduce as fast, they will, in the end, not die due to over population.

Originally Posted by Sabio

Many try to view the homosexual question in overly simplistic terms. They see certain homosexual behaviors in the animal kingdom, and so try to justify analagous human behavior as "natural". This is a foolish course for two reasons.

First, because what is "natural" for animals is not always "natural" for humans, and second, because animals act on ungoverned impulses that do not always follow a natural course. Monkeys throw feces. Dogs eat their own vomit. Some animals cannibalize their young. Does this mean that we should imitate this behavior?

The author brings up horrible points here. First off he says that what is "natural" for animals is not always natural for humans, which implies that he might think homosexuality in animals is natural. Then he says that animals don't always follow the natural course, and asks if we should imitate their "un-natural" behavior. Here the author trys to lead you off topic and hopes the reader makes the connection that homosexuality is as un-natural as throwing feces and eating your own vomit. Really a bad argument that most educated people should see through.

Originally Posted by Sabio

In the question of nature, what is truly "natural" is an action that is ordered to the accomplishment of an end that is biologically necessary. This is an important distinction. "Natural" acts always serve biological self-preservation in some direct or indirect sense.

The most common natural act is eating. We eat to nourish our bodies so that they can grow and we can continue to live. We are prompted to eat by a sensation, an urge, that tells us "you need food". As humans, we can ignore that urge (unlike animals), though if we ignore it long enough, we will die.

For one I'd argue that we cannot ignore this urge. If we were able to ignore this urge, the people on suicide watch at mental hospitals would be empty because all they would have to do to commit suicide would be stop eating. I also will agree with the statement "Natural acts always serve biological self-preservation in some direct or indirect sense."

Originally Posted by Sabio

Sex is another appetite that is naturally geared toward self-preservation. The reproductive urge is biologically explainable only as a means by which a species is maintained through offspring. The elements of attraction, courting rituals, sexual pleasure, etc., are all tangental to the purpose of the sexual act. They are means by reproduction is accomplished, not the end in itself. Animals aren't capable of knowing this. They follow an impulse, and don't logically conclude that sex will lead to babies. They want to satisfy a release of hormones in an act that gives them pleasure. This means that when an animal exhibits homosexual, or inter-species sexual behavior, they are following a conditioned behavioral response that generates pleasure. That does not mean that the sexual impulse in animals isn't there to facilitate reproduction. That's what the impulse is for.

Oh, so you are saying that there are no animals that are actually homosexual. You are saying that animals sometimes just hump the wrong animal? At the moment I don't have time to research this, I am trying to finish this before my girlfriend picks me up for dinner. Anyone else want to take a crack at this and see if theres any studies that shows homosexual animals? (Note not two male or female animals having sex, i mean a male animal that only has sex with males and does not like the female variety of his sex.)

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by Sabio

Human beings, on the other hand, do know this. We are scientifically aware that the male and female sex organs are physically compatible. We know that normal attraction - I can use the term "normal" because it is an established fact that over 90% of the population is heterosexual - when manifested in (vaginal) sexual intercourse between a man and a woman leads, naturally speaking, to conception and childbearing. The parameters for normal sexual acts - according to nature - exist within the order that underlies reproduction. Regardless of how one might feel, this is the unquestionable biological reason for sex.

As humans, however, we can sublimate sex. We can't change it's natural end - though many try - but we can make sex something more than an animalistic pursuit of pleasure. It can be about love and respect and generosity and openness to life. We can consciously choose those things. Too often, we don't.

Ahh, he brings up love, which isn't natural. But he doesn't say that it isn't natural (by the way, I am using his definition of course) If we were really only trying to further our species, the people with the good genes would get together and have sex and produce children and form some form of "master race" (I don't want to bring in any Hitler analogies, it is just the best expression i can think of for what would happen if genetically superior people got together.)

Originally Posted by Sabio

This is why there are pedophiles in the world. This is why people have sex with animals. This is why men rape women. Though the pleasure that is associated with sex is a legitimate good, when sex is reduced to primarily the pursuit of that pleasure, the "natural" result is a kind of slavery to desire. When pleasure is made to be the purpose of sex, rather than a natural means to promote procreation, pleasure becomes an end to be reached by whatever means necessary. This changes the context of what sex is, and opens it to other, disturbing possibilities. The fact is, we know that the acts I mentioned above are unnatural, no matter how "natural" the urges and desires feel to those who act them out. Yet the same is true for homosexuality.

Homosexuality serves no natural purpose, so to call it a "natural" orientation is a false use of the language. It is not procreative, and does nothing to promote the generation of children. It is sexual activity that is concerned only with pleasure, and therefore disordered - as it is not ordered to the natural sexual purpose of procreation.

For one, the first paragraph quoted here is a low blow and doesn't deserve to be disputed. The second paragraph here, however, does. I already brought about the biological reason of homosexuality. This helps deal with the problem of overpopulation, and therefore by his definition, should be considered natural.

Originally Posted by Sabio

I previously mentioned that the natural end of eating is nourishment. What about those poor souls that suffer from Bulemia? They eat enormous amounts of food, so that they may experience the pleasure of eating, only to purge all of it from their bodies, rendering nourishment impossible. They suffer from a disorder. Why do we call it a disorder? Because eating is ordered to nourishment. They have changed the end of eating from nourishment to pleasure, and have thus perverted the act of eating into something entirely other than what it is intended for. Should they have the right to damage their bodies that way? Could anyone reasonably argue that what they are doing is natural?

