A Philosophical Arguement Against Homosexuality

[MichaelR]

So…you think that things are okay so long as it stays behind closed doors?

It’s behind closed doors that bad things happen.

Don’t ask don’t tell. A similar concept really.

I think when things are ‘behind closed doors’ or in a ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ state of mind they become dangerous, because when things are hidden, bad or dangerous things can happen.

Much better that it’s out in the open, surely, so we can look after each other.

For example, if a young man was struggling with his sexuality, I’d much rather he knows he can do it in the open, with friends and organisations for support, so he can explore life and work out how he thinks and feels…rather than be so fearful that he be found out and punished for it by law, or treated like an outcast by people around him, or looked down upon as a person, because with all of that extra weight, how can he possibly sort his head out? It would also leave teenagers in that situation as vulnerable targets by abusers, for being someone on the outskirts of society. Or, as is sadly the case with those who feel they have to hide and hold all of their burden to themselves, it makes them far more likely to hurt themselves.

 

[Soulewolf]

sorry about that. friends came over and wanted to party for a day and a half lol. I thought that was a bit more important than arguing on the interwebs.

ANYWAYS

We have the premises

Men have penises

Women have vaginas

If penises ejaculate into vaginas, then babies are formed

These will be represented by A, B, and A*(and)B>(if…then)C

so we have the premises
A
B
A*B>C

with these premises MoM tries to prove that only A and B are morally correct because of AB>C. Which we will represent as (A*B>C)>D

so we have

A
B
AB>C
(AB>C)>D
.’.(therefor) D

If you worked through the argument, the logic is valid. But a “valid argument” is explained as such:

If all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
(Introduction to logic, twelfth edition by irving m copi and carl cohen)

the problem is with (AB>C)>D. MoM Fails to back up this premise. He (she?) tries by saying that it is “human nature” but then only gives A, B and AB>C as evidence for this. This argument goes

A
B
A*B>C
.’.D

This argument is a non sequiter because no matter which way you work the equation, you can not get D from A, B, A*B>C.

Which means that the premise (A*B>C)>D is false which makes the argument invalid.

is that a bit more understandable?

 

[Soulewolf]

No, I’m saying that your statement that philosophy has no room for “the soul” depended on your limited definition and previous conceptions of what that word means, without regard to what it may have meant to the philosopher to whom I referred.

RMN

further reason why “the soul” has no room in philosophy. Such an “unstable” term can not be used as a premise without first giving an absolute definition. If no such definition exists or is controversial, then how can you base any argument on it?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

sorry about that. friends came over and wanted to party for a day and a half lol. I thought that was a bit more important than arguing on the interwebs.

ANYWAYS

We have the premises

Men have penises

Women have vaginas

If penises ejaculate into vaginas, then babies are formed

These will be represented by A, B, and A*(and)B>(if…then)C

so we have the premises
A
B
A*B>C

with these premises MoM tries to prove that only A and B are morally correct because of AB>C. Which we will represent as (A*B>C)>D

so we have

A
B
AB>C
(AB>C)>D
.’.(therefor) D

If you worked through the argument, the logic is valid. But a “valid argument” is explained as such:

If all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
(Introduction to logic, twelfth edition by irving m copi and carl cohen)

the problem is with (AB>C)>D. MoM Fails to back up this premise. He (she?) tries by saying that it is “human nature” but then only gives A, B and AB>C as evidence for this. This argument goes

A
B
A*B>C
.’.D

This argument is a non sequiter because no matter which way you work the equation, you can not get D from A, B, A*B>C.

Which means that the premise (A*B>C)>D is false which makes the argument invalid.

is that a bit more understandable?

No, its waste of pixels, because all you have done is asserted that its wrong without explaining why its wrong. A part from the fact that this slightly out of place from what i said in the first place, and the fact that i cannot stand when people use short had symbols, you merely assert that i don’'t back up one for my premises, but you don’t explain what it is that i haven’t backed up and why the argument itself doesn’t back it up. What you should do is quote the original argument and show me exactly what i have failed to show and why my argument doesn’t show it. This much you haven’t yet done.

 

[MichaelR]

Men. Women. Therefore children
Men. Women. Therefore children. Therefore morally correct…?

 

[JohnDamian]

Men. Women. Therefore children
Men. Women. Therefore children. Therefore morally correct…?

No no!

Marraige is centered on unity and procreation. This is why they must be consumated.

Men and Women unite together through the Sacrament of Marraige to both solidify their unity and to procreate in a charitable and family centered way.

Men and Men, or Women and Women cannot unite in a fully giving way; as they cannot consumate marraiges; they cannot direct their love towards one another and to siring children. Homosexual relationships are cemented purely upon the lust that drives such acts. It is uncharitable and ungiving to dehumanise your partner as a mere tool for sexual gratification; likewise it would be wrong for heterosexuals to engage in fornication, adultery, contraception, and other such acts.

