To be honest, I feel inadequate to deal with the topic of homosexuality. Eric has a remarkable, stunning, and moving post on homosexuality in general, focused predominantly on the human aspect of those struggling with homosexuality. What I have to say—how homosexual acts fit in the pattern of pitting body against soul, the topic of my series on human sexuality—seems flat and insipid in comparison. Nevertheless, and at the risk of sounding like I’m endless repeating the same message, I intend to complete this series with a discussion of where homosexuality fits in our discussions thus far.
Before we proceed, we should clarify one matter, a necessary distinction. First, I am not condemning any person with homosexual tendencies. My focus is entirely on the action. Whether or not homosexuality is a matter of nature or nurture, same-sex attraction is not in and of itself sinful. I would certainly argue that at least some people train themselves (not deliberately, for the most part) into same-sex attraction, but that is neither here nor there. Every person, no matter how grave his sins be, no matter how unrepentant he is, deserves our love and prayers. As a corollary, every person with same-sex attraction still deserves charity and welcome. The sins we denounce, not because we despise the person, but exactly the opposite. Indeed, if we cared nothing for the person, we would simply say, “Go ahead and do whatever you want,” as though his eternal destination was of no importance to us.
Frank Sheed, in his Theology and Sanity, defined sanity as conforming to the real world, as opposed to any imagined ideal of the world or wishful thinking. Thus the argument against particular sexual acts that the Catholic Church condemns—sodomy, homosexual sex, pedophilia, etc—must be grounded in the reality of the world, not our desires of how we wish the world would be. In this series of posts, I have endeavored so far to explain how and why inappropriate sexual behavior runs contrary to the reality of the world, mostly in mystical terms of the Fall and the pitting of the body against the soul. The crux of the argument—the basis from which we deviate when we engage in sexual sin, because of its most vital importance—bears repeating, especially as I attempt to field particular objections against homosexual acts.
As reminder, at the heart of human sexuality is the mimicry of the Trinity. God, being pure spirit, of course is not a sexual entity, and sexuality only appears in the masculinity of the Son in the Incarnation. But the parallels are distinct and obvious, though perhaps our terminology masks the relationship. The common notion of how the family mirrors the Holy Trinity places God the Father appropriately, but tends to think of God the Holy Spirit in the maternal role, and God the Son as the offspring, as seems to make sense from terming the second Person in the Trinity “the Son”. Indeed, this form of thought is reflected in modern heretical notions that want to attach femininity to the Holy Spirit. Yet this notion is incorrect.
The analogy fits when we considered that the Son is eternally begotten by the Father; from the Father comes the Son. And from both (and this is why the Filioque debate is important) proceeds the Holy Spirit. Indeed, as the Son is the eternal Word of God, the Holy Spirit is the eternal Love of God, proceeding from the love of the Father for the Son, and the love of the Son for the Father. This procession of persons is mirrored by humanity when we consider the following relations. In Genesis, in the account of the creation of Man, the woman is created from the man, from his very flesh. In other words, the woman was generated from the man. In turn, their offspring proceed from the loving union of the two. Thus the analogy stands as follows: the man mirrors the Father; the woman mirrors the Son; and the offspring of the two mirrors the Holy Spirit. (Granted, this analogy is only a part of the mirroring of God that man partakes in, but for purpose of sexuality, we will stick with this.)
This line of thought is increasingly abhorrent to our society, especially in the feminist realm, which makes the accusations of male-chauvinism, bigotry, and the indoctrination of a patriarchal society, all geared towards the suppression of women. To them, woman should most definitely be placed ahead of man in the order of procession, for it is woman who carries and gives birth to the child. How many times have we heard that it is the woman who brings about life because of this very special gift of pregnancy (and men, violent warmongers that they are, bring death)? Yet this picture is incomplete. It is true that the woman carries the child within her body for (approximately) nine months, but that child could not exist without the man. The realization that neither sex could reproduce without the other invalidates placing woman ahead of man. At best the argument stands that man and woman should hold equal place in procession. Yet even that picture is incomplete, for the man is placed at the head of the family by the very fact of his being first in procession. Why? Perhaps it is because as the Son and the Holy Spirit exist by procession from the Father, so typically is the woman and child provided for by the man.
