A Philosophical Arguement Against Homosexuality

[JohnDamian]

What this argument requires is another premise that links heterosexual sex and resulting childbirth to heterosexual sex being only moral sex. you can say its the natural way of things all you want but you also need to prove how its natural, what natural is, and why homosexual acts in nature (the ultimate in natural) happen all the time but when humans do it it is un natural. Im not being spiteful, that is just the way logic works.

you dont have this premise in your argument. You just jump from the heterosexual sex idea to it being morally correct which is a Non Sequiter Fallacy.

In your equasion subject “D” is incorrectly composed; the definition that;

A
B
AB>C
(AB>C)>D

Is fallacious is an equivocal fallacy and as such the “counterargument” you posit is incorrect. Owing to a general univocity of morality; the position (AB>C)>D is correct as D is supposed to; by a general univocal interpretation of the subject D - that (AB>C)>D is composed correctly.

This is so because D pressupposes the premise that D is univocal (not equivocal or analagorical) to the subject’s of A,B,C. This is so because D pressuposes a transcendental; which composed of prior consitutants contextually implies that the prior reasoning is a constituant predicate of D.

In the same way as A, B and C are composed contextually; you cannot object to the univocal useage of D in regards to the contextual quiddity that MoM nessecarily holds. Therein; your counterargument fails. There is no need for an additional premise; as such is pressupposed by univocity; in the same way as A & B are pressuposed to be human, compatible, fertile and so forth as general predicates.

Mathematical logic is ugly and innaccurate.

 

[MichaelR]

In your equasion subject “D” is incorrectly composed; the definition that;

A
B
AB>C
(AB>C)>D

Is fallacious is an equivocal fallacy and as such the “counterargument” you posit is incorrect. Owing to a general univocity of morality; the position (AB>C)>D is correct as D is supposed to; by a general univocal interpretation of the subject D - that (AB>C)>D is composed correctly.

This is so because D pressupposes the premise that D is univocal (not equivocal or analagorical) to the subject’s of A,B,C. This is so because D pressuposes a transcendental; which composed of prior consitutants contextually implies that the prior reasoning is a constituant predicate of D.

In the same way as A, B and C are composed contextually; you cannot object to the univocal useage of D in regards to the contextual quiddity that MoM nessecarily holds. Therein; your counterargument fails. There is no need for an additional premise; as such is pressupposed by univocity; in the same way as A & B are pressuposed to be human, compatible, fertile and so forth as general predicates.

Mathematical logic is ugly and innaccurate.

However, other arguments against the OP’s proposals on this thread make a lot of sense.

 

[Soulewolf]

In your equasion subject “D” is incorrectly composed; the definition that;

A
B
AB>C
(AB>C)>D

Is fallacious is an equivocal fallacy and as such the “counterargument” you posit is incorrect. Owing to a general univocity of morality; the position (AB>C)>D is correct as D is supposed to; by a general univocal interpretation of the subject D - that (AB>C)>D is composed correctly.

This is so because D pressupposes the premise that D is univocal (not equivocal or analagorical) to the subject’s of A,B,C. This is so because D pressuposes a transcendental; which composed of prior consitutants contextually implies that the prior reasoning is a constituent predicate of D.

In the same way as A, B and C are composed contextually; you cannot object to the univocal useage of D in regards to the contextual quiddity that MoM nessecarily holds. Therein; your counterargument fails. There is no need for an additional premise; as such is pressupposed by univocity; in the same way as A & B are pressuposed to be human, compatible, fertile and so forth as general predicates.

Mathematical logic is ugly and innaccurate.

chuckles a bit Well its a bit refresshing to see someone on these kinds of sites with as large of a vocabulary and ( i assume as my lack of more advanced philosophical terms is lacking) as strong a grasp as you do on logic. Maybe i can learn a thing or two from you.

Though as it sits, i find your argument hard to understand. is there any way i can convince you to “layman” it down a bit so i can understand my mistake (if any) a bit more?

 

[JohnDamian]

chuckles a bit Well its a bit refresshing to see someone on these kinds of sites with as large of a vocabulary and ( i assume as my lack of more advanced philosophical terms is lacking) as strong a grasp as you do on logic. Maybe i can learn a thing or two from you.

