why is being gay forbidden ?

[Riverwolf]

Cool.

Doesn't really answer my question.

If people can be born without sex-drives, that means the sex drive is, itself, something that's predetermined, and that includes its orientation. That means homosexuality and bisexuality are as natural as heterosexuality, and thus God created them.

Why, then, should certain sexual acts disgust him if he created the urge to do them in the first place?

...or, heck, what about homosexuals who aren't interested in oral or anal sex? (Yes, they do exist).

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Interesting point of view. I'm not sure that its as set in stone as it seems. This kind of big picture thing is hard to think about, and I'm still processing. I like your point that the world's problems aren't the fault of Abrahamics. I'm not sure that I could agree with calling homosexuality evil or that everybody can be as spiritual as the holy texts recommend. I mean, people have short lives. Who can spend their whole life just doing good works? Who is willing to do that? I like having ideals, like the ideal of someone doing that; but I don't like condemning everyone who decides they want to ride a roller coaster or do something fun. What's wrong with a little fun? In the ideal world there is very little fun, and everybody always does exactly what is prescribed or so it seems to me.

Oh, it's not saying that having fun is wrong or opposed to the spiritual life. The key is to integrate holiness into your daily lives.

I don't think homosexuality is evil.

 

[Nada]

Doesn't really answer my question.

If people can be born without sex-drives, that means the sex drive is, itself, something that's predetermined, and that includes its orientation. That means homosexuality and bisexuality are as natural as heterosexuality, and thus God created them.

Why, then, should certain sexual acts disgust him if he created the urge to do them in the first place?

...or, heck, what about homosexuals who aren't interested in oral or anal sex? (Yes, they do exist).

I said cool because anything I say will be wrong, according to you.So it's not worth typing.You seem to already have all the answers.Lol..

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

We don't have the same issues with reproduction anymore, and it seems that people are reproducing far too often these days.

That's actually a myth. Birth rates in the industrialized world (the Global North) are plummeting, with many European and some Asian countries like Japan having having below replacement level birth rates. That's going to end up being a demographic disaster in the coming decades. The only place where the population is growing is in Africa, broadly, and a few other areas.

 

[Riverwolf]

I said cool because anything I say will be wrong, according to you.So it's not worth typing.You seem to already have all the answers.Lol..

That response is, and always has been, nothing but a cop out. The only reason I can think of using it, and the only reason I've ever seen when such a reason has been clear, is a desperate attempt to guilt-trip through the implication of hubris in someone who's asking uncomfortable questions.

Nobody has all the answers. No human, no God, no Elf, no Giant, nobody. Not even the Weaver.

What I have is my experience, and the related experience of others. If I had all the answers, I wouldn't be asking. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong if I'm given good, reliable information.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But WHY does he find it so detestable? What other reason would he have for detesting anything, particularly something that he created himself, unless he was afraid of it? Fear is one of the primary sources of hate.

You're better off reading Catholic and Orthodox Christian arguments for why homosexual sexual acts are viewed as sinful because they're the most detailed and philosophically grounded. Even I, who generally is accepting of gays and lesbians, has a difficult time arguing against it, admittedly. Basically, gay sex acts are viewed as a violation of Natural Law.
002-04: Homosexuality – International Catholic University

 

[Nada]

That response is, and always has been, nothing but a cop out. The only reason I can think of using it, and the only reason I've ever seen when such a reason has been clear, is a desperate attempt to guilt-trip through the implication of hubris in someone who's asking uncomfortable questions.

Nobody has all the answers. No human, no God, no Elf, no Giant, nobody. Not even the Weaver.

What I have is my experience, and the related experience of others. If I had all the answers, I wouldn't be asking. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong if I'm given good, reliable information.

No wolf.It is no cop out.I have dealt with you on many occasions, last year.I discontinued our conversations because we do not agree on anything.It is literally a waste of time,for both you and I.I have not responded to your comments for about 7 months now.Today I said what the heck.So I responded to your comment.Now here we are again just like 7 months ago.Lol.... Anyone who knows me on this forum knows that I do not cop out.I have many debates and discussions on here that can back that up.I never was really to fond of your speech either.You say very bad things at times, and it blows my mind that they would let you be staff.But!,it's cool though.Everyone has their thing.Well best to you, and see you for good this time.Peace.......................................................................

