[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 132 KB, 409x404, 1571455283116.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14055035 No.14055035[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

What is the Catholic argument against homosexuality? Other than God said it's bad

>> No.14055063

AIDS

>t. Catholic

>> No.14055069
File: 82 KB, 500x500, dildo costume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14055069

>>14055035
>What is the Catholic argument against homosexuality? Other than God said it's bad

Simply observing the degeneracy that your typical faggot descends into.

>> No.14055076

>implaying they need more

>> No.14055080

>>14055063

HIV is very close to becoming a Curable disease.

>> No.14055084

Literature

>> No.14055094

Homosexuality is a mental illness, psychologists don't agree for they need to eat.

>> No.14055099

>>14055035
Don't know for sure. They believe the telos of sex is reproduction. So it would be unvirtuous to given in to homosexual urges. In fact, it is , thus, the same reason as to why you should not have sex outside marriage. And basically, it can be understood like that, if we define marriage as a bond between humans who make the commitment to give birth to and raise their children.

>> No.14055110

>>14055035
You are putting your life-creating stick into a literal shit hole.... It's anti-life and against nature.

>> No.14055115

>>14055035
Natural law. But there are probably people here that can make the natural law case much better than me, so I won't try.

>> No.14055164

>>14055115
SO is sex with an infertile person of the opposite gender wrong too, then?

>> No.14055199

>>14055035
because like all other things that is bad, its hedonist/pleasure. no purpose other than that.

>> No.14055400
File: 261 KB, 800x509, covfr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14055400

>>14055069
>Simply observing the degeneracy that your typical faggot descends into

What else would you expect it to turn out if you keep someone away from communion? Is there sacntity without Christ? Dumb answer.

>>14055099

So, heterosexual sex between infertile couples should be unvirtuous?

>> No.14055429

>>14055035
Natural law. If I'm remembering my twelve years of Catholic education correctly, basically God created men with penises and women with vaginas to be complementary and perfect for one another for a reason. Like sex is supposed to bring two loving partners closer to each other and God and also potentially make babies. And if for some reason either of those two requirements are unable to be fulfilled, you're basically wasting God's gifts on trivial bullshit. Instead of pursuing higher things and becoming closer to God, you're just kind of fucking around and running out the clock.

The big misconception is that God is somehow offended when you sin. Sin only hurts you. God isn't in the business of damning people to hell, we choose to go to hell when we turn away from God's grace. Rejecting the higher, rightly-ordered thing for the lower, distorted thing.

Which is all well and good but if you've actually had sex you'd know destroying some twink's boypussy is by far the higher, more rightly-ordered thing. As usual, the Greeks had it right before anyone else.

>> No.14055457

>>14055080
Not at all. It's treatable and we have very good preventative measures, but it's not in the interest of any company to invest in a pharmacology project that will eliminate a reliable group of consumers.
t. work in the pharmacy industry

>> No.14055462
File: 47 KB, 500x664, 1565410550872-fit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14055462

>>14055429
Absolutely correct

>> No.14055476

>>14055400
>So, heterosexual sex between infertile couples should be unvirtuous?
>>14055164
Only outside of marriage.
In principle a man and a woman can conceive children. Any other combination of couple can't conceive, not even in principle.

>> No.14055486

>>14055429
>Sin only hurts you
That is the based part of your post.

>> No.14055545

>>14055476
So, if we let people of the same sex marry, sex inside marriage between them wouldn't be sin, as isn't sin for infertile people.

>> No.14055746

>>14055400
I believe that is what they should argue.

>> No.14055762

I've always liked the pure consistency of Catholic thought regarding sex. Sex between a man and a woman in marriage, with the possibility of children resulting, is all that they have tolerance for. Everything else, from gay sex to masturbation to sex with a condom, is wrong purely because it can't lead to children. It's a very consistent position.

>> No.14055770

>>14055429
Absolutely based

>> No.14055791

>>14055545
Yes but marriage is between a man and a woman. Homosexuals can also marry the opposite sex, so you can't argue that they don't have the right to marry.

>> No.14055797

>>14055462
This man is godly gorgeous.
Source?