Though as it sits, i find your argument hard to understand. is there any way i can convince you to “layman” it down a bit so i can understand my mistake (if any) a bit more?

No Problem!

There is a general univocity of predicates such as being, morality, and so forth; rather than an analagorical or equivocal unity. That is to say; predicates such as “good” are applied with one voice to both finite and infinite agents. Now; we can know evidently that this “goodness” is modally distinct.

The Modal distinction; is the last extra-mental distinction (after formal); in that - the distinction between an iten and it’s intrinsic mode; each differentia contracting the genus “good” into various species has a different formal character; however variations in the depth or potency of this “goodness” does not create a new species any more than do variations in the *intensity *of red in agents. Pale and deep red share the same formal Character; yet clearly they are distinct; likewise; goodness applied to God; and to man univocally; that is to say with “one meaning”; act’s like pale and deep red; God being the “deepest red” in the analogy; or the “greatest good”. But this Good is shared also by ourselves; despite the fact the agency; (not the form) of our goodness is demonstrably lesser.

Therein; (AB>C)>D is composed accurately; because (AB>C) per se, is an antecedent which per se exists as a species of the genus of Goodness. As it is a per se good agency it nessecarily exists within the genus of Good. However; clearly (AB>C) is per se beyond modally distinct from the higher species of the genus; as (AB>C) does not presuppose qualifying agent’s which essentially unite it to the genus in a formal unity. This formal (not real) distinction merely inhabits through the lack of qualifications. However; contextually understanding (AB>C); and in the light of MoM’s other posts; we can assume such qualifications as sacramental unity are pressupposed (for else your counter-argument would be a straw man). Taking this contextual qualification therefore for (AB>C); we can see that it shares a formal unity with the genus of Goodness; as a species therein.

Now; the pressupositional unicity of the “>D” as used in your counterargument with the species of "(AB>C)" as above mean that the argument is internally valid. This is so because of the univocal (one meaning) quiddity (whatness) of the genus per se; nessecarily shares a unity with it’s posteriors. Likewise; the individual in haec (haecceity); specifically allows for the unity to be general. Just as unity in quid follows per se on some entity in common; so too does any unity follow per se on some entity or other. Therefore; the absolute unity of the predicates in haec which individuates shares per se entities that when united in quale substantiale; or by substantial qualification allows that there is a specific unity; and a formal identicality. Now; we can see from this; that the predicates (AB>C) (taking contextual qualification of sacramentals) nessecarily is a constituant of the genus of Goodness; and so the qualification “>D” is appropriate; as “>D” is formally identical to the qualified (A*B>C).

Now that that’s settled. I do think that “mathematical logic” is severely inferior to predicate logic. It lacks the ability to express accurately and specifically the different unities that make this or that per se entity part of this or that genus or species. This inability to qualify the scale or potency of distinctions or unities is what causes mathematical logic to be very crude. Admittedly; it is concise; but it is ambiguous.

 

[inocente]

As a rule of thumb, complicated moral arguments are usually false. Can anyone express a simple argument that homosexuality is wrong? I can think of simple arguments for the opposite (they may not be correct of course):

(1) Jesus taught tolerance wherever possible.
(2) In tolerant countries, indicators such as crime rates are no higher for homosexuals than for heterosexuals.
(3) See (1).

or

(1) An illness or disorder can be characterized as limiting or diminishing an individual or society.
(2) Homosexuality does neither.
(3) Ergo, homosexuality is not an illness or disorder.

or

(1) For a Christian - Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. – Mat 7:1-2 NIV

 

[JohnDamian]

(1) Jesus taught tolerance wherever possible.

Jesus taught forgiveness; not tolerance. He clearly admonished people who were false teachers or degenerates. Examples of this include; the pharisees; the market in the temple; the devil’s temptations; the Good Samaritan; the Parable of the Talents.

(2) In tolerant countries, indicators such as crime rates are no higher for homosexuals than for heterosexuals.

Irrelevant. The secular criminality of a particular thing is irrelevant to it’s moral repugnance. See Abortion.

