Andrei's post below about the firing of a teacher because of "hate speech" and Lucia's post made me decide to post a few thoughts I'd had on this subject for a while. I hope I can put forth my ideas here without offending anyone, but it may happen, unfortunately (which is why I have had this post sitting in draft form for the last couple of days).
So, anyway, let me kick off with what is sure to be a controversial statement: Homosexuals can't have sex together. I mean this in the strictest sense of COITUS. Yes, they can do all kinds of 'things' but life-giving genital intercourse is not one of them. I am not saying that a homosexual couple do not have feelings of love for each other, or desire to show that love to each other; however, it is this physical conduct that the Church frowns upon (not the persons) because it goes against Natural Law. I am not an expert on Natural Law, but it basically comes down to "functioning according to nature or design". It is not based on popular opinion.
I will try to illustrate this with an example. Let's say that a group of people in society decided that instead of eating food orally, that they were going to sniff it up their noses. Does anyone see anything wrong in doing that? Some food may make it's way around the nasal passage to the throat, but I'm sure it would be wholly impractical and would cause untold problems (both in the cost to personal health and to society in fixing these problems medically), primarily because food is not supposed to be taken this way (although it may technically be able to be done). It is against the way that is "normal" - ie, not following the form and function of Nature.
In the same way, I believe that homosexual conduct is not following Natural Law, and there is danger in the practice and in the promotion of such.
This is Aristotelian logic – a belief in empirical observation and logical deduction which he called “teleology”. Teleology assumes that all things have a purpose and that the purpose of each thing can be discerned from its design and function. Anything that deviates from that design and function is therefore not normal.
Secondly, I want to touch on this "hate speech" thing: just because someone doesn't agree with your action, doesn't mean they hate you. I am sure that Vegetarians do not think it is moral or right to eat meat, but do they hate the people who do? I do not think so. And, generally, those who do not agree with homosexual conduct do not hate or fear homosexuals. The word "homophobia" is used as a weapon. Dr Scott Lively puts it this way -
And what does the Catholic Church say about homosexuals and their conduct? In the Catechism it states -
So, anyway, let me kick off with what is sure to be a controversial statement: Homosexuals can't have sex together. I mean this in the strictest sense of COITUS. Yes, they can do all kinds of 'things' but life-giving genital intercourse is not one of them. I am not saying that a homosexual couple do not have feelings of love for each other, or desire to show that love to each other; however, it is this physical conduct that the Church frowns upon (not the persons) because it goes against Natural Law. I am not an expert on Natural Law, but it basically comes down to "functioning according to nature or design". It is not based on popular opinion.
I will try to illustrate this with an example. Let's say that a group of people in society decided that instead of eating food orally, that they were going to sniff it up their noses. Does anyone see anything wrong in doing that? Some food may make it's way around the nasal passage to the throat, but I'm sure it would be wholly impractical and would cause untold problems (both in the cost to personal health and to society in fixing these problems medically), primarily because food is not supposed to be taken this way (although it may technically be able to be done). It is against the way that is "normal" - ie, not following the form and function of Nature.
In the same way, I believe that homosexual conduct is not following Natural Law, and there is danger in the practice and in the promotion of such.
This is Aristotelian logic – a belief in empirical observation and logical deduction which he called “teleology”. Teleology assumes that all things have a purpose and that the purpose of each thing can be discerned from its design and function. Anything that deviates from that design and function is therefore not normal.
Secondly, I want to touch on this "hate speech" thing: just because someone doesn't agree with your action, doesn't mean they hate you. I am sure that Vegetarians do not think it is moral or right to eat meat, but do they hate the people who do? I do not think so. And, generally, those who do not agree with homosexual conduct do not hate or fear homosexuals. The word "homophobia" is used as a weapon. Dr Scott Lively puts it this way -
As a rhetorical weapon, homophobia is unequaled. It serves first to define anyone who opposes the legitimization of homosexuality as a hate-filled bigot. The universal inclusion of all opponents as homophobic is of course not emphasized. Homosexual activists publicly associate this label with violent “gay bashers” and hateful fanatics. When they use the term they want people to think about the killers of Matthew Shepard, but in conventional practice they include every man, woman and child who believes homosexuality is abnormal or wrong.People do things all the time we don't agree with, but that doesn't mean we hate them. The term Hate Speech is being used too generally these days, as a catch-all description for when someone makes a statement about the actions of someone else that they don't agree with. And yet if someone says something derogatory about the Catholic Church it is deemed perfectly acceptable. As another author wrote, anti-Catholicism is the "last acceptable prejudice".
And what does the Catholic Church say about homosexuals and their conduct? In the Catechism it states -
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.Doesn't sound like the language of hate to me. Society also has a funny view of "discrimination", which is often used as an excuse to legally prosecute someone for giving their opinion, or taking (or not taking) an action based on whether the person considers it moral, eg, not allowing a church hall to be used for homosexual meetings. If a vegetarian was to not allow duck hunters to cook and have a banquet in the vegetarian's hall would that be discrimination? I do not think so. It is personal preference.