>> No.14055799

>>14055791
Yeah, what if an homosexual marries a woman and has children with her yet keeps having sex with other men for fun. He married, he had children. Is it ok with God?

>> No.14055833
File: 111 KB, 1200x1200, 1544285893911.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14055833

homosexuality is bad because it's gay
/thread

>> No.14055850

>>14055400
We should be honest here, isn't being married to an infertile person one of the few reasons for divorce the catholic church will accept. Furthermore, I believe that catholics would argue that if the sex happens between a man and a woman, even though one of them is tought to be infertile, there is a possibility of them having a child. They could quote the bible, mentioning that one of the wives of Abraham was tought to be infertile, but gave him a child, which he had to sacriface later. So basically, they could, and should, argue, for starters , that there is always a possibility of the sex being pregnancy inducing. And secondly, that if there is sufficient evidence of infertility the marriage, remember: the only setting in which sex is ok, can be annulled.

>> No.14055852

>>14055799
You just described classical antiquity.

>> No.14056202

>>14055799
That would be adultery.

>>14055791
You could not call it marriage, but there is a history of same-sex unions in Christianity, in the form of adelphopoiesis (or whatever other slavic names it have). I know people say that it is a rite to make "brothers", but the whole thing is almost identical to the wedding ritual of eastern christian traditions. And the pratical results are almost the same of marriage.

There's also the case of St. Sergius and St. Bacchus. There are early hagiographies saing they were lovers (erastai), and it seems like it wasn't a problem before.

I find it kinda weird that approach to homossexuality in the form of "hey, stop being gay", because it historically leads to >>14055799

>> No.14056233

>>14055850
There are different grades of infertility, Imagine if a girl had uterine cancer and had to make hysterectomy, but now she's alright. If she tells her future husband, and both are knowing they can't possibly have children, I think the catholic church wouldn't oppose marriage, even though they know it's impossible to conceive.

>> No.14056281

>>14056233
I don't know if the church would agree, they probably do. I think that, if they want to be consistent, they should be against it. But yeah, who cares about consistency except autists.

>> No.14056292

Usually, I prefer the arguments of the Ancient Philosophers in regards to non-procreative sex. Sex without the purpose of procreation is hedonism, it is over indulging in sexual pleasure.
And over indulging in pleasure is a lack of temperance, a lack of virtue. And virtue is necessary for happiness.

>> No.14056298

The rules and guidelines in the Bible were written based on thousands of years of experience in running a society. They had seen what caused cities and nations to collapse. One of those things was degeneracy. They didn’t just write “sodomy bad because we hate fags”
They had legitimate, experience based reasoning for writing what they did

>> No.14056311

love>lust

>> No.14056313

>>14055457
Based and eugenics pilled

>> No.14056338

>>14056292
I don't believe that sex, not for the purpose of procreation, is necessarily hedonism. You can try to see sex as a means to deepen bonds between persons, and, thus, argue that sex within a relationship, of any kind, isn't indulging in pleasure.

>> No.14056353

>>14056338
You don't need sex for oxytocin.
And most people who have non-procreative sex do it for pleasure not for increased bonding.

>> No.14056383

>>14055457
People exaggerate the effectiveness of treatment, even if we can find the exact combination of drugs for effective treatment they usually cause significant stress on the body; severe liver and kidney disease is inevitable.

>> No.14056395

>>14056353
But don't you agree that in some kinds of relationships, sex is part of it or at least for the public at large believes that. So, you can try to argue that, in how some kinds of relations are conceived, sex is seen as part of it. Even if, the persons in the relation do the sex recreationally, i.e. non-procreative, it is necessary for them to do it, since otherwise they would be denying the kind of relationship they have. I, thus, must only establish that such relationships exist and that not all of them can be reduced to a relationship that is only defined by sex. I believe it to be the case that such relationships exist. Altough you could disagree.

>> No.14056448

>>14056395
I'm going to sleep. Goodbye, anons.

>> No.14056497

>>14055429
What a delightful turn in the final paragraph.

>> No.14056512

>>14055035
The burden on proof is on queer theorists to defend the politically correct ideology of homosexuality and justify the mass intrusive social engineering it entails.