The point, though, is that through sex we mimic the Holy Trinity, and it is through this mimicry that we can fully appreciate the arguments the Church makes for what is appropriate and what is inappropriate in our sexual lives.
The most predominant arguments for the admission of homosexual “marriage” and the general approval of homosexual acts follow two lines. If sex is about the fulfillment of family through procreation, then many heterosexual marriages, to which the Church has granted approval, should be invalid. Those include marriages that are naturally infertile, either due to barrenness or age, or are infertile by choice. Certainly, this argument claims, the elderly, who are incapable of reproduction, should not be permitted to marry or remarry. The second argument goes the other direction. If sex is not about procreation, but about love and unity, then there should be no reason to exclude homosexual acts—or even premarital acts, even down to sex acts between adults and children. Furthermore, these arguments are meant to work in tandem, catching the Church in sexual version of Euthyphro’s Dilemma.
But there is work still be done before the advocates of homosexual unions can truly spear the Church on one prong or another. For example, they are under the obligation to show that only those two prongs exist, i.e. it must be the case that either sex is primarily for procreation, or sex is primarily for love. (Hopefully by now we can dispense with the notion that sex is primarily for recreation.) Scripturally, it seems that the strongest argument is made for the primacy of procreation, as God commands Man to be fruitful and multiply, and from a biological imperative, sex is the only means by which humans can procreate. Of course, this argument is not what the homosexual advocates want, but by pressing it, they hope to force their opponents into embracing the other prong of the dilemma. But to continue: if sex is predominantly about procreation, then love must needs take a back seat. Thus, even if a couple loves each other, if they cannot reproduce or have no intention of reproducing, then they cannot legitimately marry.
This view leads to consequences that no one particularly accepts. Indeed, if love is secondary to reproduction, then, taking this to its extreme conclusion, a man is justified in the rape of his wife, for he is merely trying to fulfill the contract between them. Furthermore, it justifies putting aside a spouse if the spouse proves impotent. And these conclusions are expressly forbidden. So, once this line of thought is carried through, it seems that the Church should have no recourse but to fall back onto the prong of the primacy of love. Then, if love holds primacy over procreation, in that procreation may be preferred but not necessary, then the door is wide open for homosexual union.
The Church, of course, has stated clearly that one cannot place procreation above love, nor love above procreation. Neither is sufficient by itself, and neither can hold dominance over the other. Indeed, the true fulfillment of marriage is the union of love with procreation. In this we refer back to the Trinity: the Holy Spirit not only proceeds from the love between the Father and the Son, but is the love between the Father and the Son. In the Trinity, we see perfect unity between love and procession. As humans, we only imperfectly mimic that act of procession, but the unity between love and procreation is one of the highest means of mirroring the divine.
Homosexual sex, then, is insufficient. Fundamentally it lacks half the necessary components, namely the procreative, and this poses an insurmountable challenge. The continual frustration of the sexual purpose leaves an indelible mark. (This is noted not just in homosexual unions, but contracepting marriages, cohabiting couples, and sexually open, premarital relationships.) I won’t bother with the statistics here, but they provide empirical evidence that there is something dissatisfying about homosexual relationships.
Now, I have no doubt that a man can choose to devote himself to another man, and a woman to another woman, inasmuch as any person can fully devoted himself to a member of the same sex. Just as it seems that there are sufficient contracepting couples that remain devoted and faithful to each other to cast doubt on the evils of contraception, so too are there are loving, lasting relationships between homosexual couples. Yet these relationships persist despite of, not because of, the condemned sexual practices present. We have discussed before how masturbation and extramarital sex are harmful, how they pit body against soul, and the case of homosexuality is no different in this regard. Because the sexual act is frustrated in homosexual copulation, it becomes merely a means to pleasure, and this reduces sex to objectification. There is simply no escaping this reality.
