• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

why is being gay forbidden ?

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
Why should I take seriously anything the Catholic Church says on sexuality, given the epidemic of sex abuse by Catholic priests and the regressive approach to birth control?

Not to mention if much of the natural law offered as indicators of what is "right" with the world, based on Aquinas, read what has been said about women.

It's remarkably sexist. Not subliminally. But overtly and remarkably sexist.

"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power.."

Thomas Aquinas - Philosopher - Quotes

As but one example to whet the appetite.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Agreed. About 1% of homosexuals are actually born with genetic predispositions inclining to a sexual identity opposite to their physical characteristics. That is a very small number considering the entire homosexual population of the U.S. is between 1-2%, but locally higher is some cities like San Francisco. The "born that way" argument is based on rare exceptions and blown out of proportion to satisfy a guilty conscience. Sexuality is subject to a high degree of conditioning, with most homosexuals engaging in promiscuous acts in early adolescence, then becoming conditioned into an identity that is reinforced by the gay agenda and peer pressure of their own choosing. I've seen this happen in my own family.

There is nothing wrong with being "gay". Doing gay things are immoral. Same with a heterosexual who cheats on their spouse. It's destructive. There are personal and/or social consequences to violating moral laws.

While the Church does recognize homosexuality as disordered, this does not mean that the Church is uncompassionate to those who suffer from the disorder. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies . . . must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."

Homosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals1 and 3½ times more likely to commit suicide successfully.2 Thirty years ago, this propensity toward suicide was attributed to social rejection, but the numbers have remained largely stable since then despite far greater public acceptance than existed in 1973. Study after study shows that male and female homosexuals have much higher rates of interpersonal maladjustment, depression, conduct disorder, childhood abuse (both sexual and violent), domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety, and dependency on psychiatric care than heterosexuals.3 Life expectancy of homosexual men was only forty-eight years before the AIDS virus came on the scene, and it is now down to thirty-eight.50Only 2 percent of homosexual men live past age sixty-five.4

Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, including urethritis, laryngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and genital warts (which are caused by the human papilloma virus, which also causes genital cancers).5 Lesbians are at lower risk for STDs but at high risk for breast cancer.6Homosexuals of both sexes have high rates of drug abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics, barbiturates, and amyl nitrate.7
Footnotes:​
    1. C. Bagley and P. Tremblay, "Suicidal Behaviors in Homosexual and Bisexual Males," Crisis 18 (1997): 24-34.
    2. R. A. Garofalo et al., "The Associations Between Health Risk Behaviors and Sexual Orientation Among a School-Based Sample of Adolescents," Pediatrics 101 (1998): 895-902.
    3. R. Herrell et al., Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-74; D. M. Fergusson, J. Horwood, A. L. Beautrais, "Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?" Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 876-80; M. J. Bailey, "Homosexuality and Mental Illness," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 883-4.
    4. P. Cameron and K. Cameron, "Homosexual Parents," Adolescence 31 (1996): 757-76.
    5. Ibid.
    6. Laura Dean et al., "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health: Findings and Concerns," Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association 4, no. 3 (2000): 101-51.
    7. Ibid.
    8. Ibid.
The sex abuse issue is a separate topic. As for artificial birth control, maybe if you bothered to study Catholicism's sexual teachings and the philosophy underpinning it, you'd understand it. If anything, you would be better equipped to argue against it from your point of view. Because calling being against condom use "regressive" is an immature way to look at it when you learn the philosophical underpinnings behind the teaching against it. But most progressive types today prefer to be ignorant and make arguments based on selfishness.
I understand your point, and, believe me, I've been learning about the Catholic Church's view on this subject since my 6th Grade Sexual Education Class. I went to Catholic Grade School and all-boys Jesuit high-school, during which I had many conversations with priests and Eastern Orthodox Priests about this issue. Personally, I think that the greatest aspect of "regression" is the Church's reluctance to change their stance on issues such as this. I think it has been clearly shown that 1. teenagers have and always will be sexually active, no matter how unreasonable or "wrong" that may be; and 2. condoms prevent the spread of sexually transmitted disease in a way that abstinence has fallen very short on. The Church still is under the mistaken impression that it can convince people to abstain from risky sexual behavior and that will be sufficient to solve these problems. To me, that is ignorance in action. Abstinence is a "pipe dream" that has no reasonable possibility of success. People will always be having sex outside of committed relationships, and many will have un-safe sex. Thus, I think that any method that can curb the spread of disease should be not only allowed by Church law, but also encouraged.