 

[Riverwolf]

You're better off reading Catholic and Orthodox Christian arguments for why homosexual sexual acts are viewed as sinful because they're the most detailed and philosophically grounded. Even I, who generally is accepting of gays and lesbians, has a difficult time arguing against it, admittedly. Basically, gay sex acts are viewed as a violation of Natural Law.
002-04: Homosexuality – International Catholic University

Thanks.

I don't have time to read it in full at this time (right now, I'm here between brief breaks of working), but just glancing at what's being said, it looks like a lot of this is sourced in Aquinas's works.

Thing is, if I'm understanding this part right:

There are several fundamental principles that one must keep in mind when interpreting Aquinas's natural law teachings; 1) Aquinas understands God to be the author of nature and thus what is natural is good and 2) the primary meaning of word "nature" for Aquinas is not physical or biological but ontological; "nature" most precisely refers to the essence of a substance, in the case of man, to a substance that is a unity of spirit and body.5 3) Natural law ethics and virtue ethics are integrally related for virtues are a perfection of man's nature. All sins are a violation of some virtue. 4) Since the Fall, man's physical nature and intellectual nature are flawed and thus can mislead him in his actions. Natural law ethics also involves various epistemological claims, but such elements are not of great relevance here.

I've never seen any indication that such a thing even exists except in cultural conceptions.

 

[Riverwolf]

No wolf.It is no cop out.I have dealt with you on many occasions, last year.I discontinued our conversations because we do not agree on anything.It is literally a waste of time,for both you and I.I have not responded to your comments for about 7 months now.Today I said what the heck.So I responded to your comment.Now here we are again just like 7 months ago.Lol.... Anyone who knows me on this forum knows that I do not cop out.I have many debates and discussions on here that can back that up.I never was really to fond of your speech either.You say very bad things at times, and it blows my mind that they would let you be staff.But!,it's cool though.Everyone has their thing.Well best to you, and see you for good this time.Peace.......................................................................

If you think my speech breaks the rules, report me. Otherwise, whether anything I say is bad or not is a subjective determination, and means nothing to me. I don't even remember this thing you speak of "7 months ago".

I count this kind of thing as a "cop out".

Take note of Saint Frankenstein, who at least provided a source for me to look at later.

Your goal shouldn't be to make me agree. It's certainly not my goal to make you agree with me.

My goal is understanding. You can think what you like. All I want is to understand why certain people think the way they do. What experiences led them to certain conclusions that I disagree with?

If you spent more time interacting with me, you'd know that.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Thanks.

I don't have time to read it in full at this time (right now, I'm here between brief breaks of working), but just glancing at what's being said, it looks like a lot of this is sourced in Aquinas's works.

Yeah, Aquinas was the greatest influence on the Church's sexual moral teachings. Her entire sexual morality is centered around Aristotelian Natural Law, and the teachings on gay sex is just a part of it. It all ties in together. If if you throw out one part of it, you've called the whole thing into question.

Thing is, if I'm understanding this part right:

There are several fundamental principles that one must keep in mind when interpreting Aquinas's natural law teachings; 1) Aquinas understands God to be the author of nature and thus what is natural is good and 2) the primary meaning of word "nature" for Aquinas is not physical or biological but ontological; "nature" most precisely refers to the essence of a substance, in the case of man, to a substance that is a unity of spirit and body.5 3) Natural law ethics and virtue ethics are integrally related for virtues are a perfection of man's nature. All sins are a violation of some virtue. 4) Since the Fall, man's physical nature and intellectual nature are flawed and thus can mislead him in his actions. Natural law ethics also involves various epistemological claims, but such elements are not of great relevance here.

I've never seen any indication that such a thing even exists except in cultural conceptions.

I'm not sure which specific part you're referring to.

 

[leibowde84]

If you think my speech breaks the rules, report me. Otherwise, whether anything I say is bad or not is a subjective determination, and means nothing to me.

I count this kind of thing as a "cop out".

Take note of Saint Frankenstein, who at least provided a source for me to look at later.

Your goal shouldn't be to make me agree. It's certainly not my goal to make you agree with me.

My goal is understanding. You can think what you like. All I want is to understand why certain people think the way they do. What experiences led them to certain conclusions that I disagree with?