One thing we might ask still is whether or not homosexual actions bring any greater condemnation than other sexual sins. After all, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their rampant sins, but most importantly sodomy. People who engaged in homosexual actions under the law of Moses were sentenced to death, and while adulterers were likewise stoned to death, premarital sex merely obligated one to pay a fine or marry, and the kings could practice polygamy without repercussion.
The reality of the world is that homosexual actions are sinful and disordered. But what, then, is the full gravity of such actions? Leviticus 18:22 states that lying with a man as though he were a woman is an abomination, but for what reasons? First, of course, is the unavoidable lustful aspect of homosexual sex, which we have mentioned before. Second is that homosexual sex is about the greatest frustration of sex that can exist, ranking above even contracepted heterosexual sex. Even contraception can fail, be it through misuse, natural failure, or even a directly willed act by God. But homosexual union cannot, and never can be fruitful, no matter how loving and devoted each of the couple are to each other.
Moreover, homosexual unions bear an additional offense against the dignity of a human person. Lustful heterosexual sex reduces each participant to an object used for sexual gratification. Homosexual acts not only contain this element, but go further and fundamentally deny the gender of the two involved. The wording in Leviticus makes this clear: “lying with a man as though he were a woman” specifically indicates that homosexual acts violate the dignity of a person’s gender. While the attraction of a homosexual man is toward another man, the actual treatment of his sexual partner is as a woman. (Before anyone goes up in arms, I don’t mean that being a woman is degrading, but being treated as a woman when one is not is degrading, just as being treated as a man when one is not is degrading.)
Herein lies the truth of how homosexuality pits body against soul. The body, ever a glutton for pleasure, struggles with the soul, proclaiming that it doesn’t matter how it receives its gratification, no matter how the soul yearns for that highest mimicry of the Trinity. The soul struggles with the body, trying to make it conform to an act that biologically does not work quite right.
We are not to conform to the world but conform to the kingdom of heaven which Jesus preached as love, care, concern for one another. If same sex couples are called to love care and concern for one another then they must follow their truly formed consciences. Sin occurs when we turn away from love. Christians must follow Jesus and Jesus is not made in our image but we in is. Follow love and allow otehrs to do the same. Love is AND not OR.
Ryan,
an excellent post!
Ken,
actually Christ also called us to sexual fidelity in marriage, or celibacy. He defined marriage as one man and one woman. There’s no loophole for “loving same sex couples”.
God Bless,
Matt
Ryan,
Thank you for explaining the role of the Holy Trinity. That is one aspect that I am still a novice at understanding how the family roles are to be understood.
Tito,
Glad you liked it, though I wonder if I truly did it justice. There’s so much to say on that one particular topic, especially in addressing concerns of how we can compare such a physical, material action with the spiritual nature of God, and how the condition of man as both matter and spirit applies. In addition, I still feel like a novice myself about it.
My wife suggested that I glossed over a lot of things in my post that would have made it better, especially with leaving out statistics. For example, I could have (and maybe should have), for example, linked in to Catholic Answer’s tract on gay marriage, or searched out the studies themselves to cite the negative consequences of homosexual acts. She also felt I more or less wimped out (PC style) in denouncing homosexual acts as sinful. Any thoughts?
Great post. I’ve enjoyed the whole series, especially this one.
Maybe you could write more about infertile couples and how a love that is “open to life” even when it is not likely to occur is still sacramental and valid. I get very irritated when people compare infertile married couples to homosexuals. Like you wrote, love is not more important than procreation. But sometimes we can be made to feel inferior because of our infertility. We want to be both unitive and procreative. I’d like to have a short but effective position statement on why male and female are still important, even when procreation is not possible.