The Church seems to think that it can convince people to stop behaving "lewdly", but they don't provide an adequate, reason-based explanation for why anyone should believe them. Words like "sacred" and "holy" are thrown around in a way that merely excludes anyone who isn't "on the same page." In short, I think that Church needs to grow up a bit and recognize that the world has changed dramatically since the scriptures were written and first interpreted. Their teachings should reflect this.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
I understand your point, and, believe me, I've been learning about the Catholic Church's view on this subject since my 6th Grade Sexual Education Class. I went to Catholic Grade School and all-boys Jesuit high-school, during which I had many conversations with priests and Eastern Orthodox Priests about this issue. Personally, I think that the greatest aspect of "regression" is the Church's reluctance to change their stance on issues such as this. I think it has been clearly shown that 1. teenagers have and always will be sexually active, no matter how unreasonable or "wrong" that may be; and 2. condoms prevent the spread of sexually transmitted disease in a way that abstinence has fallen very short on. The Church still is under the mistaken impression that it can convince people to abstain from risky sexual behavior and that will be sufficient to solve these problems. To me, that is ignorance in action. Abstinence is a "pipe dream" that has no reasonable possibility of success. People will always be having sex outside of committed relationships, and many will have un-safe sex. Thus, I think that any method that can curb the spread of disease should be not only allowed by Church law, but also encouraged.

The Church seems to think that it can convince people to stop behaving "lewdly", but they don't provide an adequate, reason-based explanation for why anyone should believe them. Words like "sacred" and "holy" are thrown around in a way that merely excludes anyone who isn't "on the same page." In short, I think that Church needs to grow up a bit and recognize that the world has changed dramatically since the scriptures were written and first interpreted. Their teachings should reflect this.
Sorry, but the Church's teachings aren't relative and subject to the whims of culture. It's not a democracy.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
Not to mention if much of the natural law offered as indicators of what is "right" with the world, based on Aquinas, read what has been said about women.

It's remarkably sexist. Not subliminally. But overtly and remarkably sexist.

"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power.."

Thomas Aquinas - Philosopher - Quotes

As but one example to whet the appetite.
http://www.aquinasonline.com/Questions/women.html
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Sorry, but the Church's teachings aren't relative and subject to the whims of culture. It's not a democracy.
All I'm asking is that they use reason instead of blindly following ancient texts. If that is not a reasonable request, I'm not sure what is. Btw, I am certainly not in favor of changing teachings according to the "whims of society." That would be terrible.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
(Christianity) Homosexuality as an attraction is not wrong. CCC describes it as a disorder. Sexual immoral behavior practiced by anyone is a sin.

(Homosexuals) Spiritual, physical, mental attraction is an orientation (not mentioned in the bible).

My note: Many heterosexuals biologically may have attractions to same gender sometimes. It is not because they are gay, they are not. Humans are sexual animals.

On that note, because we are sexual animals (it is in our make up) any natural intimate behavior: skin contact, kissing, straight intercourse (not limited to) is normal.

What I have heard a lot of religjous say its a sin. (Not all mind you) I have heard the non religious, some, say its wrong because it will take the financial resources the us government provides for straight people.

What I see happening is the holocoast, civil rights discrimination, and slavery acts all over again.

1. It is like civil rights descrimination of race.

Like racial discriminaton, we subject the same what we (hetero) call "normality" on homo. not realizing they are affecting the person who has the attraction not the attraction. They are not curing a disease.

Those that are religious homo., specifcally in cathelicism cannot take the sacrament od marriage. The Church teaches we homo are calledn celibacy.

A lot of homo. couples are Catholics are I would not be surprised if they practiced celebacy in accordance with the Church and they still cannot marry.

The point...The Church defines the couples union and relationship with God. That is descriminative to christian homo couples whose relationship IS from God.

2. It is like the holocoaust.

"People" have been beatened up or killed in anti gay communities. My cousin, by self identify, is a female in a male body. He is a female. People think he is gay because bio he is male. They him up. Foreign communities in the us may not know people who are gay. Bigotry and ignorance with stereotypes develop as a result.