(1) An illness or disorder can be characterized as limiting or diminishing an individual or society.
(2) Homosexuality does neither.
(3) Ergo, homosexuality is not an illness or disorder.

Homosexuality reduces the participants to mere objects of pleasure. There is nothing natural or unitative or procreative or charitable about what equates to nothing more than mutual masturbation.

(1) For a Christian - Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. – Mat 7:1-2 NIV

I am happy for myself to be measured by these standards. I am told in James 5.20 to admonish sinners of their evil.

 

[Soulewolf]

No Problem!

There is a general univocity of predicates such as being, morality, and so forth; rather than an analagorical or equivocal unity. That is to say; predicates such as “good” are applied with one voice to both finite and infinite agents. Now; we can know evidently that this “goodness” is modally distinct.

The Modal distinction; is the last extra-mental distinction (after formal); in that - the distinction between an iten and it’s intrinsic mode; each differentia contracting the genus “good” into various species has a different formal character; however variations in the depth or potency of this “goodness” does not create a new species any more than do variations in the *intensity *of red in agents. Pale and deep red share the same formal Character; yet clearly they are distinct; likewise; goodness applied to God; and to man univocally; that is to say with “one meaning”; act’s like pale and deep red; God being the “deepest red” in the analogy; or the “greatest good”. But this Good is shared also by ourselves; despite the fact the agency; (not the form) of our goodness is demonstrably lesser.

Therein; (AB>C)>D is composed accurately; because (AB>C) per se, is an antecedent which per se exists as a species of the genus of Goodness. As it is a per se good agency it nessecarily exists within the genus of Good. However; clearly (AB>C) is per se beyond modally distinct from the higher species of the genus; as (AB>C) does not presuppose qualifying agent’s which essentially unite it to the genus in a formal unity. This formal (not real) distinction merely inhabits through the lack of qualifications. However; contextually understanding (AB>C); and in the light of MoM’s other posts; we can assume such qualifications as sacramental unity are pressupposed (for else your counter-argument would be a straw man). Taking this contextual qualification therefore for (AB>C); we can see that it shares a formal unity with the genus of Goodness; as a species therein.

Now; the pressupositional unicity of the “>D” as used in your counterargument with the species of "(AB>C)" as above mean that the argument is internally valid. This is so because of the univocal (one meaning) quiddity (whatness) of the genus per se; nessecarily shares a unity with it’s posteriors. Likewise; the individual in haec (haecceity); specifically allows for the unity to be general. Just as unity in quid follows per se on some entity in common; so too does any unity follow per se on some entity or other. Therefore; the absolute unity of the predicates in haec which individuates shares per se entities that when united in quale substantiale; or by substantial qualification allows that there is a specific unity; and a formal identicality. Now; we can see from this; that the predicates (AB>C) (taking contextual qualification of sacramentals) nessecarily is a constituant of the genus of Goodness; and so the qualification “>D” is appropriate; as “>D” is formally identical to the qualified (A*B>C).

Now that that’s settled. I do think that “mathematical logic” is severely inferior to predicate logic. It lacks the ability to express accurately and specifically the different unities that make this or that per se entity part of this or that genus or species. This inability to qualify the scale or potency of distinctions or unities is what causes mathematical logic to be very crude. Admittedly; it is concise; but it is ambiguous.

So you say that A*B>C is intrinsically good so >D is assumed?

 

[Soulewolf]

Homosexuality reduces the participants to mere objects of pleasure.

ermmmm… no… Sex between romantic partners isnt just about pleasure and reproduction (though it is for people just looking to “get off”. though this can be said to be true for both homosexual and heterosexual partners). There is a distinct… how to put this… “bond into one-ness” that comes with lovemaking in both homosexual and heterosexual couples. A coupling of energies if you will. Sex bonds the physical, the spiritual and the mental (if done right. There is a huge difference between making love and having sex. Sex has nothing on making love).

I would say that the end result of homosexuality is a “dance of intimate energies” so to speak. Intimacy and one-ness. That is… Love (captial “L”).

