I wonder what drives such ‘tolerant’ minds like Dan the Recovering Catholic (is that not the saddest thing to read?) to harangue the writers of random blogs who, after all, are so soon to be irrelevant. ;)

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html

Okay. When Dr. Smith is discussing the short life span of the homosexual male I believe she is referring to the exposure to diseases that would otherwise not manifest themselves. Our bodies are designed for male-female intercourse. This is just basic fact. The anus is not meant as a sexual organ as it does not have the natural capabilities of fighting bacteria, stretching, and self-cleansing. So anal sex, whether with man or woman, is not natual and can lead to illness and a variety of complications. Secondly, the Church is very consistent in her teachings on sexuality. Masturbation, Contraception and Homosexual sex are all self-gratifying acts. None of them can produce life-giving effects; only short-lived pleasure. The marital embrace, free of contraception (which sterilizes the act) is pleasurable, but that is not the only reason for embracing it. It is a total giving of oneself to the other. It can be selfish and this is wrong; but, in accordance with our design free from sin, it is self giving to the other and always produces a chance for new life to emerge: whether in a baby or a deeper bonding between husband and wife.
The reason that gay “marriage” is offensive is because it diminishes this sacrificial love between a man and a woman and undermines the institution that allows for a secure and loving environment to raise children–again where children are born to those two people or adopted and raised as their own. I am not saying gays do not love or cannot provide a loving environment; but, it is not the optimal environment. It brings in a sense of confusion to the children and children are “rights” rather than gifts. A man-man or a woman-woman cannot gift a child to the other. An adopted child in this scenario would be slighted by not being able to know both biological parents and not receiving the benefits of the unique gifts given by father and mother. This extends to all the same issues of in-vitro fertilization and cloning. This is what is deeper than just saying “natural law.” Natural law is always consistent and is looking at it from its intended purpose without the sins and greed of our human nature. These are not easy Truths and we cannot and must not just say “this is wrong” and then walk away. Our homosexual brothers and sisters do deserve love and secure relationships. The Truth will set them free as it has me and my husband when turning away from contraception and sex for the sake of sex. I can only speak what I know to be true and wish I could show you the peace and joy in my heart from this conversion. The rules of the Church are never to enslave, but to set free. You have to have faith, obey and trust in the Lord to see the fruits and you have to do it yourself because no one can show you this peace. It only comes from within. We can and should pray and support each other along this journey.

God Bless.

2. Well, Christ didn’t set up old religious texts. He set up a Church, which he established as infallible and which reveals to us the Truth. His Church claims that these religious texts, when interpreted correctly, speak of a Truth that cannot be changed.

3. Matthew has argued against homosexuality w/o mentioning religion anyway.

Thanks for clearing things up.

The question of morality seems to be very subjective. I can’t see anything evil or immoral in homosexuality. I can see why you might disagree, and I believe that your train of thought is valid.

For me it goes back to the old question of

“Is something good or evil because God tells us so, or are there moral absolutes and God just points them out for us (e.g. through scripture)”

I see problems with both:

If something is good because it is a “law” created by God (like the commandments), would that mean that child murder would be considered moral and good if God mandated it? (He could, the OT is full of instances where God commands things that are highly questionable in today’s society).

Or does God just point us to moral absolutes that exist without him? Why would we need God then? We could discover them for ourselves or use other sources of inspiration.

And the fact that things like slavery and women’s rights have seen quite a change in how society deals with these issues (and hopefully we agree that we shouldn’t EVER have had slaves and women should of course have the same rights as men) has led me to believe two things:

1. There are no moral absolutes. A society agrees on acceptable behavior, which is subject to change. (E.g. in many countries the death penalty is considered barbaric and immoral. Not so in parts of the US. Who is right?)
2. Old religious text are not a good source for current moral questions.

Thanks for the comments. But, as Artie is already pointing out, you are misunderstanding our use of natural law…and even what it means to be natural.

Just because something is found or occurs in nature does not mean it is “natural” in this sense.

For instance, we find whales that have beached themselves in nature. But it is quite obvious, by looking at the nature of a whale(how it is made) that it is not a “natural” place for a whale to be. In other words, it was not naturally made to be on a beach and stuck out of the water.

So while it is found and occurs in nature, it is quite obvious that it goes against its nature (i.e. it’s not made to do that).

Further, Ms. Smith’s stats are not pulled out of thin air.