The union of Man and Woman is centered on charity, unity and procreation. Homosexuals cannot do this; their “marraiges” are a farce, an indulgence.

 

[MichaelR]

No no!

Marraige is centered on unity and procreation. This is why they must be consumated.

Men and Women unite together through the Sacrament of Marraige to both solidify their unity and to procreate in a charitable and family centered way.

Men and Men, or Women and Women cannot unite in a fully giving way; as they cannot consumate marraiges; they cannot direct their love towards one another and to siring children. Homosexual relationships are cemented purely upon the lust that drives such acts. It is uncharitable and ungiving to dehumanise your partner as a mere tool for sexual gratification; likewise it would be wrong for heterosexuals to engage in fornication, adultery, contraception, and other such acts.

The union of Man and Woman is centered on charity, unity and procreation. Homosexuals cannot do this; their “marraiges” are a farce, an indulgence.

By the way, my last post wasn’t my opinion, I was trying to make sense of the logic language being used LOL

Question: If this is true, then what about marriages where a woman or a man is infertile?

 

[JohnDamian]

By the way, my last post wasn’t my opinion, I was trying to make sense of the logic language being used LOL

Question: If this is true, then what about marriages where a woman or a man is infertile?

I am glad you asked this.

The couple merely has to be open to procreation. Wilfully avoiding conception by use of sodomy, masturbation, contraception or any other form is obstructing the sexual purpose.

Nonetheless, couples who appear to be infertile can still engage in “relations” so long as they do nothing to unnaturally obstruct the possibility of conception.

I shall remind you here; of Abraham and his wife Sarah; who conceived at a very late age. In fact; upon overhearing that she would become pregnant; Sarah laughed. This is the origin of the name of their Child; Isaac - meaning laughter. Whilst Sarah seemed infertile, engaging in “relations” without unnaturally obstructing pregnancy meant she and Abraham were not abusing the function of sex. Lo and behold; they were blessed with a Child for all their “hard work”.

 

[MichaelR]

I can understand the ethos of this, but not necessarily the practicality.

For example, if, heaven forbid, a woman is physically incapable of having a child, (which is sadly the case with some women, and men for that matter), then there is no chance that a woman will conceive, it is physically impossible, no matter how much will there is for a child. In this case, a couple where it is physically impossible to have a child, surely there is no moral difference between a woman and a man and a man and a man in this position.

I suppose what I’m saying is…if a man and a woman are physically incapable of having a child, it is physically impossible for them to have a child, no matter how much they want it. Surely the same is for a loving male/male or female/female couple…it is also physically impossible for them to have a child, but they might have equal wish to be able to.

Of course, it is impossible for a man/man or woman/woman to naturally have a child…however, it is equally impossible for a man/woman physically incapable of having children to naturally have a child. But both the man/man and the man/woman may equally wish and long to have a child together, but it is just as impossible for both of them. If it is okay for the man/woman to carry on with loving acts because of the will to have children, then, logically and practically, couldn’t the same be argued for a man/man couple or woman/woman couple who wish just as much to be able to have a child together?

 

[Soulewolf]

No, its waste of pixels, because all you have done is asserted that its wrong without explaining why its wrong. A part from the fact that this slightly out of place from what i said in the first place, and the fact that i cannot stand when people use short had symbols, you merely assert that i don’'t back up one for my premises, but you don’t explain what it is that i haven’t backed up and why the argument itself doesn’t back it up. What you should do is quote the original argument and show me exactly what i have failed to show and why my argument doesn’t show it. This much you haven’t yet done.

… its a LOGIC PROOF. that is MATHEMATICAL PROOF that your argument is invalid. i dont care if you hate people that use short hand. The fact of the matter is that your argument for “natural law” based on the idea that something has an objective right function because that is how it is primarily used has been MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN to be a fallacy.

I did not say that you didnt back up your premise, i said that the evidence you used to back up your premise DOES NOT BACK UP YOUR PREMISE. AND i proved this through the use of a logic proof.

i wouldent rewrite 2+2 for you if you didn’t understand it. you wouldent for me either. I told you what every symbol means. if you cant put A and B (lol) together then that is on you. not me.

 

[HauntedJame]

Whereas spelling, soulewolf, clearly means nothing to you…

I have been following the discussion and while the good old arguments last forever, it boils down to this:

Some people are different than others. Science claim we have been born that way. Some claim it is unnatural, others argue that since it has come to pass, it cannot be unnatural.

I mean…it’s just how I see it all. Pay me no heed.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

… its a LOGIC PROOF. that is MATHEMATICAL PROOF that your argument is invalid.

No its not. Its a bunch or letters pretending or asserting to be a logical proof.

i dont care if you hate people that use short hand.

I never said that i hate “people” who use short hand. But it not surprising, given are previous encounters, that you would twist my words out of context.