Using your argument above; (though im not sure if i understand it correctly yet, but i’ll do my best)

A (homosexual partner)
B (2nd homosexual partner)
C (Love)
D (morally correct)

The univocal quiddity ( >_> still dont know if i grasp the concept completely) of love implies “good”. Thus D follows from C

 

[Soulewolf]

(2) In tolerant countries, indicators such as crime rates are no higher for homosexuals than for heterosexuals.
(1) An illness or disorder can be characterized as limiting or diminishing an individual or society.
(2) Homosexuality does neither.
(3) Ergo, homosexuality is not an illness or disorder.

I believe (2) (homosexuality does neither) follows from (2,1). So it is relevant to his argument.

 

[LoverofMary]

Love is never wrong.

 

[inocente]

Homosexuality reduces the participants to mere objects of pleasure. There is nothing natural or unitative or procreative or charitable about what equates to nothing more than mutual masturbation.

Is that an argument or an opinion?

I am told in James 5.20 to admonish sinners of their evil.

Well, if we’re going to quote verses out of context, I’ll go with James 5:9 – “Brothers and sisters, don’t find fault with one another. If you do, you will be judged. And the Judge is standing at the door!”

 

[JohnDamian]

So you say that A*B>C is intrinsically good so >D is assumed?

Pretty much; of course noting the contextual nature in which such a representation would have to fall (ie; sacramental union).

how to put this… “bond into one-ness” that comes with lovemaking in both homosexual and heterosexual couples. A coupling of energies if you will. Sex bonds the physical, the spiritual and the mental (if done right. There is a huge difference between making love and having sex. Sex has nothing on making love).

This “bond into one-ness” is the unitative part of sexual intercourse. It is one of the two aspects of sex. The other being the procreative within sacramental union. Both of these must be present for the proper function of sex to be embraced. It is self evident that reproductive functions are a natural function; and you don’t seem to disagree about unitative functions either - the one thing we seem to be disagreeing with is the necessity of the presence of both of these. In the same way as contraceptive heterosexual sex; mutual masturbation; sodomy and so forth are a direct opposition to the procreative function; so is Homosexuality. Even if it is positable that unitative functions may exist within homosexual couples; they cannot engage in the complete and proper function of sex; in that what they are doing is directly opposed to procreation.

(1) An illness or disorder can be characterized as limiting or diminishing an individual or society.

An illness or disorder is not necessarily a limitation; but a negative deviation from the norm. As homosexuality essentially acts opposed to procreative functions it is a negative deviation from the norm and is bad for individuals and society in general.

Love is never wrong.

Can this be reconciled with high divorce rates? Perhaps “love” in it’s truest sense is not wrong. But the skewed *perception *of love per se is what leads to abuse; relationship troubles and divorces.

James 5:9 – “Brothers and sisters, don’t find fault with one another. If you do, you will be judged. And the Judge is standing at the door!

It is not judging another to admonish sinners; nor is it particularily alarming that such an action would cause me to be judged.

Is that an argument or an opinion?

Opinion. No sensible a posteriori argument can be offered at present as the presupposition of natural order would render the argument internally invalid.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Love is never wrong.

Nobody is saying that love is wrong. And please note that there are different kinds of love. Existence is never wrong; but people do wrong things with existence. While love in itself is not wrong, it would be disordered to have sexual attractions to a small child and to fall in love with a small child or baby, and it would be wrong to act on that feeling in the manner that grown men and women act when they fall in love and have sexual attractions.

But love in itself is certainly not a wrong thing.

 

[mtngal25]

After listening to all this bantering, it boils down to just a few things with me. Don’t push deviant from the mainstream lifestyles on people who don’t like it or on children. If people want to be homosexual and they are consenting adults then be quiet about it but leave the rest of us alone about it. Heck, a pedophile could use the same arguments supporting their sexual deviancy saying that it is natural for them. They say that kids are innocent and they like that. They say that an adult is too pushy and strong willed and that a kid is easy. They are disgusting but they feel they have reasons to support their activities, too. Almost anyone can say or think things to justify their sexual perversions no matter what but it does not make it right or good for society. I cannot see good in any other sexual life but within heterosexual marriage. I live a single life and I am content with that. I am not frustrated or needy in any way. I don’t buy all this silliness that we all must have sex even if it means that we have to enter into deviant lifestyles to do it. Always remember, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. No one can convince anyone to believe something if they don’t want to or to not do something if they want to–unless it is a crime. Then does society have a right to enter into the fray and put a person in jail. Pedophilia is a crime. In most societies, homosexuality is not, however, I think that if people try to batter others to accept that lifestyle or force it into schools, then I begin to get roiled. I think people should keep sex to themselves and not publicize their personal lives.
Mtngal

