Suppressing sexual desires

[sojourner]

Intersex is a medical defect that needs correction. This happens in to days world secondary to some of man activities causing pollution or usage of toxins in addition to some other reasons known and unknown.

It has been determined by medical science that homosexuality is not a defect. And it’s been determined that reparative therapy is ineffective and harmful.

 

[columbus]

You implied a person is not responsible for their actions if they have a 'disorder', but that is not true in medicine nor in criminal court.

There's an important point you're missing here. I find this commonly, especially amongst religious folks.

There's a huge difference between responsibility and culpability.
People aren't responsible for things like sexual attractions. Whatever combination of influences, we don't choose them.

However, we are culpable if our actions cause harm to other people. And that's the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. Pedophilia causes enormous harm and homosexuality doesn't. Both homosex and heterosex can be irresponsible and cause harm, but that's a different issue. Neither is inherently harmful the way exploiting young people is harmful. Pedophilia is inherently irresponsible. Because kids don't have the development to take responsibility for their own actions. So all the responsibility falls on the adult, along with culpability.
Tom

 

[BilliardsBall]

At one point, acknowledgement that the world was round was a sea change from all recorded history. So were the causes of menstruation and the flu. Humanity can’t grow and expand knowledge and awareness? Humanity can’t adjust moral values as cultures change? Maybe we should go back to beating women and selling children into slavery, because that’s “how it’s been throughout recorded history.”

Abolition of slavery is a moral choice, not a scientific choice, for the same reason cited--natural selection. Natural selection says we can eat children, not just enslave them, unless we've evolved some corporate meanings to morals.

Acceptance of homosexuality is ascientific, even dangerous, for homosexuality could end the species without artificial insemination.

By raising the slavery issue, you are continuing to say that 1) morals evolve, something I disagree with--slavery was always wrong--and 2) science does not trump morals--which is a step forward for any naturalist, I think, and I affirm you.you

Here's the issue, you claim that morals should evolve, like culture. Happened pretty fast, looks like--slavery took a few thousand years to start and begin to stop and same for suppression of homosexuals.

I ask myself, "Does natural selection make morals evolve? Or were morals, like their God, unchanging?"

My point wasn't ad populum rules but "homosexuality has always been a part of fallen people (wrong)". Your response was "morals are flexible and should evolve." Can I commit adultery then tell my spouse "my morals have evolved"?

You've also claimed that homosexual fidelity and monogamy is fine and should not be assaulted, rather, we should both continue to repudiate sexual violence including rape and paedophilia. But have you considered where we learned fidelity is a moral strength? Straight marriages without adultery, over millennia, from the faithful. God created this beautiful thing known as marriage. Does He get a say here?

 

[sojourner]

Abolition of slavery is a moral choice, not a scientific choice, for the same reason cited--natural selection.

Slavery arose out of the notion that some people were superior to others. When science stepped in and showed us that human beings are human beings, slavery stopped.

Acceptance of homosexuality is ascientific, even dangerous, for homosexuality could end the species without artificial insemination.

I call BS. A minority of humanity is homosexual. Homosexuality isn't going to kill us off. That's a straw man.

By raising the slavery issue, you are continuing to say that 1) morals evolve, something I disagree with--slavery was always wrong

Of course it was, but people needed to understand it was wrong -- just like people needed (and need) to understand that homosexuality is not an issue of inferiority, or deficiency.

I ask myself, "Does natural selection make morals evolve? Or were morals, like their God, unchanging?"

Morals change, just as God changes. In the past, God was an angry, possessive, tribal deity who slew enemies, killed children, made women barren, sent plagues, and told us to kill homosexuals. Today, God is loving, patient, generous, forgiving, and forbearing, and tells us that it's ok for us to let homosexuals become married.

Can I commit adultery then tell my spouse "my morals have evolved"?

No, because that buys into the fallacy that women are inferior to men.

God created this beautiful thing known as marriage. Does He get a say here?

