Is Gay Sex Morally Wrong.

[OraProMe]

[i]I'm not sure the Greeks held it in "high regard," [/i]
It was very common among many intellectuals in Ancient Greece.
It was also very common among intellectuals in Britain as late as the 18th century.

[i]I know Plato in his idea of a utopia thought that soldiers should be single and satisfy themselves sexually with each other, so I suppose it was a more practical purpose. [/i]
Sure, but that means that they didn't regard it as immoral doesn't it? Which is contrary to your previous statment.

[i]As for Islamic society, even if what you say is true it's quite different from homosexuality, and besides, we know Shariah does not tolerate homosexual acts. So although you may be able to bring up a couple of examples where homosexuality was tolerated, that was the exception not the norm.[/i]
Well a distinction needs to be made and it's my fault. By Islamic society I mean Middle Eastern which at the time was very different and Islam co-existed with regional culture fairly well. Another example of this is that women rarely wore the Hijab or covered their faces.
The version of Islam most westerners know is called Wahhabism and it originated in Saudi Arabia long after the death of the religions founder.

[i]I think it's obvious homosexual acts are disordered, and that engaging in such acts harms the spirit and the body.[/i]
Saying "I think it's obvious" isn't sufficient. Why is it obvious?

[i]I think many tolerate it because it has become the norm to do so nowadays,[/i]
No, I just think some people can't see a problem with two members of the same sex loving eachother and expressing that love. Those who want to oppose homosexuality can and do.

[i] Fortunately for me, I'm not that interested in following the masses.[/i]
Neither am I, or most of the other gay people you'll know. In fact, that's why most of them are openly gay

[OraProMe]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1909128' date='Jul 3 2009, 09:49 AM']In all of those seemingly happy gay and lesbian couples, I never saw true happiness. That could have been because their lives were full of discrimination and secrecy, but they were almost to a person, broken in soul. I never saw a twinkle of joy in their eyes. I never saw a rejoicing soul.[/quote]

Maybe they seemed joyless because they were in the presence of a lawyer

[CatherineM]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1909144' date='Jul 3 2009, 10:07 AM']Maybe they seemed joyless because they were in the presence of a lawyer [/quote]

You may well be right.

[CatherineM]

I never said I thought gay sex was morally wrong. I'm just a housewife. I leave those weighty decisions up to the Church guided by the Holy Spirit. I was simply recounting my experiences that gay relationships don't seem to be life sustaining in the way that sacramental marriages are. It's something that you will never be able to understand unless you embrace Courage and someday enter into a sacramental marriage. It is as difficult to explain as it would be to describe what chocolate tastes like to someone who had never had any.

[PeteWaldo]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1909108' date='Jul 3 2009, 10:18 AM']I'm pretty sure everyone here, Catholic or not, knows what the bible says about homosexuality.[/quote]
The reason I nudged with the scriptures is because there seems to be some confusion, also from some that label themselves Catholic, as to what is or is not natural, or moral, regarding this subject. I included the scriptures in an effort to provide a biblical perspective.

32 [color="#000080"]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]

Edited July 3, 2009 by PeteWaldo

[OraProMe]

Oh, okay.
Thanks for that then

Where is Hassan D:?
He probably has a real life. Pffft, what's up with that?

Edited July 3, 2009 by OraProMe

[mortify]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1909142' date='Jul 3 2009, 11:06 AM'][i]I'm not sure the Greeks held it in "high regard," [/i]
It was very common among many intellectuals in Ancient Greece.
It was also very common among intellectuals in Britain as late as the 18th century.[/quote]

It would be interesting to know how common it was in ancient Greece and Britain. Care to share?

[quote][i]I know Plato in his idea of a utopia thought that soldiers should be single and satisfy themselves sexually with each other, so I suppose it was a more practical purpose. [/i]
Sure, but that means that they didn't regard it as immoral doesn't it? Which is contrary to your previous statment.[/quote]

I never said every society recognized homosexuality as immoral. And just because Plato tolerated it in a certain context doesn't mean he held it to be morally acceptable. Killing humans was immoral except in the context of just war.