 

[MindOverMatter2]

After listening to all this bantering, it boils down to just a few things with me. Don’t push deviant from the mainstream lifestyles on people who don’t like it or on children. If people want to be homosexual and they are consenting adults then be quiet about it but leave the rest of us alone about it.
Mtngal

Another straw-man from somebody who does not seem to want to read my posts in context.

I never said that homosexuality represents the same degree of evil that paedophile sex represents. I was merely demonstrating that it is false to think that just because love is never wrong that therefore if a person is in love they can therefore act on that love, and necessarily be free from moral error because of the premise. It doesn’t matter how much I am in love with an animal, I would not act on that love because it is a disorder of my nature as a person. Thus the argument that all love is good, and therefore homosexuality is good, is false because its premise is contextually flawed.

 

[MichaelR]

After listening to all this bantering, it boils down to just a few things with me. Don’t push deviant from the mainstream lifestyles on people who don’t like it or on children. If people want to be homosexual and they are consenting adults then be quiet about it but leave the rest of us alone about it. Heck, a pedophile could use the same arguments supporting their sexual deviancy saying that it is natural for them. They say that kids are innocent and they like that. They say that an adult is too pushy and strong willed and that a kid is easy. They are disgusting but they feel they have reasons to support their activities, too. Almost anyone can say or think things to justify their sexual perversions no matter what but it does not make it right or good for society. I cannot see good in any other sexual life but within heterosexual marriage. I live a single life and I am content with that. I am not frustrated or needy in any way. I don’t buy all this silliness that we all must have sex even if it means that we have to enter into deviant lifestyles to do it. Always remember, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. No one can convince anyone to believe something if they don’t want to or to not do something if they want to–unless it is a crime. Then does society have a right to enter into the fray and put a person in jail. Pedophilia is a crime. In most societies, homosexuality is not, however, I think that if people try to batter others to accept that lifestyle or force it into schools, then I begin to get roiled. I think people should keep sex to themselves and not publicize their personal lives.
Mtngal

Is homosexuality really being likened to paedophilia here? I don’t know whether to laugh at the ridiculousness of such a thing, or be down right offended at the disgust such a comparison brings.

Please, let’s not resort to that sort of thing. I might not agree with the arguments against homosexuality that were proposed at the start of this thread, but at least it was done in a calm and polite manner, without resorting to such inflammatory comments. A lot of debate in this thread has actually been very thought provoking, no matter which view you take, let’s not spoil it now by such comparisons.

I completely agree with people getting on with life and not ‘shoving their lifestyle down other people’s throats’, but that also goes both ways. If you expect homosexuals to behave in that manner, then you should also behave in kind…and by asserting what you did, and in the manner that you did it, I don’t believe you did so, or you would have just left it at ‘live and let live, but don’t tell me about it’, which you didn’t.

 

[Soulewolf]

This “bond into one-ness” is the unitative part of sexual intercourse. It is one of the two aspects of sex. The other being the procreative within sacramental union. Both of these must be present for the proper function of sex to be embraced. It is self evident that reproductive functions are a natural function; and you don’t seem to disagree about unitative functions either - the one thing we seem to be disagreeing with is the necessity of the presence of both of these. In the same way as contraceptive heterosexual sex; mutual masturbation; sodomy and so forth are a direct opposition to the procreative function; so is Homosexuality. Even if it is positable that unitative functions may exist within homosexual couples; they cannot engage in the complete and proper function of sex; in that what they are doing is directly opposed to procreation.

hmm. well i would have to agree that we disagree on this necessity. also on the number of aspects of sex. but that really doesnt matter.

Knowing the nature of the divine (Love), two divine properties which are infinitely good in nature, added together equal infinite goodness. one is no less good than two.