Absolutely! And God has said that homosexuals may be called to the estate of marriage. Why aren't you listening to God?

 

[columbus]

Acceptance of homosexuality is ascientific, even dangerous, for homosexuality could end the species without artificial insemination.

I cannot understand why people who say things like this don't see how ridiculous it sounds to the better informed.

At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, the species is in far more danger from too many people than too few. That's a fact.

And the likelihood of everyone becoming completely gay is so far fetched it's hardly worth discussing. Even over the course of several generations, the possibility that all humans will cease to be interested in potentially procreative sex is ludicrous.

What is "scientific", based on evidence and reason, is that sexual practices that don't result in irresponsible procreation are more moral than sexual practices that do result in children raised by ill equipped parents. That's the reality, even if the primitive people who wrote Scriptures weren't aware of what the 21st century reality would be.
Tom

 

[PearlSeeker]

You still have the core issue - if you're only considering the question of procreation, you can't distinguish between different forms of sexual behaviour that aren't intended to lead to pregnancy. They're either all sinful or all not (at least on this basis). You focus on involuntary infertility but what about voluntary infertility, birth control (natural or otherwise) or forms of sexual behaviour that physically can't lead to pregnancy.

@Left Coast @lewisnotmiller

Natural purpose of sex is procreation, family, upbringing in family. And procreation is inherently heterosexual. It's a biological fact. Natural law is about what something is by nature. It's not what you do all the time, every time, in every circumstance. It also isn't always what someone intends or thinks about. Sometimes people can't have babies because of health problems or some other limitations. Sexual act also can have all sorts of ouvertures before reaching climax. This all doesn't change the before mentioned purpose.

What about "not hurting others" argument? For example if a pedophile doesn't hurt anyone and just masturbates to photos of toddlers, it's still considered a sick behavior.

What to do if you know all this but desire for opposite sex is not there and desire for same sex is so strong that it's hard or even impossible to change it? No one can be judged. This is an extremely difficult situation. We all want to love and be loved. Being unable to have an intimate relationship with a partner of opposite sex is still not something to celebrate. There are also some (hetero) people who don't desire to have kids. It's not something to be proud of. One can only humbly admit it as a weakness like C. S. Lewis (in Abolition of Man):

It is the doctrine of objective value, the behef that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are. Those who know the Tao can hold that to call children delightful or old men venerable is not simply to record a psychological fact about our own parental or filial emotions at the moment, but to recognize a quality which demands a certain response from us whether we make it or not. I myself do not enjoy the society of small children: because I speak from within the Tao I recognize this as a defect in myself — just as a man may have to recognize that he is tone deaf or colour blind.​

 

[Left Coast]

@Left Coast @lewisnotmiller

Natural purpose of sex is procreation, family, upbringing in family.

That is one natural purpose of sex. Another is pleasure and intimacy.

And procreation is inherently heterosexual. It's a biological fact. Natural law is about what something is by nature. It's not what you do all the time, every time, in every circumstance. It also isn't always what someone intends or thinks about. Sometimes people can't have babies because of health problems or some other limitations. Sexual act also can have all sorts of ouvertures before reaching climax. This all doesn't change the before mentioned purpose.

And all of that is completely irrelevant to whether homosexual acts are immoral. Gay people aren't trying to procreate when they have sex. Again, if you've ever picked your nose, it should be obvious that we do things "against their nature" all the time. That doesn't make those acts immoral.

What about "not hurting others" argument? For example if a pedophile doesn't hurt anyone and just masturbates to photos of toddlers, it's still considered a sick behavior.

Whether pedophilia is pathological is a separate question from whether any given act is harmful/immoral. Schizophrenia is pathological; talking to a hallucination that is the result of your mental illness is not an immoral thing to do.

And medical and psychological professionals agree that homosexuality is not pathological, anyway, in the way paraphilias like pedophilia are.