Are there any good Church documents that explore infertility and adoption in more depth?
Ryan,
Good post. I think a sincere and candid discussion about the nature of homosexuality is so vital and yet so far away with the politicization of everything in society.
It is very, very difficult to grasp the understanding you have presented with a poor understanding of metaphysics and how things relate to one another. The Theology of the Body which is fundamentally what you’re arguing is a metaphysical presupposition of a certain ordering and arrangement of things.
I’ve heard it argued and in the past, have argued that homosexuality is natural. What occurs in nature, by definition, is natural. There are actually documented cases of homosexual behavior in hundreds of animal species. However, this is not the Christian theological connotation of the word “natural.” God creates objectively, that is, toward an objective, toward a goal. We have a purpose, a meaning, our being—our human nature—is aimed toward some objective, an end that we must achieve that will “fulfill” our human nature. Our nature is how God designed us, so what is “natural” for human beings is clearly not what you find some animal doing; it is only what fulfills our design. Cows are different from dog. The nature of a dog is different from that of a cow. A cow cannot live a life as a dog and still be a cow. What is natural to a dog is not natural to a cow. It does not fulfill the cow’s nature. Cows do not go about sniffing and burying things. So, it follows what is “natural” to animals is not necessarily “natural” to humans. In fact, some animals can change their sex. Male seahorses bear life. This is not the case for humans; hence, animals should not be the objective point of reference for human behavior. But with a reductionist mentality and with little sense of Christian metaphysics, it is rather difficult to get people to see this point though to us it seems self-evident.
In my own life, I came to a startling realization and it is clearly based on Christian metaphysics. The sexual design — which goes beyond sexual activity — is wired into our very nature and to participate in its fulfillment by the act of free will is to flourish and be human.
However, when I became suspicious of whether or not — and I’ll say it is my view that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality, but I don’t believe it to be the sole cause — God actively intends homosexuality rather than “passively” allows it. If the latter is true, which I’ve become convinced of, to act on homosexual desires is destructive because it’s an attempt to abolish the very order written into human nature and thus harmful at every level.
One can begin with the most obvious — the physical — it seems curious as to how it is so readily never considered how it could not harm a man to suffer rectal trauma by being penetrated repeatedly through an opening clearly designed for a radically different function.
Emotionally and spiritually, the harm is not as self-evident, but I think, more pronounced. Consider the emotional harm: if God designd the male-female pair to complement and balance one another, then it follows that same-sex relationships drive each partner to extremes — instead of balancing, the two reinforce one another.
If one considers — presupposing one actually believes this — the fact that because men are more inclined to be promiscuous than woman because a difference in physiology as childbearers that makes women more conscientious, unbalanced by women (this is not considering contraception) such inclinations ca lead to anonymous no-brakes promiscuity of men who have sex with hundreds of other men. On the spiritual level, through homosexual acts one is seeking union with someone that is one’s own mirrior image; in other words, yov are still trapped in Yourself and I think this is the ultimate manifestation of the self-indulgence and pride behind homosexual desire. It is a ‘no’ to martial sex that takes you beyond Self and allows you to know someoe who is really Other. I think this in many ways confirmed by the fact that among homosexuals, typically one person plays the more masculine role and the other adopts a more feminine role in regard to sexual activity. In that way, homosexual acts are less like marital love than like masturbation with another body. Same-sex sexual activity is fundamentally an imitation of marital love, but can never be it and that’s the real moral frustration.
I think much sociological evidence confirms such notions not to mention basic concerns of health — active male homosexuals on avg. have a lifespan 20 years shorter than that of heterosexual males from a variety of reasons.
I think even if a couple is not capable of giving birth to physical life, there unity is life-affirming and giving in emotional and spiritual ways. The union and activity of marital love in an infertile couple does not directly contradict the very design of the sexual order. They have a magnificent cross and will suffer a temptation not shared by many others; I read about a Catholic couple who can’t procreate because of natural reasons and to protect themselves from impurity, they practice NFP as penance. So I think there is much possibility there; at least, I don’t think it is immoral as long as the intentions are correct.