Why are people treated this way? Why do our attractions build so much hate, even politic stressed issues such as marriage, on people who want their civil rights to marriage?

How does our gender dictate who we are as people? Do any of us who are not transgender even THINK about our gender when we relate to others?

3. It is like slavery.

No, we are not chained and whipped. Our chains are the underlining belief that anything outside of hetero is wrong and not normal. Its a weight on our backs to be treated as others without feeling like people want to cure us. Example, church solves it by dictating another persons (rather than God dictating it) through celibicy. The phase " Civil Unions" is masking the rights to claim the word mariage for ANYONE who wants one. Mental chains are on us daily.

US government and some churches dont realize they are trying to find cover ups to give halfn rights to couples who deserve full. Churches dont realize that finding cures for somethjng that is not wrong is making the problem deeper. In many chridtians, they may fe guilty for something thats natural and God given.

If we stopped descrimination and give ALL rights to ALL people we will keep the equal rights for ALL in tbe us constitution.

If we stop the holocoast, people will hopefully but not overnight unfortunately will see the one bad and two unproductive behavio of beating and killing someone who differs just bad everyone else differs from everyone else.

If we stopped homo. related "slavery" homo wont feelna cloud over their head by knowing they are being accepted only under certain "clauses" ex. "Significant other" and "civil unions" rather than husband and husband/wife and wife and marriage as due.

I HATE being a target of biotry by gover ment, by person, by religion, and so forth.

I dont know about other countriez, but the us needs to get its sh,t together.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
All I'm asking is that they use reason instead of blindly following ancient texts. If that is not a reasonable request, I'm not sure what is. Btw, I am certainly not in favor of changing teachings according to the "whims of society." That would be terrible.
They do use reason. I posted this before: Natural Law
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
There! So if I get involved in another gay related post, Im just leading them here. Somethings need not be repeated. Discrimination, beating and killing, and separate but equal clauses are some of them.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Why is gay forbidden? Please allow me to submit the answer might ultimately be rooted to some great extent in the fact we are social animals and, as such, have a certain bias towards social conformity that now and then rears its head by attempting to impose that conformity on others. But why gays specifically? I'll wager historical factors unique to certain and various cultures. Thank you for allowing me to settle this question once and for all. Your congratulations, flowers, and fan mail are appreciated.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member

Apologetics that still emphatically state women is subject to a mans direction, and yet has no authority over men, is still sexist.

Misbegotten only in body, but not in soul? Still sexist.

"I answer that, It was necessary for woman to be made, as the Scripture says, as a "helper" to man; not, indeed, as a helpmate in other works, as some say, since man can be more efficiently helped by another man in other works; but as a helper in the work of generation . . . .
Among perfect animals the active power of generation belongs to the male sex, and the passive power to the female. And as among animals there is a vital operation nobler than generation, to which their life is principally directed; therefore the male sex is not found in continual union with the female in perfect animals, but only at the time of coition; so that we may consider that by this means the male and female are one, as in plants they are always united; although in some cases one of them preponderates, and in some the other.
But man is yet further ordered to a still nobler vital action, and that is intellectual operation. Therefore there was greater reason for the distinction of these two forces in man; so that the female should be produced separately from the male; although they are carnally united for generation. Therefore directly after the formation of woman, it was said: "And they shall be two in one flesh" (Gn. 2:24). Summa Theologica I, qu. 92, art. 1.


Thomas Aquinas and Woman's lower status
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
Apologetics that still emphatically state women is subject to a mans direction, and yet has no authority over men, is still sexist.

Misbegotten only in body, but not in soul? Still sexist.

"I answer that, It was necessary for woman to be made, as the Scripture says, as a "helper" to man; not, indeed, as a helpmate in other works, as some say, since man can be more efficiently helped by another man in other works; but as a helper in the work of generation . . . .
Among perfect animals the active power of generation belongs to the male sex, and the passive power to the female. And as among animals there is a vital operation nobler than generation, to which their life is principally directed; therefore the male sex is not found in continual union with the female in perfect animals, but only at the time of coition; so that we may consider that by this means the male and female are one, as in plants they are always united; although in some cases one of them preponderates, and in some the other.
But man is yet further ordered to a still nobler vital action, and that is intellectual operation. Therefore there was greater reason for the distinction of these two forces in man; so that the female should be produced separately from the male; although they are carnally united for generation. Therefore directly after the formation of woman, it was said: "And they shall be two in one flesh" (Gn. 2:24). Summa Theologica I, qu. 92, art. 1.