If you spent more time interacting with me, you'd know that.

I agree. I feel the same way. it's frustrating when people come on to a debate forum, but refuse to at least attempt to try to look at things from another perspective. I understand that people believe the Scriptures to be an accurate representation of God's will. but I have a hard time accepting their arguments when they refuse to admit the obvious fact but their belief makes it a subjective argument by definition. I think what you and I are searching for it be objective reasoning for their stance. it seems absurd to be satisfied with the mere belief that the Scriptures are accurate without demanding that every command include a reasoned argument. I'm not concerned with what scripture says, I'm concerned with what God wants and why. I understand that might not be your concern, but I do appreciate the fact that we are both in search of the reasoning behind other peoples opinions.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yeah, Aquinas was the greatest influence on the Church's sexual moral teachings. Her entire sexual morality is centered around Aristotelian Natural Law, and the teachings on gay sex is just a part of it. It all ties in together. If if you throw out one part of it, you've called the whole thing into question.

Ah, yes. Aristotle. ^_^ So smart, so important, and yet was wrong on so many things.

I'm not sure which specific part you're referring to.

Basically, the idea of "nature" in an ontological sense, so point 2 specifically, though the rest more broadly as extensions of that idea.

But I do wish to highlight you again: you're providing me with exactly what I'm asking for. I also know from interacting with you in the past that you understand where I'm coming from. ^_^

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Ah, yes. Aristotle. ^_^ So smart, so important, and yet was wrong on so many things.



Basically, the idea of "nature" in an ontological sense, so point 2 specifically, though the rest more broadly as extensions of that idea.

I'm not a philosopher so I'm not really equipped to argue about this subject. I can only point you in the direction of others who can explain it. Lol. I do have to give props to Catholicism and Orthodoxy for having a sexual morality that is consistent and well-reasoned even if it is very difficult to abide by. It does all fit together and have a logic to it.

This is probably a better introduction to Natural Law: Natural Law

I really need to brush up on this. I need to go to a Catholic forum and talk to them about it. Lol.

But I do wish to highlight you again: you're providing me with exactly what I'm asking for. I also know from interacting with you in the past that you understand where I'm coming from. ^_^

Thanks and you're welcome.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm not a philosopher so I'm not really equipped to argue about this subject. I can only point you in the direction of others who can explain it. Lol. I do have to give props to Catholicism and Orthodoxy for having a sexual morality that is consistent and well-reasoned even if it is very difficult to abide by. It does all fit together and have a logic to it.

This is probably a better introduction to Natural Law: Natural Law

I really need to brush up on this. I need to go to a Catholic forum and talk to them about it. Lol.

Thanks and you're welcome.

I dont know. Some of "us" Catholics, (turns away) have some odd thinking on the subject in comparison to Church teachings.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I dont know. Some of "us" Catholics, (turns away) have some odd thinking on the subject in comparison to Church teachings.

I mean talking to orthodox Catholics who are good at explaining things.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You're better off reading Catholic and Orthodox Christian arguments for why homosexual sexual acts are viewed as sinful because they're the most detailed and philosophically grounded. Even I, who generally is accepting of gays and lesbians, has a difficult time arguing against it, admittedly. Basically, gay sex acts are viewed as a violation of Natural Law.
002-04: Homosexuality – International Catholic University

Thanks for the link. Aquinus, being a philosopher, attempts to explain the hidden by using what is observable. This was a kind of forerunner of Science, to use arguments to extract hidden truth from observable truth. This is in accordance with the belief that everything that can be known about God can be known through nature. Aquinus was at a disadvantage to us who have microscopes unless we believe that microscopes yield no additional information about God. Also he approached homosexuality as a pleasure that came from the corruption of purpose, but he did not know apparently that people can be born homosexual. Perhaps he had one hand tied behind his back trying to explain his opinions using only natural principles and the limited information at hand.