I have no more idea why the homosexual person is attracted to someone of the same sex than I understand why the Bulemic throws up all of their food. In each case, there are different reasons, some genetically predisposed, some environmentally formed, but no reason makes a perverse desire natural. Alcoholism is a genetic disorder that generates an inordinant desire for alcohol consumption. But just because it's genetic does that mean it's natural? Is alcoholism an "acceptable lifestyle", even if the alcoholic hurts no one but himself?

Ok, here he is comparing homosexuality to bad things that are not "natural" Again this is only to make the reader associate homosexuality with things like bulimia and alcoholism. This does not further his argument, because all he says here is that homosexuality is not natural.

The rest of the article brings up the gay marriage argument and is completely off topic. I have decided to not respond to it because it is off topic, however if a new thread is started I would be glad to share my views on gay marriage. =)

[Mike182]

Originally Posted by Sabio

but we can make sex something more than an animalistic pursuit of pleasure. It can be about love and respect and generosity and openness to life. We can consciously choose those things.

yes, when i get a male partner this is how our relationship will be ........

Homosexual couples do not have a "right" to marriage. They do not have a "right" to marriage benefits. If two gay men can have marrital benefits, why shouldn't two guys who are friends from college and have decided to room together as they enter the professional world get them as well? What is the differentiating factor between them and the gay couple? Because one couple has sex and the other doesn't? Why should that gain a person any kind of special status?

erm, for the reason above - because there are emotions involved beyond that of friends

That's the fundamental problem with the gay marriage issue. It's not about sex - it's about family. Gay couples, however, can't see that, because they have a flawed understanding of sexuality. Sex for them is about pleasure. It's not about responsibility and generosity in the way that marrital sex is. Heterosexual Marrital sex that is open to children is a deeper, more open, more selfless love. Any sexual activity that is intentionally sterile is always less than that.

im sorry, i was under the impresion that a gay couple wanting marriage were after a family ....... i guess ive been put in my place on that one

seriously though, i think you should stop watching will and grace, were not all like that ok, reality check

There are other things about homosexual sex, on a natural level, that are inferior to heterosexual sex. The very fact that homosexual sex revolves entirely around at least one partner engaged in a primarily non-genital act deprives those couples from the mutual genital sexual communication that heterosexual couples alone can participate in. Homosexual sex isn't sex at all - it's mutual masturbation. No matter how much one plays with the language, it can never be more than that. It is infertile. It, quite frankly, uses orifices that are not intended (by their nature) for sexual contact - which is why anal sex is unnatural even for hetero couples. Homosexual sex, insofar as it is a pursuit of only the pleasure of sex without the fecundity of sex, is selfish, just like solitary masturbation is.

youve never tried this have you - i can tell

No matter how many times a homosexual person says they love their partner - which they probably do - the sexual expression of that love is not love, but perversion. If homosexual sex is ok, then any other sexual desire or activity must be OK too.

so long as both parties consent then yes - a human shouldnt have sex with an animal because the animal cant say "yes" or "no"

besides, i thought you had convinced me that there's no 'love' involved in a homosexual relationship, its purely sex


did you read this article before you posted it? did you understand this article before you posted it? do you believe the contents of this article?

on the other hand - it is a good article, it has structure, sophistication, the only thing it lacks im affraid is actual physical evidence

show me the evidence, and ill concider the post as worthy of pondering over

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by Sabio

My apologies if you were offended. Did you get mad because I challenged your belief in homosexuality or your belief in evolution?

I was not offended at all. But I did have to go to the defense when you called my whole belief system hypocritical. Oh, and just for the record, just because someone is an athiest, does not mean they believe in evolution. One of your posts gave me the idea you thought that. =) Just wanted to clear that up.

[Faminedynasty]

Originally Posted by corrupt_preist

it has structure, sophistication, the only thing it lacks im affraid is actual physical evidence

It's also lacking a logical argument that suggests that homosexuality is immoral that cannot be instantly refuted by common sense.

[Mike182]

Originally Posted by Faminedynasty

It's also lacking a logical argument that suggests that homosexuality is immoral that cannot be instantly refuted by common sense.

and it still fails to take into account bisexuality

[Sabio]

Originally Posted by corrupt_preist

did you read this article before you posted it? did you understand this article before you posted it? do you believe the contents of this article?

on the other hand - it is a good article, it has structure, sophistication, the only thing it lacks im affraid is actual physical evidence

show me the evidence, and ill concider the post as worthy of pondering over

Yes I did read the article before posting, I thought it would provide some good points to debate.

Sabio

[Sabio]

Originally Posted by Ryan2065

I was not offended at all. But I did have to go to the defense when you called my whole belief system hypocritical. Oh, and just for the record, just because someone is an athiest, does not mean they believe in evolution. One of your posts gave me the idea you thought that. =) Just wanted to clear that up.

Ryan,

Are you inferring that it is possible to be an Atheist and believe in creation? How can the two be even remotely compatible?

Sabio

[Mike182]

Originally Posted by Sabio

Yes I did read the article before posting, I thought it would provide some good points to debate.

Sabio

im affraid all it added was a reminder that a lot of the human race is still ignorant of others

thats not aimed at you personally, but the post was rather dismissive of gay people having human emotions

God Bless

[Mike182]

Originally Posted by Sabio

Ryan,

Are you inferring that it is possible to be an Atheist and believe in creation? How can the two be even remotely compatible?

Sabio

i think it was evolution, not creation

the two are very compatibe - but thats not the topic here