What to do if you know all this but desire for opposite sex is not there and desire for same sex is so strong that it's hard or even impossible to change it? No one can be judged. This is an extremely difficult situation. We all want to love and be loved. Being unable to have an intimate relationship with a partner of opposite sex is still not something to celebrate.

In your opinion. I disagree. I think love between consenting people should be celebrated regardless of gender.

There are also some (hetero) people who don't desire to have kids. It's not something to be proud of.

Not wanting to have kids is not a weakness. Even the Bible disagrees with you there. Paul said he wished everyone was single like him. Marriage in his mind was a concession for people too weak to control their lust.

 

[PearlSeeker]

That is one natural purpose of sex. Another is pleasure and intimacy.

Yes. But all this is connected.

Whether pedophilia is pathological is a separate question from whether any given act is harmful/immoral.

Yes. Moral good is a subset of good.

Not wanting to have kids is not a weakness. Even the Bible disagrees with you there. Paul said he wished everyone was single like him.

It's different. Paul didn't wish people to be unable to be with kids. He wished more people would sacrifice family life for some higher (spiritual) goals.

I think his path is not necessarily a better one because you can learn a lot spiritually also in family. As Bruce Lee once said:

"To know oneself is to study oneself in action with another person."

 

[Left Coast]

Yes. But all this is connected.

But doesn't have to be, that's the point.

It's different. Paul didn't wish people to be unable to be with kids. He wished more people would sacrifice family life for some higher (spiritual) goals.

Wishing that people would stay single and not have sex is a wish that people would abstain from having kids. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit with your modern Christian view that sees procreation as paramount.

I think his path is not necessarily a better one because you can learn a lot spiritually also in family. As Bruce Lee once said:

"To know oneself is to study oneself in action with another person."

All the more reason to support gay marriage! Thank you!

 

[PearlSeeker]

Yes. But all this is connected.

But doesn't have to be, that's the point.

That's your point. Not by nature.

Sex is pleasurable, but only because this is nature’s way of pushing us into doing what is necessary for procreation; husbands and wives often feel great affection for one another, but this tendency is put in them by nature only because it facilitates the stability of the union that the successful generation and upbringing of children requires.
Keep in mind that I am, again, not talking about the conscious purposes of human beings; obviously, individual human beings often value sexual pleasure and companionship more than reproduction. I am talking about nature’s purposes, about final causes. If human beings didn’t reproduce sexually, sexual organs wouldn’t exist at all, and neither would sexual pleasure. Hence neither would romantic love or marriage exist. Human beings might still have affection for one another, but this affection wouldn’t have any of the distinctive features we associate with the feelings that exist between lovers, or between husbands and wives or parents and children. All of these pleasures and affections exist in nature only because sexual reproduction does, and thus their point is to facilitate procreation, again in the full sense of not only generating, but also rearing, children.
(Edvard Feser: The Last Superstition)​

 

[Left Coast]

That's your point. Not by nature.

Sex is pleasurable, but only because this is nature’s way of pushing us into doing what is necessary for procreation; husbands and wives often feel great affection for one another, but this tendency is put in them by nature only because it facilitates the stability of the union that the successful generation and upbringing of children requires.
Keep in mind that I am, again, not talking about the conscious purposes of human beings; obviously, individual human beings often value sexual pleasure and companionship more than reproduction. I am talking about nature’s purposes, about final causes. If human beings didn’t reproduce sexually, sexual organs wouldn’t exist at all, and neither would sexual pleasure. Hence neither would romantic love or marriage exist. Human beings might still have affection for one another, but this affection wouldn’t have any of the distinctive features we associate with the feelings that exist between lovers, or between husbands and wives or parents and children. All of these pleasures and affections exist in nature only because sexual reproduction does, and thus their point is to facilitate procreation, again in the full sense of not only generating, but also rearing, children.
(Edvard Feser: The Last Superstition)​

The fact that sexual pleasure has evolutionary origins in terms of incentivizing procreation does not mean it is immoral to engage in sexual activity without procreating. That's the point you don't seem to be grasping.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Slavery arose out of the notion that some people were superior to others. When science stepped in and showed us that human beings are human beings, slavery stopped.


