Homosexuality debate, secular level

So, who’s ready to say “he we go again”? XD

Unfortunately, I’m debating with non-religious people, so secular reples are needed. I can go all out philosophy, but I’m sure they won’t buy it. I need some answers to the run of the mill questions and sources to back them up (questions like, born that way, it’s “love”, our right, etc…)

Thanks ^_^/
Rykuu

The parts don’t seem to fit…:stuck_out_tongue:

I wonder if this forum could ban gay topics for one month. We need a break!

Homosexuals and the very liberal media want to convince everyone that one’s sexual orientation is “just the way they are”, equivalent to their race or height or the color of their eyes. But homosexuality is a choice. It is not how someone is physically; it is how they choose to think and act. And if a person has to accept homosexuals as something the homosexuals have no control (They say they just ARE.) Then logically, a person would have to accept pedophiles as just who they are, because pedophiles were describing themselves in the same words way back in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Look it up in some sociology and psychology college textbooks, the same words: “it is just the way I am.”

In terms of legal marriage, the State does not have an interest in promoting same sex unions, whereas it does have an interest in developing procreating families and protecting the child rearer from the effects of divorce, i.e. to take advantage of the equitable distribution of assets versus mere 50/50 split, and/or a split based on contribution. Same sex unions simply do not require a marriage license to divide assets as neither party is in an inherently weaker economic position because of child birth. If one does stay home to raise the children, their position is not inherent but purely voluntary.

.
This is not accurate. This is very, very, very incorrect. On so many levels.
Why ever do you think this?
Have you had some sort of bad experience that has led you to believing this?

The catechism for the church you follow doesn’t even agree with this.

.

Can we ask you the same thing, DaddyGirl?

Why do you feel it is incorrect?

Why do you think the inclusion of pedophilia under the Gay Liberation umbrella was NOT professed by many gay activists in the 1960s and 1970s? Why do you feel that so many influential gay activists fought tooth and nail to continue to include NAMBLA in gay rights parades, or fought so hard to eliminate the age of consent for homosexual relationships? Do you have any historical cites to show that this was not true?

Do you know who Allen Ginsberg was? Or Bill Andriette? Or David Thorstad? Or Samuel Delaney? Or Irish presidential candidate David Norris?

What did they, and many other gay liberation icons, all have in common?

Can you cite any college sociology or psychological textbooks that have argued that pedophiles and/or pederasts DON’T make the same claims about a genetic origin for their behavior?

What experiences have you had that have led you to believe that homosexuality has a genetic origin, but pederasty does not?

If you think a pederast’s claim of a genetic origin in his sexual attraction to boys is NOT a valid excuse for his behavior, why should the similar argument of a man with a same-sex attraction not also be dismissed as irrelevant?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church disagrees with your assertion. Same-sex attraction is generally held to be something one is born with and has no control over. Don’t confuse that with homosexual ACTIONS, which, like any sexual interaction, IS a choice, and is considered inherently disordered and sinful, just like adultery and any other form of sex outside of marriage. The Catholic Church calls us to tolerate and love all *people *with the same dignity. This is very different from tolerating or condoning sinful actions.

This is directly quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Source: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

:banghead:

I would approach it very scientifically. In gay sex, partners have to practice exceptional cleaning to prevent bacterial contamination from fecal matter. Contrast the complete lack of that necessity in normal heterosexual sex. The risk is high in gay sex because the combination of organs in intercourse isn’t supposed to be. It violates the basic biological function of the GI tract.

Next I’d ask what the biological function of intercourse is in mammals, which is procreation. Homosexual sex makes this an impossibility. So it doesn’t follow the natural order.

Finally, ask what happens to someone who is abused (doesnt have to be sexual abuse). There is psychological trauma that makes the victim much more likely to either continue being abused, or turn the tables and become abusive themselves, than someone who was not subject to it. So, if someone has an unnatural and against the natural order sexual encounter while their identity is in a formative stage (and I would consider such an act abusive) they are also much more likely to repeat the pattern (in this case, a homosexual lifestyle).

So, if a homosexual act violates the normal functioning of the human body, and violates the natural purpose of intercourse in mammals, and exhibits patterns similar to other abusive pathologies, how can it be considered natural or normal?

And that’s why God condemns homosexuality…

The whole line of thinking of ‘this is how they are’ is a copout because people would rather live and let live, rather than telling someone their messed up. And for many in the gay community, they worship at the church of hedonism ( as do many heterosexuals ), so arguments that are religiously based will fall because they go to a place they can’t or won’t acknowledge.

It is a huge jump to go from “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” to:

That is not at all what the Catechism is saying, you’re distorting the words. “Deep-seated” is not “born that way” because if it meant “born that way” not only would it follow that God willed homosexual acts to be intrinsic to human nature and not a result of Original Sin, but it would also follow that the Church could not insist that homosexual desires are “objectively disordered.”

Amen!

Not to mention the deep psychological depression that follows, even with those who have “come out”. They mistakenly believe that their depression came from the shame of hiding their tendencies(as if people who knew them didn’t know already), yet it continues long afterwards when according to them it ought to be alleviated.

They simply don’t connect the psychological depression with the abuse that they endure as an “open” homosexual engaging in those acts.

They ignore that sex has a necessary spiritual component that is precisely ordered to a union between a man and a woman(although it would do no good to bring this fact up in the discussion). And that this spiritual “connection” that they are ultimately seeking, even through homosexual acts, is the very thing which is being denied to them because its simply not how God designed us. That is why they are constantly frustrated and feel empty; they are getting precisely what they want “sexually”, they think it will give them the fullness they desire, yet they never possess it.