On the spiritual level, through homosexual acts one is seeking union with someone that is one’s own mirrior image; in other words, yov are still trapped in Yourself and I think this is the ultimate manifestation of the self-indulgence and pride behind homosexual desire. It is a ‘no’ to martial sex that takes you beyond Self and allows you to know someoe who is really Other. I think this in many ways confirmed by the fact that among homosexuals, typically one person plays the more masculine role and the other adopts a more feminine role in regard to sexual activity. In that way, homosexual acts are less like marital love than like masturbation with another body. Same-sex sexual activity is fundamentally an imitation of marital love, but can never be it and that’s the real moral frustration.
Eric, it’s amazing how you can articulate so much better than I can the points I want to make! Thank you.
Eric,
What occurs in nature, by definition, is natural.
I don’t think that is the proper definition of “natural” as it’s generally used. Would anyone describe a Siamese twin as “natural”?
From Merriam-Webster:
occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature
Just because it occurs in nature does not mean it’s “natural”.
God actively intends homosexuality rather than “passively” allows it
Don’t you think that this would be accusing God of doing evil? It seems to me that this is dangerously close to the anathema addressed by the Council of Trent regarding Calvinism (props to Peter Park on pointing this out):
Canon 6 on Justification:
If anyone says that it is not in man’s power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God works as well as those that are good, not permissibly only, but properly and of Himself, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul; let him be anathema.
It follows that, if God actively wills homosexuality then does it not follow that the behaviour inherent, is a work of God as well. We do not believe that concupiscence is the active will of God but a consequence of original sin, how could this particular temptation be actively willed?
God Bless,
Matt
I don’t think that is the proper definition of “natural” as it’s generally used. Would anyone describe a Siamese twin as “natural”?
…
Don’t you think that this would be accusing God of doing evil?
Matt, I think you missed the point here. Eric was stating that these are the arguments put forward by people trying to justify homosexual acts. He then goes on to explain why those arguments are wrong. For example, he states:
However, this is not the Christian theological connotation of the word “natural.” God creates objectively, that is, toward an objective, toward a goal. We have a purpose, a meaning, our being—our human nature—is aimed toward some objective, an end that we must achieve that will “fulfill” our human nature. Our nature is how God designed us, so what is “natural” for human beings is clearly not what you find some animal doing; it is only what fulfills our design.
This clearly refutes the proposition that you (rightly) denounced but (incorrectly) attributed to him. He also goes on to state that he has examined the argument of whether
…God actively intends homosexuality rather than “passively” allows it. If the latter is true, which I’ve become convinced of…
Latter, here, refers to the passive permission as opposed to the active intent. Eric is fully stating that he believes that God passively permits people to struggle with same-sex attraction, not that God actively intends people to deal with same-sex attraction and act on it.
We appreciate your comments, but I would ask that you carefully consider what someone actually says before rebutting his arguments. (On the other hand, don’t for a moment think that I haven’t been guilty of the same many times before!)
Ryan,
I’d appreciate if Eric explained his intent here, it’s quite possible that I’m misunderstanding, but your response only adds to the confusion. I certainly wouldn’t want the apparent contradiction to be left unclarified.
Matt
Matt,
I was making a distinction between the world “natural” as used in modernity in reference to anything that has a genetic cause — directly wired into one’s behavior via genes — or biological, which refers to things inborn that are not necessarily genetic. Some extend the connotation to things that frequently occur, e.g. sayings like it’s a “natural” temptation or it’s “natural” to feel that way. I clarified that this is not what Christians, in theological language, mean by the word “natural” — the word in theology implies what something’s place is in the creative order and respects God’s design. The nature, is practically synonymous, with the very essence of something. Thus, I was implying that this reality if taken to be true, redirects one’s opinion of homosexuality as acceptable to be expressed to a inclination toward a grave sin. The latter being my conviction.
