Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Social Justice
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old Mar 2, '12, 7:22 am
JABA's Avatar
JABA JABA is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: November 11, 2010
Posts: 80
Religion: catholic
Default Why Homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective

The justification that homosexuality is wrong and disordered does not have to have a basis in religious doctrine and moral law. One of the first areas of attack used by the LGBT supporters is to single out and attack the doctrine and beliefs of the Catholic Church, but this whole issue of LGBT rights has more depth why it is illogical and disordered in biology and secular reasoning. Using this explanation, it's much easier to justify why homosexuality is disordered to those who are not Christian and those that are atheist, and show them how Catholic beliefs and doctrine actually correlate with biological law.

Here is the reason why homosexuality is nothing but a condition belonging to a whole classification of disorders of sexual preference, including incest, pedophilia, and zoophylia.

1) The main purpose and function of sexual expression and sexuality is for procreation. Even my anatomy and physiology lecturer at university stated that "all you young people think that sex was created for fun, but it's not. Sex was created for procreation. If there was no need for procreation, there would be no need for sex, and it would not exist.". Males and males can't naturally procreate, nor can humans procreate with animals. So if natural procreation is not possible between a male and male, or female and female, this makes homosexuality a disorder of sexual preference and an unnatural act. Just like pedophilia and zoophilia are unnatural acts.

2) Our sexuality was created to be expressed between the male and female genders as they are both biologically compatible with each other and can procreate. This compatibility noted by the differences in the anatomical and physiological characteristics of the male and female bodies. Females produce eggs and males produce sperm which fertilize the eggs. Males and males are not anatomically, physiologically and biologically compatible with each other. Therefore any sexual expression between people of the same gender is disordered and unnatural. Nature has provided the two genders to express sexually between each other. If homosexuality was normal and natural, there would only be one gender.

3) In reality the only acceptable sexual relationship is between people of opposite genders(male and female), of appropriate age(where procreation is possible and the parents are mature enough to raise a child) and the persons procreating are not related(so no negative effects of inbreeding occur). If all these criteria are met, these all lead to procreation of healthy child and family. This is the way nature intended and not any other way.

4) Once the definition of what is an appropriate sexual relationship goes outside the boundaries of natural law( how nature intended) and is based on peoples opinion like those used to justify LGBT relationships, than one can justify any form of sexual relationship. Even people in incestuousness relationships have a right to love each other sexually, can be used to justify incestuousness relationships in the future. This is why the definition of what is an appropriate sexual relationship, should only ever be based on biological law and never on opinion as opinions change, biological law does not.

5)LGBT demand for the right to marry. How can LGBT demand rights that never existed in the first place. It's like a man demanding the right to get pregnant. Both go against natural law. It's like demanding the right to marry your dog. Marriage is an expression of natural law in our human society, so it can't include disordered sexual relationships which are not natural.
  #2  
Old Mar 2, '12, 8:11 am
kch86 kch86 is offline
Trial Membership
 
Join Date: February 29, 2012
Posts: 275
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why Homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective

I would be interested to see how people who disagree would argue against these points.

I imagine, however, that from the modern secular perspective, many of those points are irrelevant. Many people seem to have the idea, which is a parody of the Golden Rule, that provided you do not harm anybody else without their consent, you have done no wrong.
  #3  
Old Mar 2, '12, 8:47 am
Serious Serious is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: February 18, 2012
Posts: 769
Default Re: Why Homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective

Quote:
Originally Posted by JABA View Post
1) The main purpose and function of sexual expression and sexuality is for procreation.
Procreation would not be possibile without the pleasurable aspect. In the whole animal world, with the notable exception of the higher apes sex and procreation go hand in hand - as a biological arrangement. Outside the estrus there is no sexual urge. This is simply not true for the higher apes and humans (who belong to the higher apes). In the case of higher apes and humans the pleasure seeking part is not only possible outside the estrus, it is preferred. According to your "analysis" sex outside the time of estrus is "disordered" and should not happen, since there is no possibility of procreation. A piece of statistics: "about 95% of sexual encounters is aimed at pleasue seeking and the procreation is considered an unlucky by-product, which should be defended against and avoided if possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JABA View Post
So if natural procreation is not possible between a male and male, or female and female, this makes homosexuality a disorder of sexual preference and an unnatural act.
Flying airplanes is an "unnatural" act. That does not make flying a "disorder".

Quote:
Originally Posted by JABA View Post
2) Our sexuality was created to be expressed between the male and female genders as they are both biologically compatible with each other and can procreate.
Since procreation is secondary to pleasure seeking, this point is irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JABA View Post
3) In reality the only acceptable sexual relationship is between people of opposite genders(male and female), of appropriate age(where procreation is possible and the parents are mature enough to raise a child) and the persons procreating are not related(so no negative effects of inbreeding occur). If all these criteria are met, these all lead to procreation of healthy child and family. This is the way nature intended and not any other way.
Now you really went off into the never-never land. According to your nonsense, elderly people beyond the procreative age, or couples who happen to be infertile are not supposed to have sex.