[quote][i]As for Islamic society, even if what you say is true it's quite different from homosexuality, and besides, we know Shariah does not tolerate homosexual acts. So although you may be able to bring up a couple of examples where homosexuality was tolerated, that was the exception not the norm.[/i]
Well a distinction needs to be made and it's my fault. By Islamic society I mean Middle Eastern which at the time was very different and Islam co-existed with regional culture fairly well.[/quote]

Are you suggesting the Middle East -- which was Christian at the time -- and Islamic society tolerated homosexual acts?

[quote]Another example of this is that women rarely wore the Hijab or covered their faces.
The version of Islam most westerners know is called Wahhabism and it originated in Saudi Arabia long after the death of the religions founder.[/quote]

How is this an example of the above? And you really have no idea of what you're talking about. The hijaab is mentioned in Quran and Hadith, and there are narrations to support the niqaab.

[quote][i]I think it's obvious homosexual acts are disordered, and that engaging in such acts harms the spirit and the body.[/i]
Saying "I think it's obvious" isn't sufficient. Why is it obvious?[/quote]

We all know what a rectum is used for, that's why it's obvious. The question is why do you defend disordered behavior, especially since you claim to be Catholic?
[quote][i]I think many tolerate it because it has become the norm to do so nowadays,[/i]
No, I just think some people can't see a problem with two members of the same sex loving eachother and expressing that love. Those who want to oppose homosexuality can and do.[/quote]

They can't see because they've turned away from God and towards themselves into a deep selfishness. In such a world the only "morality" is to do what I please, and "immorality" being anything that gets in my way. Ironically though, those same people tend to reject polygamous marriages, catamite behavior, and other perverse behaviors known to the ancient pre-Christian world... but in time, people wont be able to see the wrong in them either.

[quote][i] Fortunately for me, I'm not that interested in following the masses.[/i]
Neither am I, or most of the other gay people you'll know. In fact, that's why most of them are openly gay [/quote]

The Catholics are in the closet now

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1909014' date='Jul 3 2009, 02:35 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]

Procreation is the sole biological reason for sex. The sex organs, the development of sperm, the egg, miosis etc. these are for reproduction. Pleasure is not a priority from an evolutionary point of view. and if it was, a far more efficent system would be developed than the extremely energy sapping sex system.
Homosexuality in insects and other lower life forms is almost always do to confusion, a hormonal or sent malfunction. It some cases it is an aggressive act. particularly in males, some species of male actually maim or kill the other male while mounting him.

Diversity is not a component of evolution. Not in the way you imply. Diversity is eliminated vis predation and competition, spieces which find a way to increase the genetic diversity of thier offspring tend to have a survival advantage but survival is the goal, not diversity.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1909037' date='Jul 3 2009, 03:08 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.

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

Protist have sex, they have no nerves, they do not enjoy it. Insects similarly do not have sex for enjoyment, they have no pleasure center in that way. They are run by chemical scent and instinct.
If you don't like that I amsorry but your understanding of biology is flawed, in the extreme.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1909035' date='Jul 3 2009, 03:02 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]


My point is simpler, the function of sex is procreation, it is the entire reason for its existance. This is true with the entire spectrum of sexual creatures, Plant, Protist, Animal, whatever. does the flower spead its pollen, its seed, to get pleasure? No it does it to make new plants.

Any arguement agianst this comes either from ignorance orknowledge of information which is little more than propoganda.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1909096' date='Jul 3 2009, 09:39 AM']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.[/quote]

'
Sex does not always have to result in procreation, however, the purpose of sex is procreation as well as union, since homosexual sex cannot be procreative, ever, it does not serve the function of sex, therfore, it cannot be moral.


The point of this thread was to argue using reason alone. Then I was asked to doit without using scriipture or the Magisterium.

