A Philosophical Arguement Against Homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MindOverMatter2

Guest
Soulewolf said:
expanding further…

you cant… ask me to justify homosexuality. its your belief system that says it is morally wrong, so it is you who must provide evidence supporting your beliefs. I don’t have to prove homosexuality right, i just have to prove your argument wrong.
Click to expand...
There is obviously such a thing as a sexual health disorder, just as much as there is obviously such a thing as a mental health disorder. We have people who have sexual desires for children or animals. You might sometimes find people that are turned on sexually by inanimate objects, and yes, there are people who have same sex attractions. There is one thing in common that all these desires have, and this is the fact that they do not fulfil the fundamental nature of a person. Now when I say fundamental, I mean the unified person as “whole” in terms of their entire objective nature as one unified singular. Homosexuality is thus defined as a disorder because it does not fulfil the natural form of human beings (male and female), and thus undermines the unity that is a person.

Any free human act that does not lead to the fulfilment of human nature as a unified whole is a sin because it oppresses and contradicts human nature as a unified whole for the sake of some selfish agenda. The fact that some gay people are truly in love with each-other is irrelevant since falling in love is not what ultimately defines ethically valuing another human being as existential whole. One can be in love and yet be abusive and selfish to their partner, undermining love as a perfectly good act. We can also think that we are doing good when in fact we are undermining the value of human life. To truly care for and value the good of a person is to wish the whole of their form (biological and psychological) the greatest good in respect of their whole form. To truly value a human being is to wish them the fulfilment of everything that they are objectively and in their entirety; and in doing so you will attempt to actualise or encourage people to actualise that possibility insofar as that is practical. This includes the fact that they are biologically men and women, because being a man or a women is apart of who we are as persons. Thus, in terms of their sexuality, to wish a “man” or a “women” the greatest good is to wish them the fulfilment of the fact that they are “men” and “women”, and the biological fulfilment of being a man or a women is a heterosexual relationship. Thus a person who has homosexual desires but never-the-less hopes for the fulfilment of human beings, will wish for the fulfilment of their heterosexuality despite any desires that they have or unhappiness they incur upon themselves as a result of depriving their sexual erges. They will do this if they truly respect and value what human beings are by nature. Human beings morally fulfil their nature by acting in unison to what they are as a whole. Thus when the nature of the mind acts in unison with the sexual ends to which our biological natures as a whole are act (heterosexuality) then the person as a whole is fulfilling its true nature.

Of course, in order to understand that, you would have to first value human nature in it entirety and you would have to admit the teleological nature that is evident in our sexuality and moral discourse. But you obviously do not want to and neither do those who think that homosexuality is no different to heterosexuality, because you perceive the fulfilment of ones immediate desire as being more important than fulfilling ones true nature. We live in an era where people think that human nature is something to be exploited, it is merely an opportunity to exploit the senses; this unfortunately leads some people in the greater sin of perceiving human life and human value as something that is thus dispensable and objectively meaningless. The Catholic faith is trying to keep humanity from going that destructive path. They are trying to oppress sexuality, they are trying to fulfil human sexuality as it truly is. The Church is trying to save the world, It is trying to save a true and fulfilling notion of humanity that elevates man beyond the pitiful user mentality that we have toward our natures. The church is the last line of defence against t the existential nihilism that will soon engulf the world, and is even now consuming our children.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Of course, in order to understand that, you would have to first value human nature in it entirety and you would have to admit the teleological nature that is evident in our sexuality and moral discourse. But you obviously do not want to and neither do those who think that homosexuality is no different to heterosexuality, because you perceive the fulfilment of ones immediate desire as being more important than fulfilling ones true nature. We live in an era where people think that human nature is something to be exploited, it is merely an opportunity to exploit the senses; this unfortunately leads some people in the greater sin of perceiving human life and human value as something that is thus dispensable and objectively meaningless. The Catholic faith is trying to keep humanity from going that destructive path. They are trying to oppress sexuality, they are trying to fulfil human sexuality as it truly is. The Church is trying to save the world, It is trying to save a true and fulfilling notion of humanity that elevates man beyond the pitiful user mentality that we have toward our natures. The church is the last line of defence against t the existential nihilism that will soon engulf the world, and is even now consuming our children.
Click to expand...
I made some error s in this post. I do not mean that the catholic church is oppressing sexuality. I meant to say that The catholic church is not oppressing sexuality but fulfilling it with their teaching. Sorry for the missing words.
 