The rest of your post is even worse. Stop trying to see the world as if you understood the secular way. Stick to condemning homosexuality based upon your religious platform. Sheesh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kch86 View Post
I imagine, however, that from the modern secular perspective, many of those points are irrelevant.
Not just irrelevant, but plain ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kch86 View Post
Many people seem to have the idea, which is a parody of the Golden Rule, that provided you do not harm anybody else without their consent, you have done no wrong.
There are two variants of the golden rule: "Do unto others, what you would want them to do unto you", and "Do NOT do unto others, what you would NOT want them do unto you". And the idea that one should not do harm to others (without their consent) is the best foundation to lead a decent and moral life. The idea that a non-harmful behavior can be "wrong" cannot appear in a secular environment. And the original poster attempted (and miserably failed) to present a secular argument.
  #4  
Old Mar 2, '12, 8:56 am
fix fix is offline
 
Join Date: June 2, 2004
Posts: 18,519
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why Homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious View Post
According to your "analysis" sex outside the time of estrus is "disordered" and should not happen, since there is no possibility of procreation.
That is not accurate at all. The act must reatin its relationship to procreation, not each act must achieve conception.


Quote:
Flying airplanes is an "unnatural" act. That does not make flying a "disorder".
Flying is not against the natural moral law at all.




Quote:
Now you really went off into the never-never land. According to your nonsense, elderly people beyond the procreative age, or couples who happen to be infertile are not supposed to have sex.
Not true at all. Those people still engage in a marital act that is unitive and procreative.


Quote:
The idea that a non-harmful behavior can be "wrong" cannot appear in a secular environment. And the original poster attempted (and miserably failed) to present a secular argument.
Consent does not make a bad act turn good. "Harm" is more than sudden physical injury.
  #5  
Old Mar 2, '12, 9:14 am
kch86 kch86 is offline
Trial Membership
 
Join Date: February 29, 2012
Posts: 275
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why Homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious View Post
The idea that a non-harmful behavior can be "wrong" cannot appear in a secular environment. And the original poster attempted (and miserably failed) to present a secular argument.
This.

I think from the secular perspective, even objectively harmful behaviour (i.e. causing bodily damage or death) cannot really be "wrong" if consent is given or one lacks the capacity to give it, because "harm" is viewed from a subjective standpoint. Hence we have assisted suicide, euthanasia and abortion, and the recent justification of "after-birth abortion" in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

Given that secular morality nowadays is pretty empty and based on little more than a person's subjective perception of harm, it easily allows for the justification of various barbaric practices like the ones mentioned above because they follow logically from the premises.
  #6  
Old Mar 2, '12, 9:21 am
sw85's Avatar
sw85 sw85 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2010
Posts: 3,177
Religion: Baptized and confirmed Easter Vigil, 2012
Default Re: Why Homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective

Please be aware that by "natural," Catholics generally mean "consistent with the nature of," not "occurring in nature." The latter definition is a materialist innovation.

JABA is not actually saying anything new. It's the Church's attitude toward homosexuality with reference to God and the Bible removed, i.e., a purely natural law take.

Which is perfectly legitimate even from a secular perspective. States legislate on the basis of some conception of the good. Obviously, what's good depends on what we're talking about -- what's good for a dog is not the same thing as what's good for a man (though there's overlap). "What's good for a man" depends on what man is, and what man is is, among other things, a creature with a sexual faculty naturally aimed at procreation. So it's good for man to use his sexual faculty in a manner consistent with the aim of procreation and bad for him to use it otherwise. There's literally nothing objectionable about this.

No, procreation is not "secondary" to sexual activity. Sex is pleasurable because it's procreative. If it weren't in principle ordered toward procreation it wouldn't be pleasurable. We know this because we have all kinds of manners of physical contact which are neither pleasurable nor procreative, such as handshaking. If handshaking led to pregnancy, then yes, handshaking would be pleasurable. The fact that people have sex mainly because they want pleasure doesn't prove anything, except that most people are slaves to their passions.
__________________
"…[M]istrust is always in order when the greater part of living history must be tossed into the dustbin of old misunderstandings now happily clarified."

