Branko Zivotin, Catholic astrologer - forecaster

The morality of homosexuality

Published on June 12, 2020

What can we say morally about homosexuality? By our own definition, we speak of homosexuality when it is exclusive and irreversible. As for the tendency, it’s a shame to waste a lot of words. Tendency is not action, so ab ovo it is impossible to qualify morally. The incriminating issue is the homosexual body
relationship.

If the tendency is predisposing, the question of “what to do” cannot arise, only “to do or not to do”. Due to the aspects already mentioned and to be explained in the concluding chapter, we are not talking about occasional physical coexistence here. Their moral judgment is no different from that of heterosexual relationships of a similar nature. What we are examining is the homophilic cohabitation relationship, and within that, the raison d’être of sexuality.

The first is striking: the sexual act has two subjects, and its effect is not directed outward, toward another person. (Not so much as in a heterosexual relationship, where bodily intercourse may give birth to a new person.) If two men live together in an apartment, the It is completely indifferent to church, society, neighbors and friends that during the hours spent together they occupy each other and themselves behind closed doors. Thus, their relationship does not affect the relationship of communities or other individuals to God, to each other, to themselves. At most, to the extent that those who know them may be forced to override their prejudices.

What impact does the action have on the two participants themselves? - The answer to this question is entirely contingent. If they are not believers in the first place, their relationship with God should not suffer. If they are, their conscience will determine the answer. Suppose they realize that revelation is not about the lifestyle problems of homosexual people. Then, according to their own temperament and spirituality, they can integrate their relationship and coexistence into their religious life. Their relationship with the church, the sacraments, prayer will not have an a priori negative effect.

The same goes for their identity. If they not only live but also interpret their relationship, counting on the pressures of society, accepting possible discrimination (Unfortunately this is it!). They can, of course, live together and side by side in love, supporting each other - even if a woman and a man can do the same in marriage holiness ...

... It is difficult to establish a general paradigm based on a hypothetical relationship. Perhaps this, I hope, makes it clear that it is an unfounded generalization to call a homosexual relationship in se malum. Such a relationship can be bad and bad (just like a heterosexual marriage, think only of divorce), but we can’t talk about necessity. And if we cannot say evil in the first place, we cannot call it a sin in the first place.

More info :

The situation of homosexuals

The history of homosexuality coincides with the history of humanity. It was present and is present in both tribal, primitive and civilized societies. Its perceptions vary by age and environment volt. He was sentenced to death in some places and implicitly acknowledged in others. There were places where it took an institutionalized form, was again idealized elsewhere, or was just sacralized.

We are interested in the Christian approach, so we also review the situation of homosexuals in a Judeo-Christian, ie practically European and American, relationship.

First of all, it should be noted that the “average person” has enough information to condemn homosexuals (or as they more recently call themselves: gays), but his fundamental ignorance of the subject is immediately apparent when asked for an answer as to why this negative opinion. His knowledge is based on rumors, mendemondas, stereotypes, but he has no specific knowledge of the number, lifestyle and characteristics of homosexuals.

My Services:

Homosexuality and Mental Health

Health research suggests that homosexuals are just as balanced as heterosexuals compared to them (Bell and Weinberg, 1978). The security of their job and thatsatisfaction with it was the same as for heterosexuals. In other areas of life, homosexuals are not doing so well. They feel more tense and depressed than the appropriate group of heterosexuals. However, these differences disappear if we look only at homosexuals who live in a “closed couple,” that is, a quasi-marriage. The greater sorrows of other homosexuals do not stem from their sexual attraction either, but from being treated as an unrecognized minority. Same-sex attraction may make you depressed, you may not, but contempt and exclusion for sexual preference is almost certain to have such an effect (Brown, 1986). [...] In short, there is no evidence that homosexual orientation alone is associated with poor mental health.

The list of DSM-III-R is not illustrative but complete and detailed. Perhaps it is not unnecessary to cite (without, of course, the criteria for diagnosis) what independent clinical diseases we find in this section.

• Exhibitionism
• Fetishism
• Terry tourism
• Pedophilia
• Sexual Masochism
• Sexualis Sadismus
• Transvestite Fetishism (“transvestitism”) - However, we mention one
clause from the criteria for diagnosis: “The persons concerned are the everyday
in life in all respects they are "average" men, and always heterosexual. "
• Voyeurismus
• Other (Not Elsewhere Specified) Paraphilias

In this list, as we can see, homosexuality is not included. For the more suspicious, here is the comment for the "Other" category:

Paraphilias on another subject that exhaust the general criteria. These include e.g. Zoophilia, Necrophilia, Uro- or Coprophilia, Telefon scatologia (telephone calls with sexual content, usually obscene, sometimes threatening-coercive, other times describing the details and sounds of sexual activity, etc.).

So what is the conclusion? Apparently, a psychiatrist has no say in whether, I do, whether Sunday Mass is a forgivable or a deadly sin. It does not fall within its professional competence. It is a repertoire of priests and theologians, to whom, by contrast, no one and nothing gives the right to decide whether or not some deviation from the average is a mental illness. It is the sole responsibility of psychiatrists and psychologists to judge this. However, based on the above, I hope, the explicit professional position is clear: homosexuality cannot be considered a disease.