That’s the great lie.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

I seriously suggest that you read my response to their comments. The Church doesn’t teach that homosexuals are “born” homosexual.

You’re in luck, because I’m offering a once-in-a-lifetime deal. You get to test your secular arguments on an actual atheist first! How about that? :wink:

That would be because you’re pairing the wrong parts. Now you could argue that sodomy isn’t the healthiest way to have intercourse, but few seem to complain when straight couples do it. Oh, and almost no one has qualms with oral sex, even though that’s not particularly safe either. And I could list the copious other techniques straight couples use which don’t involve “parts that fit”. Almost no one protests these other techniques.

Or you could just avoid the topics you don’t like rather than insisting on censorship. :shrug:

I don’t think anyone seriously believes that pedophiles choose to be pedophiles. Why would anyone choose to be something that is almost universally hated? There is literally no benefit, no incentive to choose it whatsoever.

And before anyone puts words in my mouth, no, I’m not saying we should let pedophiles have their way with kids. We should treat them for their disorder. The reason pedophilia is wrong is because children are incapable of consenting to sex. Homosexual sex is not at all analogous to this, as two adult men or women are perfectly capable of giving consent. It’s ridiculous that I should even have to explain this difference. The same goes for bestiality or whatever else anyone dreams up.

That’s rather naive.

Why would anyone choose to be something that is almost universally hated? There is literally no benefit, no incentive to choose it whatsoever.

Just because you can’t understand the incentive or benefit they derive from it doesn’t mean that for them it doesn’t exist. Your problem is that you’re trying to rationalize something which not rational.

They derive pleasure from it. That’s their only real end.

And before anyone puts words in my mouth, no, I’m not saying we should let pedophiles have their way with kids. We should treat them for their disorder. The reason pedophilia is wrong is because children are incapable of consenting to sex. Homosexual sex is not at all analogous to this, as two adult men or women are perfectly capable of giving consent. It’s ridiculous that I should even have to explain this difference. The same goes for bestiality or whatever else anyone dreams up.

Which means that all you’ve done is set an arbitrary bar according to the subjective and relative morality that you choose to accept.

The problem is that when your morality “bumps up”(no pun intended) against their morality-the morality of the pedophile/pederast/bestiality lover, etc.

You absolutely have no grounds to object or impose your morality onto them. Remember, for the atheist there is no real good or evil, only the biological movements of beings. You then have to accept everything on those grounds.

From the theistic perspective, the “consent” argument is an absurd argument. Consent is based upon the false presumption of ownership or absolute autonomy someone’s physical body. So instead of the body as something to be cherished as sacred, its merely a tool to obtain pleasure or other materialistic ends. “Consent” isn’t even a valid criteria for heterosexuals much less homosexuals.

The problem is you didn’t create yourself, so you don’t “own” your body, nobody does. Its a gift.

If you claim that you can or do own our bodies, then there is no reason that owning other bodies, even by force and against the other’s free will, is not morally licit. Which means that an atheist has no real moral answer against sex trafficking(child or otherwise) or forced sex slavery either.

It seems rather that the “consent” argument winds up negating the very “freedom” which it claims is its basis.

But this fact is entirely relevant. Irrationality is something that people typically don’t choose, but is instead imposed on us by hormones and the like. Love is a prime example. If you could choose who to love, life would be far easier for everyone.

They derive pleasure from it. That’s their only real end.

Did they, at some point in their lives, decide that they would derive pleasure from viewing children as sexual objects? Of course not. No one chooses their sexuality. You didn’t choose to be straight. Granted, if you’re married, you chose that, but that’s not the same as choosing the orientation to begin with.

Heck, if this whole deal with orientation is a choice, I wish I could just choose to be asexual. Life would be incredibly simple. I bet loads of people would choose that.

Which means that all you’ve done is set an arbitrary bar according to the subjective and relative morality that you choose to accept.

As I’ve said in other threads you’ve been in, everyone makes arbitrary stipulations at some point. Everyone has their “axioms”. At some point, you chose Christian morality because, for whatever reason, you sympathized with the doctrine espoused by it. You can’t use this doctrine to substantiate the choice, because that would be circular reasoning. The choice was yours and yours alone.

The problem is that when your morality “bumps up”(no pun intended) against their morality-the morality of the pedophile/pederast/bestiality lover, etc.

Scary stuff. So you’re telling me that, if morality is subjective as I surmise, then lots of people in the world will disagree with each other over matters of morality? Will they also debate over the correct policies that should be implemented for the public good? Will they disagree as to what the public good is? Will they take to Internet forums to discuss moral issues further? Would it be the case that we’d have an entire tradition of philosophers opining and arguing about morality that extends back for millennia?

You’ve convinced me. It’s a good thing we don’t live in such a world. :thumbsup:

The problem is you didn’t create yourself, so you don’t “own” your body, nobody does. Its a gift.

If you insist you can only own what you make, you can feel free to surrender all of your property now. I’m sure you didn’t make your computer, your house, your land, or your clothes.

Your response doesn’t answer the question, and actually reinforces the Christian argument (so, thank you). If moral stipulations are arbitrary as you seem to believe, why is our disgust at pederasty anything more than a simple aesthetic choice, like your preference in musical groups? On what basis can you argue that a pederast’s desire for a boy should be considered wrong?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.