In regard to God’s will, I was making a distinction. God from a purely metaphysical basis is the First Cause, therefore, he literally holds everything in existence even creatures with free will that can choose to do evil — God wills actively that we have free will with the full knowledge we may misuse it. I once had the challenge of explaining to someone how a good and loving God could somehow be involved — don’t misunderstand my language — in creating at every moment of it’s existence, the planes that were crashed into the twin towers because any existing things hinges upon God’s creative act, which is not a one time thing, but rather creation is an ongoing activity and God is participating in it with an incomprehensible divine plan that we humans struggle to learn.
Now in regard to homosexuality, I do believe that God allows homosexuality to exist. Nothing can exist without God allowing it. However, the question I asked myself before I converted to Catholicism, as a person who is homosexual was whether God actively intends it — that is, he creates it and intends it, or is it the fruit of moral disorder or physical evil that God only passively allows to exist though it is not something he intends, but rather permits as it were. I personally believe — and this isn’t at all infallible — that there is a genetic or biological basis for homosexuality. I don’t think it’s the sole cause or the cause of it for everyone. I don’t believe this reality — a physical evil — changes the very essence of human nature or implies that man should re-write his metaphysical place in creation to accomodate homosexual acts. Homosexual acts are fundamentally against the natural law and in Christian terms it is a sin.
I didn’t think I was in anyway ambivalent on the matter, seeing that I was praising a post that made zero accomodations for morally accepting homosexual behavior.
Eric,
I think I understand what you’re saying, but could you clarify that you what you are saying is that it is God’s “passive will” to allow homosexuality to occur? I guess I’m just too simple, but you seem to keep leaving that question open.
a. active will – God actively intends it — that is, he creates it and intends it, or
b. passive will – is it the fruit of moral disorder or physical evil that God only passively allows to exist though it is not something he intends
I think the only orthodox answer is b, wouldn’t you agree? While “a” doesn’t necessarily justify homosexual acts, I believe it is contradictory to Catholic teaching on God’s nature.
God Bless,
Matt
Yes. Point “b” is the position I hold and was expressing.
I personally believe — and this isn’t at all infallible — that there is a genetic or biological basis for homosexuality.
Just for what it’s worth, I thought I’d add my thoughts on the issue, though I’m by no means an authority.
The question is: is homosexuality a matter of genetic predisposition or is it a psychological phenomenon? Or I should say, this is how people pose the question, and I think it glosses over a huge number of important factors, the first and foremost being that “both” is as a legitimate answer as either.
Part of the problem, as I see it, is that we do a lot of training and conditioning of ourselves in matters of sexual attraction, especially in bad ways. There are many, many “fetishes” out there that people wouldn’t normally ever consider sexually arousing, but with exposure and a disordered desire for arousal and sexual gratification, these fetishes become very sexually charging.
This is exemplified in the largest plague of sex crimes in Wyoming: child pornography (possessing, not producing, thankfully). Therapists and offenders themselves both will tell you that most people who get heavy into child porn don’t do so because they were naturally inclined to pedophilia or anything like that; rather, in their usage of pornography, and their ongoing drive for new ways to stimulate themselves, they came across child porn, and developed an association with it. Through repeated exposure (and willingness to expose themselves to it), they eventually trained themselves to be aroused by children.
Of course, that’s on the extreme end of deviancy, and many people will protest that those people are latent pedophiles, anyway. They’ll also claim that people who go for the weird fetishes are latent perverts, as well. I disagree, for the most part, but where I do agree will wait until I hit the biological portion of this reply.