-- Pope Benedict XVI --
  #7  
Old Mar 2, '12, 9:21 am
prodigalson2011's Avatar
prodigalson2011 prodigalson2011 is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2011
Posts: 2,480
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why Homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious View Post
Procreation would not be possibile without the pleasurable aspect. In the whole animal world, with the notable exception of the higher apes sex and procreation go hand in hand - as a biological arrangement. Outside the estrus there is no sexual urge. This is simply not true for the higher apes and humans (who belong to the higher apes). In the case of higher apes and humans the pleasure seeking part is not only possible outside the estrus, it is preferred. According to your "analysis" sex outside the time of estrus is "disordered" and should not happen, since there is no possibility of procreation. A piece of statistics: "about 95% of sexual encounters is aimed at pleasue seeking and the procreation is considered an unlucky by-product, which should be defended against and avoided if possible.
The fact that most people pursue sex for wrong reasons doesn't make it right. And to say procreation would be impossible without pleasure is laughably absurd. If people want children and know how to make them, they can and will do so, with or without finding pleasure in it. Of course, the fact is that the act is pleasurable, but to suggest that it could not function without the corresponding sensations is demonstrably false.

Also, saying that procreation is an unlucky byproduct of sex is ridiculous. Pleasure is the by product. Procreation is the purpose. The entire point of male genital stimulation is toachieve the ejaculation of semen. Semen carries sperm. Sperm carries the necessary genetic information to create a child.

Children are the most consequential, lasting, and throughout all animal species, including humans, universal result of sex. Unless you're going to try and argue that the functionality of the reproductive system was an accidental development of tissues whose primary propose was to generate pleasure, but by some unfortunate mishap developed the ability to propagate the species by creating two perfectly complementary systems of genetic information transfer, I'd drop that argument.

Quote:
Flying airplane s is an "unnatural" act. That does not make flying a "disorder".
If this is what you consider an argument, wow.
Flying airplanes is not at all unnatural. It is actually the result of a very deep understanding of the laws of physics, which are a part of nature. Next, please.

Quote:
Since procreation is secondary to pleasure seeking, this point is irrelevant.
Only in the subjective view of the hedonist. Objectively, sex is a physical act. The result of pleasure is transient and subjective. The creation of a child is long lasting, material and of greater consequence to objective reality than one's own pleasure. Procreation is the scientifically demonstrable primary purpose of the sexual faculty from a completely materialistic perspective. So, again, barring theism from the equation, you lose again.

Quote:
Now you really went off into the never-never land. According to your nonsense, elderly people beyond the procreative age, or couples who happen to be infertile are not supposed to have sex.
As tired an argument as any. You fail to entertains the difference between substantial and incidental circumstances. A crippled bird isn't doing anything unnatural by trying to fly. A turtle, on the other hand, is. One intrinsically, by very nature of his being lacks the faculties to do something, the other does not. There is a difference.

You go on to state that homosexual behavior does not harm anyone. I would advise you to read the arguments counter to that claim. Societal acceptance of homosexuality leads to an observable decay in sexual ethics in general, helping to spread acceptance of promiscuity, which leads to the spread and development of STDs, and so on.
.
__________________
“Sometimes the only way the good Lord can get into some hearts is to break them.”
― Fulton J. Sheen

"While truth is unchanging, it changes those who encounter it." - Fr. Cedric Pisegna

Last edited by prodigalson2011; Mar 2, '12 at 9:40 am.
  #8  
Old Mar 2, '12, 9:26 am
mgreen77 mgreen77 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 2010
Posts: 288
Religion: Religious Nomad
Default Re: Why Homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective

Eating chocolate is "disordered" behavior too.

The purpose of eating is for nourishment. Eating for pleasure is disordered and not what nature intended.

Look at all the misery the chocolate lifestyle creates! Expanding tummies, diabetes...

Chocolate must go.
  #9  
Old Mar 2, '12, 9:33 am
kch86 kch86 is offline
Trial Membership
 
Join Date: February 29, 2012
Posts: 275
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why Homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective

Quote:
Originally Posted by sw85 View Post
JABA is not actually saying anything new. It's the Church's attitude toward homosexuality with reference to God and the Bible removed, i.e., a purely natural law take.
While that is true, and may have held some sway with pre-Christian atheists for whom philosophy and the pursuit of truth held some import, the modern secularist rejects natural law.

The current secular dogma can be summarised in two simple points:

1) "Wrong" is
a) something that causes subjective harm or
b) denying someone (2)
2) "Right" is what you want.

It is more or less identical to the doctrine of Satanism: "Do what thou wilt but harm none," or, in its more extreme form, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
  #10  
Old Mar 2, '12, 9:39 am
sw85's Avatar
sw85 sw85 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2010
Posts: 3,177
Religion: Baptized and confirmed Easter Vigil, 2012
Default Re: Why Homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgreen77 View Post
Eating chocolate is "disordered" behavior too.

The purpose of eating is for nourishment. Eating for pleasure is disordered and not what nature intended.