I call BS. A minority of humanity is homosexual. Homosexuality isn't going to kill us off. That's a straw man.


Of course it was, but people needed to understand it was wrong -- just like people needed (and need) to understand that homosexuality is not an issue of inferiority, or deficiency.


Morals change, just as God changes. In the past, God was an angry, possessive, tribal deity who slew enemies, killed children, made women barren, sent plagues, and told us to kill homosexuals. Today, God is loving, patient, generous, forgiving, and forbearing, and tells us that it's ok for us to let homosexuals become married.


No, because that buys into the fallacy that women are inferior to men.


Absolutely! And God has said that homosexuals may be called to the estate of marriage. Why aren't you listening to God?

Where did God say in the Bible "homosexuals may called to the marriage estate"? Rather, Jesus reaffirmed a male and female marriage when He preached about Adam and Eve.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I cannot understand why people who say things like this don't see how ridiculous it sounds to the better informed.

At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, the species is in far more danger from too many people than too few. That's a fact.

And the likelihood of everyone becoming completely gay is so far fetched it's hardly worth discussing. Even over the course of several generations, the possibility that all humans will cease to be interested in potentially procreative sex is ludicrous.

What is "scientific", based on evidence and reason, is that sexual practices that don't result in irresponsible procreation are more moral than sexual practices that do result in children raised by ill equipped parents. That's the reality, even if the primitive people who wrote Scriptures weren't aware of what the 21st century reality would be.
Tom

It's a fact that we have too many people? No, unfortunately, we could feed and house all, except for greed.

"Even over the course of several generations, the possibility that all humans will cease to be interested in potentially procreative sex is ludicrous."

You mean, "a negative population growth rate" is ludicrous?

 

[sojourner]

Where did God say in the Bible "homosexuals may called to the marriage estate"? Rather, Jesus reaffirmed a male and female marriage when He preached about Adam and Eve.

God didn't say in the bible. but then, God doesn't only speak through the bible. God also speaks to God's Apostles and to the Church through her leaders. The Gospelers only knew what they knew. Since homosexuality wasn't on the social radar at that time, of course Jesus didn't mention it. But, as a leader of the Church, I believe that if he were here today, he'd have much to say about it, and most of it would be to support those who identify as homosexual who wish to have committed and sacred relationships.

 

[PearlSeeker]

The fact that sexual pleasure has evolutionary origins in terms of incentivizing procreation does not mean it is immoral to engage in sexual activity without procreating. That's the point you don't seem to be grasping.

Natural law defines what is really good for us. The moral imperative is to do good and to avoid what is not good (or is less good).

 

[Baroodi]

you made my day. Can you please attach a link about this

 

[Baroodi]

And what does that mean?

It has been determined by medical science that homosexuality is not a defect. And it’s been determined that reparative therapy is ineffective and harmful.

may be a diplomatic smile is better than a puzzled face

 

[Tiberius]

may be a diplomatic smile is better than a puzzled face

I don't see what that has to do with my sarcastic comment about "choosing" to be straight.

 

[columbus]

Natural law defines what is really good for us.

Just the opposite.
What's "natural" is for a species that isn't kept in check by something (like predators) to destroy their environment by breeding and consuming until the environment can't support it anymore. Then the species dies off.

The moral imperative is to do good and to avoid what is not good (or is less good).

Unlike most of human history, including the primitive days when Scripture was being invented, the moral imperative now is negative population growth. But morality has never been a strong suit amongst humans.
Tom

 

[Left Coast]

Natural law defines what is really good for us. The moral imperative is to do good and to avoid what is not good (or is less good).

You're just repeating yourself. Your "natural law" is incoherent and arbitrary, as I've now repeatedly explained.