Nowadays it seems that the topic of homosexuality is talked about more than ever before so I have to get my two cents worth in. It is obvious to me that when we look at the natural bodies of man and woman that our bodies were not designed to have sex with the same sex. Nature has designed mammals to have sex with the opposite sex because nature wants babies and the same sex cannot reproduce themselves. Homosexuals have to use technology, surragacy or artificial insemination in order to have children and that is not natural. In my opinion, homosexuals have a twisted idea about sex and the whole idea of two women or two men having sex turns me off completely. I believe that because of the promiscuity of society today and the lack of morals that things like homosexuality, pedophilia, pornography, out of wedlock pregnancy, etc, come out in the open and dulls the people’s idea of the proper use of sexuality and the real understanding of what marriage is as opposed to other sexual relationships.
Mtngal
 
God may have designed humans to notice and respect the purpose of sex as being procreative, but I’m ill at ease with the statement that “nature” designed mammals to have sex with the opposite sex. Nature - is it not a fact? - designed the sexual urge to be satisfied through stimulation. It is not true that satisfaction of the sexual urge is achieved only through procreation.

Now I would agree that humans understand the purpose of that act, and that it is to achieve procreation, but it is clearly “naturally” fulfilled not through the mental knowledge of procreation but through stimulation alone. Stimulation satisifes the sexual need of mammals. Thus many mammals masturbate and have homosexual relations.

I would also like to add that I see a fundamental male being made whole when paired with a fundemental female, but I know and feel love and compassion for a gay man who seems a blend of masculine and feminine, and if he were paired with a fundemental female, the whole would not be balanced but be distinctly, majority feminine. But if he pairs with another gay man, there remains a balance or “whole” of both male and female.

Yet I don’t wish to appear to argue for anything other than I love and care for this friend, and feel it is a difficult issue. I would hope for him to become Christian and have a family, but I also realize this will not happen. A difficult topic indeed, but at the end of the day, God wants me to love him with all my heart and soul and to love my neighbour - gay though he may be - as I love myself.

†
RMN
 
Ravemacneil said:
God may have designed humans to notice and respect the purpose of sex as being procreative, but I’m ill at ease with the statement that “nature” designed mammals to have sex with the opposite sex. Nature - is it not a fact? - designed the sexual urge to be satisfied through stimulation. It is not true that satisfaction of the sexual urge is achieved only through procreation.
Click to expand...
Nature does not design anything, it merely evolves according to the laws or rules of physics which was created by God; and by obeying these rules certain ends are inevitably fulfilled. To speak of normality, order/disorder, right or wrong, presupposes a teleological world view; not a nihilistic one. The objectivity of this teleological world view is most evidently expressed in sexuality. It is evident that sexuality acts to fulfil a particular purpose. That we experience sexual pleasure is not divorced from the fact that we experience pleasure as males and females, and that our nature as male and female is ordered to the teleological end of heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is what defines our true nature as sexual beings. When we embrace the teleological end of our heterosexuality we are being true to who we are; since being biologically male or female is a fundamental part of who we are. However, we can evidently develop disorders like having a sexual desire for children or animals, and even the same sex. But the fact the we develop these desires and may want to fulfil them does not take away from the fact that by doing so we would be oppressing our true objective nature. We would not be true to our selves by indulging in such desires, and thus we would not be acting for the greater good of who we are objectively. Instead, we would be feeding a disordered view of our selves and our sexuality.

The Catholic faith only seeks to promote a true understanding of who we our; rather than what we want.
 
I generally agree with the argument, but you have to understand that, with atheism, morality (how one ought to behave) is incoherent. Nature has descriptive value, not prescriptive value, etc.
 
Windfish said:
I generally agree with the argument, but you have to understand that, with atheism, morality (how one ought to behave) is incoherent. Nature has descriptive value, not prescriptive value, etc.
Click to expand...
Most atheists that deny the right or wrong of homosexuality, believe that there is such a thing as right and wrong. I did not for a second expect to convince a nihilist; but rather I am merely stating the philosophical reasons for denying homosexuality assuming moral law.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Most atheists that deny the right or wrong of homosexuality, believe that there is such a thing as right and wrong. I did not for a second expect to convince a nihilist; but rather I am merely stating the philosophical reasons for denying homosexuality assuming moral law.
Click to expand...
What I am saying is that a nihilistnecessarily. If the universe is only incidental, it could never have any real value of any kind. There is no moral or immoral, there is only amoral. If an atheist is to “believe that there is such a thing as right and wrong,” it would be inconsistent with their atheism. Of course, this is what the the theistic apologist expects and hopes for, but I digress.

In short, you are arguing from nature, but nature has only descriptive value, not prescriptive value. Homosexuality may go against nature, but on atheism, this is doesn’t make it wrong.

The video is helpful.
 
