Why Homosexuality is a Natural Law Issue


“Let the sexual revolution bury the sexual revolution. Having finished revolving, we arrive back where we started. What your mother—no, what your grandmother—no, what your great-grandmother—told you was right all along. These are the natural laws of sex.”
Some say that natural law is dead. Daniel Mattson doesn’t think so. He makes a good case for using it, and he uses it himself when discussing sexual morality. I found his short article to be hopeful.



Being gay is quite normal and natural to a homosexual I assure you.


Drinking excessive amounts of liquor is quite normal and pleasing to an alcoholic I assure you.

. . .and btw, the author of the cited article, “As a man who once considered himself a gay man, and converted to the Catholic Church in large part because of the Church’s teaching on the natural law,”, would obviously disagree with you.



Masturbation seems natural to someone who feels like it, having sex outside of marriage with someone you love feels natural, overeating seems natural to someone with an eating disorder. The list could go on forever.

We are not called to give in to our disordered desires we are called to conversion, although we are perfectly free to do as we wish and most of us do (myself included) quite often. I just know that Jesus desires me to something higher and better.


Sorry but masturbation has nothing in common with drinking too much or eating too much. In fact, it IS perfectly natural for teens going through puberty to discover this on their own. It’s pretty much universally accepted in the medical community to be normal and yes “natural.” Of course no in the church where it’s a mortal sin. :shrug:


Rather than just shooting from the hip in order to try to get a rise out of people on a Catholic forum, you might just want to try to read the cited article. You might actually learn something.


Not all of them, I can promise you that.


Practicing bestiality is quite normal and natural to a zoophile. Being attracted to your mother/father/sister/brother/cousin is quite normal and natural to those who practice incest. Being a pedophile is quite normal and natural to a pedophile. Being a polygamist is quite normal and natural for a polygamist.

If you don’t think comparing a disordered sexual attraction to a disordered substance attraction is accurate or fair, then we have to compare it to other disordered sexual attractions.


I think to act on strong sexual desires with a willing partner typically feels good. It may feel normal and natural. But if one engages the intellect, how normal and natural is it really?


The article that Daniel Mattson is refuting makes, IMO, one good argument. For some reason, Mattson dances around the point without really addressing it head on. Melinda Selmys, in, 10 Reasons Homosexuality is Not a Natural Law Issue, says that there is a language barrier when talking about this issue; and an argument put forth by Catholics for the general public will not be effective unless non-Catholics understand Catholic speak. Mattson overcame this hurdle, but I would argue he is the exception not the rule.

For most, sexual desire is our strongest physical desire. Given that, shouldn’t we make sure the Catholic dialogue about natural law can be understood. Contemporary society has been so good at grooming people to think their desires, ‘as long as they don’t hurt anyone’, are natural. So I think Catholics need to step up their game. Not just point a finger and say, “disordered, disordered!”. Speaking to someone in a language they don’t understand is disordered.

Mattson’s article doesn’t even touch on the issue of whether or not people are born gay, or if same/opposite sexual attraction is a spectrum. This is a fundamental point that asserts whether or not God has a hand in sexual attraction. I can only speak for myself, and I can tell you, my opposite sex attraction was not a choice.


We are meant to overcome our “natural” impulses when they do not serve their purpose, whether it be the hunger response in an eating disorder, the alcohol craving in alcoholism, **or **alternative sexuality.

As with so many things, CS Lewis got this one right more than fifty years ago. He saw that while we teach to “bridle” our other impulses, we give sex its head, just because it makes such compelling promises. But the society itself will decay if that process continues to completion.





No, I think you’re wrong.

I had someone say to me yesterday, “No one wakes up one morning and says, 'I want to become a heroin addict today. And no heroin addict wakes up and says, ‘I love my life.’”

It’s not even worth responding further if people truly believe that substance use disorders are in any way commensurate to homosexuality.

A person doesn’t die from homosexuality. A person doesn’t die from masturbation. Or extra-marital sex. Or whatever. And skip it with your statistics about the potential for disease, etc. There are thousands of other ways to die that no one worries about.

I’d better stop now because I’m grumpy and liable to get unwanted attention from a Mod. :o


Did you really just reduce substance use disorders to an “attraction”?! Srsly?

Are you really equating heroin addicts to a sexual predators?

You’re going to compare a teenage girl who becomes iatrogenically addicted to doctor prescribed opioid analgesics to a zoophile?



I haven’t read the article, but if it draws comparisons between substance abuse and sexual morality then it’s not worth reading.


Comparing homosexuality to alcoholism, bestiality, drug abuse, or any kind of disorder or disease is offensive, ignorant and incorrect. Doesn’t catechism teach nothing’s wrong with being gay? :shrug:


No, and I don’t see where you got the idea that I was. I agree that comparing sexual attractions to substance abuse probably isn’t the best argument, but those examples are often the first we think of, and they don’t elicit as big a reaction as comparing it to other disordered sexual attractions. Though the conversation does need to lead there eventually, starting it off by comparing homosexuals to pedophiles, zoophiles or others is the best way to end it prematurely and get you labeled as a “bigot”.

Strydersroom called out the substance argument for essentially being unrelated to sexual attractions, so I jumped in and said, “If you don’t want to us to beat around the bush, fine. If homosexuals view homosexuality as normal and natural, I’m sure pedophiles, zoophiles and polygamists think the same way.”


If you cannot possibly see any difference between these groups then there’s nothing else really to say. I’m just very happy our kids will be laughing that we even had this conversation. :slight_smile:

But I digress, let me add some responses because I’m sure murderers, torturers, and all kinds of other evil doers think the same way :shrug:


Not quite. The Church teaches:
1). Sexual acts outside marriage - and that, by definition, includes all sexual acts between persons of the same sex, are always wrong;
2). The inclination toward same sex acts (aka same sex attraction) is not itself sinful, but is also not a good thing because it is an inclination to something immoral;
3). Persons experiencing SSA deserve to be treated respectfully, free of unjust discrimination. [Of course, this teaching is not particular to these persons, but serves to corrects those who, by their behaviour, appear to believe the contrary is justified.]


I know you are somewhat new here, and from the posts of yours I’ve seen, quite an advocate of your chosen lifestyle. I’m glad you are searching (presumably).

I will keep you and your children lifted in prayer.

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.