Thomas Aquinas and Woman's lower status
I'm just trying to provide some balance, but apparently people don't want to think rationally. "How dare that 12th century theologian not be a woman's libber! :eek:"
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
I'm just trying to provide some balance, but apparently people don't want to think rationally. "How dare that 12th century theologian not be a woman's libber! :eek:"

I'm arguing against archaic gender roles, which supports cultural and religious institutions arbitrary arguments against homosexuality. When Natural Law is invoked, one only needs a cursory glance through it to see exactly how the sexes are regarded. And it isn't pretty....well unless one has a penis and is attracted to women.

"Order" may be maintained, but at the expense of equality in the public and private sphere. If women and queers begin to speak up about this inequality against male headship and narrowly defined sexual roles, what typically happens is that above all else, order must be placed as the top priority. If it includes silencing dissenters, though discrimination, intimidation, or violence, then so be it if the tradition is to be protected at all costs.

Aquinas didn't have to be a "women's libber", but he sure wrote a LOT of deplorable things about women. It takes the kind of mental gymnastics to explain his stance as still being relevant today that has little to do with rationality, and more to do with protecting an institution at all costs. Even if people are overtly and roundly dehumanized.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Homosexuality is a choice.
HIV used to be called Homosexuality Immunodeficiency Virus

When did you choose to be heterosexual? Did you all of a sudden discover you wanted to be heterosexual? Why would anyone choose to be a member of a group it's still OK to hate and persecute? The "homosexuality is a choice" argument is old, unfounded and as ignorant as ignorant can get. If HIV used to be called Homosexuality Immunodeficiency Virus, it was called that by people of profound and abject ignorance.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
Apologetics that still emphatically state women is subject to a mans direction, and yet has no authority over men, is still sexist.

Misbegotten only in body, but not in soul? Still sexist.



Thomas Aquinas and Woman's lower status

BTW, the link in this above post is in favor of challenging the tradition of male-only priests, anti-contraception, and hetero-only holy matrimony on theological, scriptural, educational, and ethics grounds. Even with the slant, I find their sourcing to be credible.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
They do use reason. I posted this before: Natural Law
Right, they used reason according to their reality thousands of years ago. It is indisputable that many things relevant to this discussion have drastically changed since then. I am saying that they should reassess their teachings according to the issues we are facing TODAY, not the issues they were facing THEN.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
BTW, the link in this above post is in favor of challenging the tradition of male-only priests, anti-contraception, and hetero-only holy matrimony on theological, scriptural, educational, and ethics grounds. Even with the slant, I find their sourcing to be credible.
I'm well-aware of that movement. :rolleyes:
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
Right, they used reason according to their reality thousands of years ago. It is indisputable that many things relevant to this discussion have drastically changed since then. I am saying that they should reassess their teachings according to the issues we are facing TODAY, not the issues they were facing THEN.
It's not going to happen, though. The Church doesn't view itself as having the power to change doctrine. We see that happening in mainline Protestant denominations and it's resulted in chaos and they're bleeding members.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
There is no real acceptance of homosexuality without religious acceptance. Religion basicly just means taking subjectivity seriously, just as like science basically means to take objectivity seriously. When homosexuality is accepted while religion declines, it just means to say, we are superficial anything goes. If homosexuals make witness that it is in accordance with the lord God almighty, then they are on their way to acceptance.

There's a flaw in your argument. Ásatrúar goðar ("priests") and gyðjur ("priestesses") perform same sex marriages, and Ásatrú is on the rise.

"Alright. Start 'splaining,"".
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
It's not going to happen, though. The Church doesn't view itself as having the power to change doctrine. We see that happening in mainline Protestant denominations and it's resulted in chaos and they're bleeding members.
Beyond "bleeding members", how has the Protestant Church been in "chaos" specifically?

The Catholic Church is bleeding members in the US as well for the very reason that they are refusing to think rationally about these kinds of issues.
 
Top