The condemnation of homosexual sex can be done from an entirely biological, reasonable point of view. and it is based on the purpose of sex being procreative. That is its purpose, like the purpose of cainine teeth is to rip food apart. the purpose of inocular eyes in the front of the head is to judge distance, usually to prey. That is why sex exist, it is its purpose. Homosexual sex CANNOT ever meet this purpose, it is not that sometimes it doesn't, it cannot.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1909142' date='Jul 3 2009, 11:06 AM'][i]I'm not sure the Greeks held it in "high regard," [/i]
It was very common among many intellectuals in Ancient Greece.

[color="#2E8B57"] THis is not exactly true, having sex with little boys was very common among the upperclass in Athens. Having sex with other adult men, not so much. In Sparta having sex with other men was also common, however it was also a crime not to marry by 21 so it is not quite the same.[/color]
It was also very common among intellectuals in Britain as late as the 18th century.
[color="#2E8B57"]
Really, please give some justification for that remark. Starting when? please give documentation, becuase it was a death penalty offense in most places in the middle ages.[/color]

[i]I know Plato in his idea of a utopia thought that soldiers should be single and satisfy themselves sexually with each other, so I suppose it was a more practical purpose. [/i]
Sure, but that means that they didn't regard it as immoral doesn't it? Which is contrary to your previous statment.
[color="#2E8B57"]
See above statements on ancient Greece.[/color]

[i]As for Islamic society, even if what you say is true it's quite different from homosexuality, and besides, we know Shariah does not tolerate homosexual acts. So although you may be able to bring up a couple of examples where homosexuality was tolerated, that was the exception not the norm.[/i]
Well a distinction needs to be made and it's my fault. By Islamic society I mean Middle Eastern which at the time was very different and Islam co-existed with regional culture fairly well. Another example of this is that women rarely wore the Hijab or covered their faces.
The version of Islam most westerners know is called Wahhabism and it originated in Saudi Arabia long after the death of the religions founder.

[color="#2E8B57"]Please do not try and lecture us on Islam, I am well aware of the tolerance of what we would concider pedophilia in Islam, but this is quite differant from adult men having sex with adult men. Women in Islam are certianlly not suppose to be having sex with anyone other than thier husbands or owners. [/color]


[i]I think it's obvious homosexual acts are disordered, and that engaging in such acts harms the spirit and the body.[/i]
Saying "I think it's obvious" isn't sufficient. Why is it obvious?

[i]I think many tolerate it because it has become the norm to do so nowadays,[/i]
No, I just think some people can't see a problem with two members of the same sex loving eachother and expressing that love. Those who want to oppose homosexuality can and do.

[color="#2E8B57"]One can love each other all one wants, one can express that love all one wants. No one says differantly. One does not have to have sex to express love, I love my mother, my sister, my daughter, my 6 goddaughters, and my wife. I only have sex with my wife. That doesn't mean I don't express my love to the others.[/color]

[i] Fortunately for me, I'm not that interested in following the masses.[/i]
Neither am I, or most of the other gay people you'll know. In fact, that's why most of them are openly gay

[color="#2E8B57"]Please, being openly gay or bi is all the fashion now. nothing is more like the masses than that.[/color][/quote]

[Don John of Austria]

[url="http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25006101-401,00.html"]http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25006101-401,00.html[/url]

Islams morality?

Or from a Gay news organization

[url="http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11023.html"]http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11023.html[/url]


Is this show how accepting Islam is of gay sex , it can drive men to suicide to escape the shame.

Homosexual acts are punishable by death under sharia law.

Apparantly in the past this excluded young boys.

Edited July 3, 2009 by Don John of Austria

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1909172' date='Jul 3 2009, 11:25 AM']I never said I thought gay sex was morally wrong. I'm just a housewife. I leave those weighty decisions up to the Church guided by the Holy Spirit.[/quote]

Thank God for a teaching Church, eh? We are all happy to be members of that Divinely founded institution.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1909255' date='Jul 3 2009, 01:22 PM']Thank God for a teaching Church, eh? We are all happy to be members of that Divinely founded institution.[/quote]

I find it funny that people assume I will feel discriminated against or oppressed, when in fact I feel set free by our faith.