Why is homosexuality immoral?


#21

Romantic. Homosexuality has always seemed wrong, but I’m not able to put my finger on why.


#22

Actually, the OP did. The TITLE of his/her thread is “WHY is homosexuality immoral?”
The question further of “why can’t homosexual people just love” however, reflected the confused way in which homosexuality and ‘love’ are viewed by many today.

Homosexual inclinations are not in themselves immoral.
HOWEVER, homosexual ‘sexual relations’ ARE immoral.

People can have ‘relationships’ which are ‘sexless’. A chaste relationship between two heterosexual OR homosexual people is not immoral. A sexual relationship between two unmarried heterosexual people, or between two heterosexual people who are not married to each other, or a sexual relationship between two homosexual people, would be immoral.

The fact that a person can ‘love’ another person (and talk about a word whose definition is broad!!) does not mean that the love ‘cancels’ out immorality. A man could worship the ground his mistress walks on, and that doesn’t make his adultery moral. A man could even have his wife’s ‘blessing’ on an adulterous affair --still doesn’t make it moral.

The scandal and confusion exist to a great extent today because people redefine language and use language to mean whatever the hell(and I use that term with intent) they want it to mean.

Thus the poor OP is exposed to a culture in which the definition of love is so broad that it encompasses everything from ‘mother love’ to ‘love of God’ and ‘love of one’s fellow beings’ --all of those terms being positive and ‘moral’ – and then they hear homosexual people saying, “all we want is to LOVE EACH OTHER” and oh golly gee, it sounds as if we are trying to deny them the RIGHT TO LOVE --how horrid!

But the Catholic Church does not deny homosexual people the right to love morally, just as it does not deny heterosexual unmarried people (or even married people) the right to love morally. (And I must reiterate, as it seems this is constantly forgotten, that the Catholic Church **does not make up rules about love or sex or whatever. GOD ‘makes the rules’. The Church, as it has always done, merely reminds people what God’s rules are. . .because every generation always winds up trying to ignore some rules and reinterpret others.)

**God, through His Son, His written word, His Holy Spirit, and the Church He gave to the world, knows what is best for His creation. His ‘rules’ are positive ones that will ensure not only our ‘success’ in living in this world, but our fitness and our ultimate happiness for eternal life in the next. We would do well to ignore the siren song of the Devil (who quotes Scripture and loves to take a good thing like ‘love’ and turn it into an evil idol in the place of true love, and try to trick us into accepting it as the real deal).


#23

I think the OP (and correct me if I’m wrong) means the type of love a married couple have for each other. With a certain degree of sexual attraction. But no sex.

What would be acceptable might be an interesting venue to explore. Would holding hands be ok? A caress? Peck on the cheek? An obvious example of mutual attraction?

Where does the church draw the line?


#24

I guess the Church draws the line at sexual relations, however I think such scenarios would be a matter of prudential judgment (such as occasion of sin etc) in a similar way one would see it with a heterosexual married man and relations with other women.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh


#25

This article has to do with the practice of male homosexuality. I guess the title says it all.
Their sexual proclivities are killing them.


#26

Perfecto, Bradski! I am wondering why they can’t have a romantic relationship. I will obey the Church no matter what the result of this thread is, but I have already made the Faith look bad by opposing it without valid arguments.


#27

Your premise is faulty. Love is good. It manifests properly according to circumstances. I love my sister in law differently to my wife.

Two men may love each other, care deeply for each other. They may choose to share a home. But they may no more choose to engage in sexual acts than any other person not married. If their relationship tempts them towards sexual acts, they must review their situation.


#28

I get Church teaching. I want to know why it’s immoral, because Church teaching doesn’t help with a largely morally bankrupt grade. Not the best place to be an open Catholic without clear responses. I was led in a tangle.

Are romantic relationships actually allowed between two men or women? That sounds contrary to logic.

Sorry if blunt, but I got led in circles today, and these people now probably think Catholicism, Christianity, and maybe religion in general is stupid and rigid and rude. I don’t want to lead anyone else astray.


#29

Homosexuality is considered immoral, for one reason, it is condemned in scripture, in the Old Testament, probably in Leviticus 18: you shall not lie with a man as like with a woman.

I’ve been reading some writings of the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria – an Egyptian Greek-speaking Jew whose writings were and still are highly valued in Christian academic circles, for his commentary on the OT displaying the beliefs in Judaism at the time of Christ. Having said all that, in what I’ve read, he didn’t deal with homosexuality in these particular writings. But, in general, he talks about the natural law which is revealed in the lives of people in Genesis, whose holy lives [by his reckoning] precede their encapsulation in the Sinai covenant in particular and in the other writings of Moses.
So, even from the Hebrew scriptures, it is recognized that homosexual actions are considered inherently or “naturally” wrong.

but, the problem modern people may have is a general ignorance of Bible teaching or confusion about which parts of it still apply today, and whether those prohibitions really mean the same today as they did when they were written.