The article (but not Aquinus) proposes that 'The sex act' has a unitive purpose and projects this unstated opinion onto Aquinus. Why put words into his mouth that he did not say? Convenience? Where does this argument come from? Aquinus does associate homosexual acts with breaking the 6th commandment, but why? The article says its because Aquinus 'Must have believed' sex had a unitive function. That is objectionable. In the first place it could be argued that marriage has the unitive purpose, not sex. Why must sex have a unitive function? If so, then why is marriage needed? What if I can provide an example, in the Bible, of sex with reproductive but without unitive function between a prophet and a prophetess? What if in nature I can provide an example of sex with apparently neither reproduction nor union? So what we have is Aquinus saying that he thinks homosexuality breaks the 6th commandment, but we don't have a naturalistic explanation from him.

From what natural principle comes this supposed unitive purpose for sex? Is it not an opinion imposed upon nature?

A Eunich has or should have a place in Christianity I think with no less honor or importance than someone else. The article agrees and says "The celibate lifestyle to which those with a permanent or irreversible condition of homosexuality (if there is such) are called need not be lonely and isolating. There are many, for instance, celibate priests, nuns, and laypeople, who forgo the intimacy of marriage, sexual relations, and family." So then what happens to the unitive purpose of the sex organs of celibate priests, nuns and laypeople? It is left unused, put to no use at all neither for friendship nor for pleasure. How is that natural?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

.... If the law states that a man and man or woman and woman can get married,then let them.If it's the new law,then so be it.everyone has free will.If law permits it, then it is law.No one has the right to shout and tell people what they can and can not do.Everyone has the right to do what they please if it's within the law.These are the laws of the land.God's laws are something else.

I fully respect where you stand, and it's unreasonable for gays (like myself) to expect anything more. In fact, to expect anything more, we are becoming the very "thought police" we sought to eradicate. As an atheist, I despise religion, but I understand that freedom of religion is necessary for a free society. Take away your right to believe as you will, then sooner or later, someone's going to come along and take my right to believe as I will. You have my full support.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Thanks for the link. Aquinus, being a philosopher, attempts to explain the hidden by using what is observable. This was a kind of forerunner of Science, to use arguments to extract hidden truth from observable truth. This is in accordance with the belief that everything that can be known about God can be known through nature. Aquinus was at a disadvantage to us who have microscopes unless we believe that microscopes yield no additional information about God. Also he approached homosexuality as a pleasure that came from the corruption of purpose, but he did not know apparently that people can be born homosexual. Perhaps he had one hand tied behind his back trying to explain his opinions using only natural principles and the limited information at hand.

The article (but not Aquinus) proposes that 'The sex act' has a unitive purpose and projects this unstated opinion onto Aquinus. Why put words into his mouth that he did not say? Convenience? Where does this argument come from? Aquinus does associate homosexual acts with breaking the 6th commandment, but why? The article says its because Aquinus 'Must have believed' sex had a unitive function. That is objectionable. In the first place it could be argued that marriage has the unitive purpose, not sex. Why must sex have a unitive function? If so, then why is marriage needed? What if I can provide an example, in the Bible, of sex with reproductive but without unitive function between a prophet and a prophetess? What if in nature I can provide an example of sex with apparently neither reproduction nor union? So what we have is Aquinus saying that he thinks homosexuality breaks the 6th commandment, but we don't have a naturalistic explanation from him.

From what natural principle comes this supposed unitive purpose for sex? Is it not an opinion imposed upon nature?

A Eunich has or should have a place in Christianity I think with no less honor or importance than someone else. The article agrees and says "The celibate lifestyle to which those with a permanent or irreversible condition of homosexuality (if there is such) are called need not be lonely and isolating. There are many, for instance, celibate priests, nuns, and laypeople, who forgo the intimacy of marriage, sexual relations, and family." So then what happens to the unitive purpose of the sex organs of celibate priests, nuns and laypeople? It is left unused, put to no use at all neither for friendship nor for pleasure. How is that natural?

I'm not very knowledgeable in philosophy so I'm not the person to ask.

 

[psychoslice]

I feel that our sex organs are there for one reason only, what we do with them other than using them to reproduce is up to us, its no one else's business.

 

[Nada]

I fully respect where you stand, and it's unreasonable for gays (like myself) to expect anything more. In fact, to expect anything more, we are becoming the very "thought police" we sought to eradicate. As an atheist, I despise religion, but I understand that freedom of religion is necessary for a free society. Take away your right to believe as you will, then sooner or later, someone's going to come along and take my right to believe as I will. You have my full support.

Thank you for that great comment.You have my respect as well.

Peace