Windfish said:
What I am saying is that an atheist is necessarily a nihilist. If the universe is only incidental, it could never have any real value of any kind. There is no moral or immoral, there is only amoral. If an atheist is to “believe that there is such a thing as right and wrong,” it would be inconsistent with their atheism. Of course, this is what the the theistic apologist expects and hopes for, but I digress.
Click to expand...
Atheism implies nihilism ontologically, but it does not necessitate that those people who are atheist are all nihilists however inconsistent there beliefs may be. The fact is, if they believe in right and wrong, order and disorder, natural and un-natural, then there is a basis upon which we can discuss the right or wrong of something.
 
also this.
40.png
MindOverMatter2:
To me, the fact that you are a male, or a female, is clear evidence of the fact that our natural biological end is heterosexuality. Having a penis or a virgina is evidence of the fact that the two are biologically complementary and teleological ordered that way in order to fulfil a particular end. You are a male in respect of there being such a thing as females. You produce sperm in your testicles in light of the fact that women produce eggs to be fertilised and visa versa. Its not something difficult to see, unless you have spent your whole life being un-reflective and taking things for granted.
Click to expand...
40.png
Soulewolf:
ust because one type of human has a penis and the other one has a vagina and if you put the two together babies come out doesnt mean diddly. It just means one type of human has a penis and the other type has a vagina and if you put the two together babies come out. Logically there is absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.

The argument goes:

A
B
.’. A, B

A
B
.’. C is a fallacy.

it gets better though.

A
A
B
B
.’. A,A
OR
.’. B,B
OR
.’. A,A,B
OR… nevermind i think you get the idea.
Click to expand...
 
Windfish said:
Ah, here comes the atheist that proves my point!
Click to expand...
im not an athiest 😦 i have a very deep relationship with the Divine.

Though i do not believe in a concept of good and evil, i do believe in morality, though it is based on an internal understanding of the self and the divine. Not external rules and philosophies. The best way i can put it is that there is action that stems from Love (pure Divine) and action that is… hmm… “fallen” from Love (and then of course there is neutral action such as driving a car but that doesnt mean that said neutral action can not have basis in love.). its not a very good description but whatever.

Fortunately having sex with a person of the same gender or a tree or an animal or whatever can be classified as a loving act as long as it is consentual (consent not necessary with inanimate objects). shrugs. just because you (and sometimes me >_>) do not understand it, does not make it “fallen” from love.
 
MoM2: I’m not sure what the point was with your reply to me. I believe that my post said essentially the same thing as your very reply to it, and that I was clearly using the language and phrasology of the poster to whom I had replied. I certainly don’t need correction on the use of a term I myself pointed out was something with which I was ill at ease. .

Regardless, I agree with you and am merely saying that using phrases based on words such as “nature” and “design” will appear to non-Catholics as appealing to their very point. Which you will notice is demonstrated in this very thread…

They will reply that “nature”, being to them absent of God, is the nerves and biochemistry which is happy to engage in sexual behaviour for sexual pleasure without regard for it being procreative, and that, to them, is the “design”.

The point that I believe we share is one of form following function, and having intellects and a moral soul, we understand the function intended and as such, this represents a philosophical argument against non-procreative sexuality.

Mostly, though, I was trying to make the point that this is a difficult topic when you have, as I do, an openly gay friend to whom you are trying to extend the fullness of Christian love.

Peace of Christ,
RMN
 
Ravemacneil said:
being to them absent of God,
Click to expand...
God is the point where it ceases to be philosophy and starts being theology. the title clearly states philosophy. thus , if you want to prove homosexuality is wrong in a philosophical sense because god exists, you must first prove that god exists, and not only that but that he exists within the nature that you describe him to have.

Though i agree with the OP. “Theological Argument Against Homosexuality” would probably get you far less replies >_>
 
Yes, thanks, that’s why I’m saying the attempt of a previous poster to prove it by “design” won’t work: the argument presumes God’s presence which stops it being philosophical…

That’s also why I said I agree with MoM2 in the sense of it being an argument from form understood through an intellect and viewed through a moral soul, which can be a sound philosophical arguement.

You don’t believe morality prevents something from being philosophy, now do you? I’m certain Marcus Aurelius wouldn’t think so.

RMN
 
Ravemacneil said:
Yes, thanks, that’s why I’m saying the attempt of a previous poster to prove it by “design” won’t work: the argument presumes God’s presence which stops it being philosophical…

That’s also why I said I agree with MoM2 in the sense of it being an argument from form understood through an intellect and viewed through a moral soul, which can be a sound philosophical arguement.

You don’t believe morality prevents something from being philosophy, now do you? I’m certain Marcus Aurelius wouldn’t think so.

RMN
Click to expand...
i would say philosophy has no room for the soul until the soul is proven logically.
 
Soulewolf said:
Personally i’d believe freud, kinsey and the DSM over you.
Seems like your wrong.
Click to expand...
An arguement from authority. Thats very weak.

And quite frankly, while Freud may have said things that were true and deserving of acclaim, he also said things that are absurd and unsupportable, and are thus not supported by any serious academic.
 
Soulewolf said:
Fortunately having sex with a person of the same gender or a tree or an animal or whatever can be classified as a loving act as long as it is consentual (consent not necessary with inanimate objects). shrugs. just because you (and sometimes me >_>) do not understand it, does not make it “fallen” from love.
Click to expand...
Nobody is denying that something disordered cannot result in a loving act, but i am saying that they are disorders; and thus should not be accepted as our true sexuality or our true selves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top