A FaceBook thread on which I posted some arguments that considered the moral status of homosexuality was deleted by the original poster, because, as he decided, “I don’t want all of us looking bad because of two guys.”
The two guys included himself. No names shall be named to protect the innocent.
Now, however, I feel compelled to summarize the argument.
1. I consider both hetero- and homosexuality to be neither an unchangeable inborn trait like one’s biological gender or even IQ; nor a mere lifestyle choice like preference for vanilla vs. chocolate ice-cream, i.e., a matter of taste easily swayed; but a persistent, ingrained, and deep-seated disposition, i.e., a habit.
Homosexuality would then be a “nasty habit,” a vice; and gay sex prompted by the vice would be a sinful act.
Innate predispositions to homosexuality are not denied, any more than natural timidity or proneness to alcoholism.
2. St. Thomas considers homosexuality to be an “unnatural vice” as being “contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race”; he numbers among such vices
procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of “uncleanness” which some call “effeminacy.”
Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called “bestiality.”
Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female…, and this is called the “vice of sodomy.”
Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.
3. I judge the homosexual lifestyle to be:
– physically unhealthy,
– aesthetically ugly and repulsive,
– loveless and joyless, as there is no natural basis or specialization for a spiritual union of the “partners” any more than for physical union,
The homosexual personality must differ from a heterosexual one greatly.
4. Gay sex is furthermore sensually debased. The many sensations of the body in straight sex are united to elevate the experience away from just the orgasm and into an overall bodily ecstasy. Gay sex seems to be directed simply to come and be done with it.
5. In addition, it is unworthy of a real man as a spiritual warrior, as taking it up the ass is a monstrous humiliation.
Here’s why: it is indeed proper for a man (metaphorically) to possess his wife who surrenders to him; but it is a horrid indignity and injustice for a man to be possessed by another man.
If it is objected that gay sex does not involve possession, then it by that very fact misses out on a key joy of sexuality.
6. If, furthermore, as I allege, gayness is loveless and childless, then nothing unites a gay couple into a one, a family. Their relationship must then be ephemeral and faithless. It is no accident that gays are, as a rule, fantastically promiscuous.
7. In any kind of sexual act, even in masturbation or gay sex, the soul goes out naturally to love and unite with its complement. If it finds nothing suitable, it retreats, wounded and desperate. Gays then in having sex injure their own hearts.
A normal straight man, on the other hand, falls in love easily.
If it is objected that gays have no interest in loving at all, then a gay man is by that fact a quasi-psychopath.
Either way, he needs to check himself ASAP and attend to his spiritual health.
Conclusion: Homosexuality offers an illusion of pleasure which, however, pales in comparison with heterosexual union and familial bliss properly executed and achieved.
It is a burden or cross to bear, a sorrow, and if the habit resists changing, it may be sufficient for holiness to abstain from the sinful act; otherwise, homosexuality is not a definitive obstacle to grace, improvement in charity, or salvation.