>> No.14056533
File: 36 KB, 800x450, thumb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14056533

Petty moralism is just a cope

>> No.14056534

>>14055099
This, pretty much. Sacrament of marriage, or holy vows. To forgo marriage and raising children is to disobey God. If you're not going to do that, the sentiment is you should not be "dating," but rather making use of yourself in other ways.

>>14055035
Lots of theologicans call homosexuality "disordered." Meaning it is a behavior that is not in accord with the natural order of things, the way they "ought" to be. But that in itself is arguable because of the concept of divine providence. If God has ordered the world, who are we to say how things ought to be?

There isn't a consensus in the church, and LGBT supporters if you want to call them that are mostly Jesuits. Most notably James Martin, SJ.

>> No.14056539

*theologians

not sure what happend there

>> No.14056549

>>14055035
I honestly dont mind sodomy or transvestism but i still posture as a vicious homophobe in order to signal against the politically correct globalist monoculture

>> No.14056817

Catholics dont believe that anymore, hence why they canonised two homosexuals in consecutive years (Pope Montini in 2018, Newman in 2019)

>> No.14056839

>>14056817
Catholics haven't been real Catholics in decades of not centuries

>> No.14056854

>>14055799
You should only have sex with your spouse and nobody else.

>> No.14056858

>>14055850
>isn't being married to an infertile person one of the few reasons for divorce the catholic church will accept
It will only accept it, if the infertile person kept it a secret.

>> No.14056863

>>14056854
God SUCKS

>> No.14056868

>>14056281
A man and a woman can have children in principle.
Abraham and Sara are a prime example of an infertile couple, who conceived through the grace of God when Sara was 90+ years old.
This could not happen between people of the same sex. In principle a man and a woman can have children. A couple of the same sex can never have a child in principle.

>> No.14056870

>>14055035
Old Testament straight up says: men who do men like they're women get killed.

New Testament rails against hekmatai, people who sell themselves against their nature, and malakhoi, freaks who will do anything. Not as a commandment from God but because these people are socially corrosive and wicked.

There was no word for homosexual then, a man was passive or active. There were so many eunuchs across the Middle East that they constituted a de facto third gender.

>> No.14057710

>>14056868
90+ years old having a child 2000 years ago? Did she survive the birth?

>> No.14057757

>>14055035
>creator of universe says something is bad and not to do it
>that's not sufficient
Why are atheists so fucking brain dead? Also makes me cringe whenever they say "WHY WOULD I WORSHIP A GOD WHO LETS X OR Y HAPPEN?! HE IS EVIL!!" ... So you're honestly saying that if an all-knowing, all-powerful entity existed, you would willingly disobey him because your tiny human brain disagrees with him morally? Fucking kek.

>> No.14058065

>>14057757
That's kind of a bad approach to that. It was Moses' father-in-law, Jethro, idea to explain and systematize God's law (around Exodus 18:20). The way things are exposed ("don't be gay and kill the ones who are") in the OT is just a way to make more easier to people to understand God's will without needing a priest for everything. There's no problem at all to try to understand His reasoning behind it.

That's one part of it.

The other part comes when Jesus ends the old alliance with his sacrifice and creates a new and everlasting one. The old laws become all messed up, as he, God's word incarnate himself, cured people on saturdays, stood against divorce, didn't care about purification rituals, and so on. He summarized His will as "love God above all else and love your neighbor as yourself". So did his disciples on not requiring circumcision for newly converted gentiles, for example.

"Don't be gay and kill the ones who are" doesn't sound a very "love your neighbor as yourself" thing to do, and asking what's wrong with being gay is a very valid concern.

Thinking "because God said so, and he is all-knowing, all-powerful and knows best, nobody needs an explanation" is a little immature and lazy reaction, even a little idolatrous.

>> No.14058094

>>14056817
This is just wonderful to hear. I always feel such sympathy for gay folk and feel glad to see that they're becoming less discriminated against - a true improvement of human rights. In the future, when religious and non-religious alike are raised beside gays, they will see it as both untraditional and unacceptable for someone to discriminate against our LGBTfrens. And the same goes for trans people too.