Part of the problem of following this line of thought is that many will jump down my throat for comparing homosexuality to child porn, but I feel there’s a connection. Christopher West said that humans aren’t necessarily programmed for homosexuality or heterosexuality, but instead are programmed for sexuality, and the natural (as in the Christian “natural” that Eric defined) development of that is in opposite-sex attraction. Various influences in a person’s life lead them towards and away from properly ordered desire (positive influences like a strong, committed, loving family; negative influences like movies, TV shows, magazines, etc). Some of these influences can occur very early in a person’s life so that they’re not even aware, years later, that they even had an influence. Others are recent enough that it is easy to track back how a person ended up with a particular sexual desire.
So yes, I do believe that there is a “nurture” component to same-sex attraction. I’ve seen too many people “nurture” themselves into a particular sexual deviancy not to believe that. And yes, I feel I’ve seen people “nurture” themselves into same-sex attraction. In some of the more “socially progressive” areas of high school and college (I’m thinking the liberal arts here, specifically theater), the pressure to be openly homosexual or at least openly supportive of homosexuality was strong enough to lead some to experimentation and to the struggle with sexual identity. Of course, one can simply say that in such a homosexual-friendly environment, homosexuals would naturally drift there, especially those who had hidden it away for so long (even from themselves). But as I said, this whole reply is a matter of personal opinion, not a scholarly treatise.
But I also believe that there is some genetic propensity towards homosexuality, as well. This belief comes from two lines of thought. First, I believe that there is a biological imperative to see the opposite sex as sexually desirable, and if we are to believe that, then I think we must be willing to admit at least the possibility of the wires getting crossed in some people. Second, while I hold that training has a lot to do with what we find sexually appealing, I also believe that some people are more prone to various forms of sexual behavior than others. Some people naturally have a huge sex drive, others barely have a sex drive at all. Some people very easily slip into (or readily embrace) sexual fetishes, others continue to be repulsed no matter how often they come across it. Thus I believe that no only can wires get crossed, but they can cross in a spectrum of degrees.
So, to sum up, I believe homosexuality originates first in a biological predilection (very strong in a small number of people, less strong in a few more, and weakly in others), but after that, it depends on influences and training. Some people, a very few, need practically no influence or training at all; others need only a nudge, and others still require some traumatic experience. People with only a weak predisposition (or even no predisposition at all) can still train themselves into same-sex attraction.
So there’s my theory. It squares with what I know from my limited exposure to homosexuality (I have had a couple friends who are homosexuals, but we’ve almost never talked about it) and from my struggles with my own sexuality. However, it may not square with anyone else’s experiences, so I’m willing (and perhaps eager) to hear what others think.
As a note, when I say that I feel people are trained or conditioned into homosexuality due to particular influences, that is not to say that they chose to do so of their own volition, or that they would have agreed to it if they knew what was happening. Indeed, my theory of influences and conditioning tends to lean towards early life experiences that perhaps aren’t even remembered. But in any case, my belief that there is training, influence, and conditioning leading to same-sex attraction does not in any way imply that anyone is culpable for his homosexuality.
Ryan,
I think you hit the nail on the head. Studies by the Catholic Medical Association find very similar conclusions. This a very strong argument indeed, for the dangers of the homosexual indoctrination that is being foisted on our children.
Frankly, the attempt by gay activists to push for the genetic origin is simply a red herring. It really doesn’t matter whether this propensity is purely genetic or purely learned, it is still disordered in a moral sense, and in a biological sense.
God Bless,
Matt
Excellent thread.
If some genetic material carries a ‘homosexual’ component, Why is the homosexual act described as an ‘abomination’ in Scripture?
i.e God creates the process for this genetic material then condemns His creation…we’d better call Plantinga on this one!
Could it be that homosexuality is not a psychopathology but rather a pneumopathology?
Scripture also says that homosexuals will not gain heaven, but then neither will liars, whoremongers, ect., an indicator that we all require forgiveness and salvation.
[…] debate in society about homosexuality (cf. Catholic Teaching, Homosexuality, and American Life; Theology, Sanity, and Homosexuality for previous discussions of the issue). This issue is just as complex as it is emotionally-charged. […]