I assume some people want to give up the responsibility of making their own decisions for themselves; they see it as a burden.
This should read “homosexual sex is unnatural” or “homosexual sex is disallowed” since we’re not using the term natural anymore.
Well, I’m old-fashioned and try to adhere as best I can to the teachings of the Magisterium. Obviously if the Church tells me to burn babies, I will refuse, but for complicated, obfuscatory matters such as homosexuality, I tend to agree. I agree, but at the same time I always keep an open mind, and I am always willing to debate the issue in a forum such as GD. Please keep in mind that, contrary to how it may seem, the Catholic Church is a firm believer in Truth (“The Truth shall set you free,” along with several other influential verses in the Gospel of John.)
Well, if my explanation above makes me seem a mindless drone and a slave to the Papacy to anyone, then so be it.
Hell, I didn’t even want to bring up this topic for discussion. You could say I was anti-Pitted by Heffalump 
For me, that is not the case… just throwing that out there. On top of that, it really saddens me to see such sweeping generalizations posted merely for the sake of bad-mouthing religion.
The thing that made homosexuality “immoral” was the Biblical stricture. To many that’s irrelevant.
Ok, but then you’re going to have to lay out some sort of thought process other than “This is what the Catholic Church says.” There’s no way to debate that.
This is beside my point. Whether or not the Catholic Church believes in Truth (whatever that may be), I personally do not follow Catholic teaching, nor do I have any reason to do so. So, arguments appealing to the authority of the Catholic Church simply won’t persuade me.
Perhaps you can clarify whether or not you think homosexual behavior should be prohibited by law? If you only think that people should refrain from homosexual behavior, then I probably don’t really have much to debate with you. There are a number of behaviors which I think people should refrain from that I don’t think should be illegal.
Point taken. Obviously saying “The Church likes Truth and they say it’s True so it’s True!” is not going to fly. I r not on teh stupid sauce. I have been trying to explain my point about homosexuality in other terms but failing. My point was originally that it’s “unnatural,” and so far I agree that I should stop using that word to describe it Since that’s been settled, I’ve started attempting to defend the Church’s position on sex being procreative and unitive, with a special regard to homosexual sex.
I’m not doing too well, although as Bryan Ekers pointed out accurately, it’s quite possible that what I’m trying to do is impossible, because it is very likely dependant on the issue of faith vs empiricism.
Also, Since I’m the only one person so far to defend this position, maybe you can cut me a little slack…please?..help…
Oh, and for the part I quoted, no I think homosexual sex is legally fine. I dont believe in legislating morality (with some exceptions I suppose, before anyone starts throwing supremely strange situations at me).
Mind, she also finds the Church stance on birth control silly because she thinks it implies that her god is weaker than a condom. 
I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Natural Law theory is totally ad hoc. The Natural Law theory, as developed by Aquinas, is a natural outgrowth of Aristotelian ethics, which is not (in my view) horseshit.
HOWEVER, I think philosophical advances of the last several centuries have shown the natural law theory to be untenable (which is one reason why, even though there are plenty of non-Catholic Aristotelians around, I doubt if you can find a single non-Catholic professional philosopher who thinks the Natural Law theory is viable).
And this is precisely where the Catholic Church enters into hypocrisy. **Autolycus ** is correct in saying that Catholic institutions (or at least Jesuit ones like Georgetown) emphasize reason. But since natural law has been declared the official moral philosophy of the Catholic Church, it is not possible to jettison the theory. Once you have decided a theory is de jure unrevisable, and cannot be thrown out in the face of persistent contrary evidence, you have abandoned the path of reason in favor of the path of irrational (or at best arational) dogma.
Actually, that’s not true. I assume the stereotype you’re refering to is the one about straight men enjoying lesbian porn? A lot of homophobic men do enjoy that as a prelude to heterosexual intercourse. Confronted by a real lesbian, who has zero sexual interest in them, they are just as harassing - and violent - as they are to gay men. After all, what’s more threatening to an alpha male than a female who doesn’t want to have sex with them?
SaI, interesting. I am not deep enough into the whole Aristotle thing to rebut.
Autolycus, Catholicism is bullshit. Kicking the habit is like quitting smoking. I did it, so can you.
Hey, a girl can ask.
I have nothing against penises. I just don’t have sex with them.
It you believe in god and god created everything on earth ,how can anything be unnatural. It is all a creation of god.
How do you explain children who die or get sick and never grow up to reproduce?
I don’t understand this analogy. Eyeglasses are used to correct an abnormal condition. By this reasoning, we would correct any genetic predisposition to abnormal sexual behavior with gene therapy or some other form of treatment.
Eyeglasses are used to correct an abnormal problematic condition. Without my glasses, I can’t see very well. But my liking for other guys does not in and of itself present me with any problems. I am not in a worse state than the norm; simply a different one.
Correcting abnormal conditions is abnormal. It isn’t natural to do so.
And I didn’t mean for there to be any correlation between eyeglasses as a genetic abnormality and homosexuality; it was just an example of something unnatural that humans do that is vastly accepted. If we are supposed to base sinfullness on humanity doing unnatural things, those glasses have got to go. Humanity would need to move back into the forest and run around naked, chewing on bark or else we’re all going to hell.
Kudos to you for coming back here and trying to defend your position! 
It’s a tough position to defend as you’re experiencing. I’ve seen people purporting to be Christian pastors decline to defend this position on message boards. It’s extra difficult to discuss for a couple reasons–emotions run high on this topic and it’s against the prevailing cultural norm.
But that doesn’t let you off the hook.
I believe that beliefs lead to actions and if you buy that, then it’s still important for you to determine what you believe and why and what possible future actions it could create. So I hope you keep going and find this experience somehow useful.
Thats correct except you’re substituting “different” for “abnormal”. Atraction to the same sex is abnormal behavior in a species that probogates itself sexually.
It is no longer treated medically because the litmus test for behavioral disorders now centers around maladaptivity. If it doesn’t harm the individual then it it doesn’t require treatment. You are worse off in the sense that you cannot reproduce, but that doesn’t harm you or a potential partner.
Of course in this sense, intense life-long loyalty by a male to a single female partner is also abnormal; it is more normal to practice promiscuity or serial monogamy. But such loyalty is not something we discourage. Abnormal behaviors are (and should be) discouraged only if they result in violations of other people’s rights (or something like that). Homosexuality doesn’t. Again, the connection between what is natural or normal and what is moral simply doesn’t exist. (I don’t know if you were arguing that it is there.)
I see that as an advantage. When I was in a monogamous relationship with my last boyfriend, we could fuck when ever we wanted, without worrying about condoms or the pill or any of that shit. Why would I want to correct that? If I ever change my mind and decide I do want kids, I don’t particularly care if they share my specific genetic material, so that leaves me plenty of options in the parenting department. So how am I worse off, exactly?