Look at all the misery the chocolate lifestyle creates! Expanding tummies, diabetes...

Chocolate must go.
Certainly excessive eating of chocolate is a sin: the sin of gluttony. You don't suppose though that there is *absolutely no benefit whatsoever* to eating small amounts of chocolates, do you?

Try again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kch86 View Post
While that is true, and may have held some sway with pre-Christian atheists for whom philosophy and the pursuit of truth held some import, the modern secularist rejects natural law.

The current secular dogma can be summarised in two simple points:

1) "Wrong" is a) something that causes subjective harm or b) denying someone (2)

2) "Right" is what you want.

It is more or less identical to the doctrine of Satanism: "Do what thou wilt but harm none," or, in its more extreme form, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
Oh yes, I'm quite aware of the utter vacuity and evil of modern ethical systems. I sometimes wonder why we bother trying to reason with such moral boneheads!
__________________
"…[M]istrust is always in order when the greater part of living history must be tossed into the dustbin of old misunderstandings now happily clarified."

-- Pope Benedict XVI --
  #11  
Old Mar 2, '12, 9:55 am
Serious Serious is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: February 18, 2012
Posts: 769
Default Re: Why Homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective

Quote:
Originally Posted by fix View Post
That is not accurate at all. The act must reatin its relationship to procreation, not each act must achieve conception.

Not true at all. Those people still engage in a marital act that is unitive and procreative.
These are not secular arguments. They are Catholic ones. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but the OP attempted to bring up some secular arguments. But read the OP again, please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fix View Post
Consent does not make a bad act turn good. "Harm" is more than sudden physical injury.
I did not say it was. If an act does not hurt anyone, either directly or indirectly, then to call that act "harrmful" or "bad" is nonsense.
  #12  
Old Mar 2, '12, 10:00 am
fix fix is offline
 
Join Date: June 2, 2004
Posts: 18,519
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why Homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgreen77 View Post
Eating chocolate is "disordered" behavior too.

The purpose of eating is for nourishment. Eating for pleasure is disordered and not what nature intended.

Look at all the misery the chocolate lifestyle creates! Expanding tummies, diabetes...

Chocolate must go.

For one thing chocolate certainly provides nourishment. But, your argument does not hold. The gift of fertility is not some intrumental good we suppress or stop for some other perceived good.
  #13  
Old Mar 2, '12, 10:01 am
Serious Serious is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: February 18, 2012
Posts: 769
Default Re: Why Homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective

Quote:
Originally Posted by kch86 View Post
I think from the secular perspective, even objectively harmful behaviour (i.e. causing bodily damage or death) cannot really be "wrong" if consent is given ...
So far you are correct. If one consents, it is his business, and not mine or yours or anyone else's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kch86 View Post
or one lacks the capacity to give it, because "harm" is viewed from a subjective standpoint.
But this does not follow. Not that any of your comments (they are not actually arguments) have anything to do with the thread.
  #14  
Old Mar 2, '12, 10:03 am
fix fix is offline
 
Join Date: June 2, 2004
Posts: 18,519
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why Homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious View Post
These are not secular arguments. They are Catholic ones. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but the OP attempted to bring up some secular arguments. But read the OP again, please.
But, I was responding to your post. The reasoning I expressed can certainly be known from secular logic. It is not an issue of divine revelation.


Quote:
I did not say it was. If an act does not hurt anyone, either directly or indirectly, then to call that act "harrmful" or "bad" is nonsense.
How are you using the word harm?
  #15  
Old Mar 2, '12, 10:09 am
kch86 kch86 is offline
Trial Membership
 
Join Date: February 29, 2012
Posts: 275
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why Homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious View Post
So far you are correct. If one consents, it is his business, and not mine or yours or anyone else's.


But this does not follow. Not that any of your comments (they are not actually arguments) have anything to do with the thread.
Of course it does. We're arguing about the morality of homosexuality from a secular perspective, and my point is that modern secularist thinking is completely blind to moral arguments because it has dogmatically accepted the standard I have attempted to explain.

And how does my point about harm being considered subjectively not follow? If one consents to something that is objectively harmful, the secularist sees it as right, and that therefore means he adopts subjective criteria, i.e. the point of view of the person objectively being harmed who has consented, as the standard for evaluating whether the action was right or wrong.

If the person suffering objective harm is not sufficiently aware so as to be able to perceive that harm subjectively, as in the case of a child being aborted, it is not wrong in the eyes of the secularist.
Closed Thread

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Social Justice

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8049Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: KayleighPigg
4829CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: Vim71
4295Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: James_OPL
4027OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: fencersmother
3813SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3377Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3184Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: libralion
3150Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
2963For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: 4Jessie
2703Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:19 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2013, Catholic Answers.