Just as we have scientific evidence which does not agree with a notion of six days of creation revealed in scripture, a lot of people reject the prohibitions against homosexuality for all the more that we know about it today. the prohibitions against homosexuality in scripture may have been against pagan cult practices, just as other negative commands in the Torah are.

today we know that there is a genetic basis for schizophrenia, cystic fibrosis, and other diseases, and the idea of a genetic basis (broadly speaking) for homosexuality is still on the table (so to speak). So, there may be some basis for optimism for a medical cure sometime in the future.

The best place to review the Church’s current thinking is in the various writings on the theology of the body. You need to read this right from the sources.


#30

In addition to my previous post, I want to add that almost any specific issues addressed in these forms should always be understood in the overall message of the gospel and salvation. We all need evangelization, and not just counseling on abortion or contraception or adultery. We need the whole gospel to understand every part of it.


#31

The line is unequivocally crossed when sexual acts are entertained / committed. Other behaviour that threatens to lead there is unwise and the church teaches we should not place ourselves in situations where sin becomes a materially heightened risk. You need to decide how your understanding of “romantic” contrasts with what I’ve explained, then you will have your answer.


#32

Considering themselves boyfriend and boyfriend or girlfriend and girlfriend.


#33

We understand what a free man and free woman mean by those expressions, and the potential future implied and to which they are open, and to which they possibly aspire. Now if two same sex persons view the terms in the same way, we’d have to say they are denying the truth of their reality as, say, 2 men. It is difficult to see how such a relationship will lead to a good place. People don’t remain “romantic” friends forever.


#34

So, trying to answer your question. Two same sex persons can live together and care for each other greatly. But like you heard from the Church’s position that love should and cannot ever be expressed sexually. Now,… where does one draw the line? That is a difficult question and probably varies based upon the people within the friendship. However, I think a major thing to avoid is making the friendship into a pseudo-marriage minus the sex mentality. So, it should take a lot of prayer, discussion, and even spiritual counsel before I think I would consider an intentional community thing like this.

Here is actually a good post between two woman who are celibate: aqueercalling.com/2014/07/18/ask-yourself-these-questions-before-entering-a-celibate-relationship/


#35

So they can live together as friends, and love them as friends deeply; but (A) - No considering selves boyfriend/boyfriend or girlfriend/girlfriend. (B) - Do not make it like a pseudo-marriage.

How would I word (B) better? I don’t want to misrepresent the Church’s teaching.


#36

Given the insistence that you don’t know why, it is clear to me that you do not “get” Church teaching on the matter.

Are romantic relationships actually allowed between two men or women?

Yes, in the proper context.

That sounds contrary to logic.

Sounds like and is are not always the same.

Sorry if blunt, but I got led in circles today, and these people now probably think Catholicism, Christianity, and maybe religion in general is stupid and rigid and rude. I don’t want to lead anyone else astray.

Sounds like what teenagers say about the parents when they don’t want to follow the rules.


#37

I don’t know if the Church has a formal position other than sex is reserved for marriage. I was trying to offer a perspective. If it is treated as a pseudo-marriage, it in all likelihood would make being celibate and chaste more difficult.

For B, I would it view as two people creating an intentional community and an intentional friendship with the goal of supporting each other in growing their faith, support in their chastity, and spiritual growth.


#38

One word DISEASE

**Homosexual practice was banned for a reason. **The rectal cell wall is only one cell layer thick, it is easily damaged - meaning viruses and bacteria enter the bloodstream with ease. Additionally, ejaculate itself is immunosuppressive and sperm can enter the bloodstream directly. Add to this the frequent tearing and fecal matter, and you can imagine the results.

This is supported by empirical evidence in terms of disease prevalence. Homosexuals are far more likely to spread disease according to the Centre for Disease Control. In fact, certain STDs are almost unheard of outside the homosexual population.

So, in short, even if no malicious intent is present, it is at the very least a negligent activity and certainly not in the spirit of Christian love.

SOURCES:

catholiceducation.org/en/…f-gay-sex.html

healthland.time.com/2012/07/2…-studies-show/

cdc.gov/msmhealth/std.htm


#39

The problem with this response is that many heterosexuals practice sodomy and many homosexuals don’t.

Additionally (and I know this is not Catholic teaching, but rather Science’s teaching), there are safe ways to engage in such acts.

Most oral acts do not lead to the issues you bring up - for those oriented either way. Lesbians have the lowest rates of STDs and disease.

Finally, if two people have followed Catholic Church teaching and are sexually faithful only to each other, no random pickup disease will enter the relationship.

In days past (and sometimes present), certain sodomitical acts were/are actually a violent power play - like rape, even though heterosexual rape is “ordered towards nature and life.”


#40

I don’t know the extent of heterosexual sodomy, but this article enumerates the huge extent of the problem and the resulting pathology among men having sex with men (MSM).


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.