The fact of the matter is that your argument for “natural law” based on the idea that something has an objective right function because that is how it is primarily used has been MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN to be a fallacy.

What has mathematics got to do with the meaning of sexuality? First of all i never argued that because something is used in a particular way a certain number of times that therefore this is evidence that this is what its used for. I basically argued that, the fact that we are male and female, along with the meaning that is intrinsic to such a fact, is evidence that our natural biological form is heterosexual in nature and is thus ordered to that end. This is to say only that heterosexuality is evidently the natural end of our being female or male which is evident in the fact that we are male and female; and thus any sexual activity or sexual attraction that deviates from our fundamental nature as male and female is necessarily disordered and un-natural in relation to that natural end.

Like i have said before, i suggest you re-read my original posts on the matter, take some classes in logic, and continue with that until you are competent enough to produce an honest and meaningful critique of my argument. Otherwise admit that you don’t understand my argument and move on.

I did not say that you didnt back up your premise, i said that the evidence you used to back up your premise DOES NOT BACK UP YOUR PREMISE.
AND i proved this through the use of a logic proof.

You did no such thing :nope:.

i wouldent rewrite 2+2 for you if you didn’t understand it. you wouldent for me either. I told you what every symbol means. if you cant put A and B (lol) together then that is on you. not me.

If you refuse to meet me as i meet you, it means that you have no interest in respecting me. The use of symbols is unnecessary, and, in your case, amounts to nothing more than an attempt to camouflage a false argument.

 

[Soulewolf]

No its not. Its a bunch or letters pretending or asserting to be a logical proof.

aparently you lack the understanding of what a logic proof is…

What has mathematics got to do with the meaning of sexuality? First of all i never argued that because something is used in a particular way a certain number of times that therefore this is evidence that this is what its used for. I basically argued that, the fact that we are male and female, along with the meaning that is intrinsic to such a fact, is evidence that our natural biological form is heterosexual in nature and is thus ordered to that end. This is to say only that heterosexuality is evidently the natural end of our being female or male which is evident in the fact that we are male and female; and thus any sexual activity or sexual attraction that deviates from our fundamental nature as male and female is necessarily disordered and un-natural in relation to that natural end.

im sorry. This argument is exactally the same as

A (We are male)
B (we are female)
A*B>C (when males and females have sex babies come out)
.’.D (only heterosexual relations are morally correct)

YOU CANT GET D FROM A, B AND C! how much more clear can i make this?

Non Sequiter. It is not logically valid.

Like i have said before, i suggest you re-read my original posts on the matter, take some classes in logic, and continue with that until you are competent enough to produce an honest and meaningful critique of my argument. Otherwise admit that you don’t understand my argument and move on.

chuckles your telling me to take a class in logic when you cant read logic proofs or solve them yourself or even know what they are or their importance to the philosophical arts?

You did no such thing :nope:.

prove it instead of say it. you havent even touched my actual argument. you just discredit it because its in a form you are unfamiliar with which apparently makes logical sense to you. its like saying E=MC^2 is wrong because you dont understand what it means. Why you think this, i have no idea.

If you refuse to meet me as i meet you, it means that you have no interest in respecting me. The use of symbols is unnecessary, and, in your case, amounts to nothing more than an attempt to camouflage a false argument.

No it means that i have no interest in teaching you something i already tried to teach you but you are too stubborn to learn, which is blatantly disrespectful of my own knowledge on the subject. You should already know proof theory if you delve into philosophy or at least consider yourself in any way familiar with philosophical thought.

"Together with model theory, axiomatic set theory, and recursion theory, proof theory is one of the so-called **four pillars of the foundations of mathematics. **
“Proof theory is important in philosophical logic, where the primary interest is in the idea of a proof-theoretic semantics, an idea which depends upon technical ideas in structural proof theory to be feasible.”
-Wikipedia

just because you say proof theory is unnecessary doesnt make you any less wrong.
It IS necessary and is a even greater tool than discussion because it filters out all the “your right i’m wrong” bs that confuses an argument.

Why am i even debating this with you? It is a valid form of logical argument and has been proven to be so. if you dont like it because it was used to prove your argument invalid, oh well. proof theory is still valid regardless of your views.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Why am i even debating this with you? It is a valid form of logical argument and has been proven to be so. if you dont like it because it was used to prove your argument invalid, oh well. proof theory is still valid regardless of your views.

It really is a joke that you would stoop to such deceptive levels, taking my argument out of context, and saying things that i never said.

But so be it.

 

[LoverofMary]

The original post is implying that a person is not whole unless (s)he is in a heterosexual relationship and that love between two people of the same sex is somehow selfish, and yet many homosexual couples have been together for years,completely devoted to each other despite hatred, oppression, and general disapproval from society. Some have even been disowned by their friends and families.

Furthermore, what about people who are genuinely asexual or called called to celibacy? Are these people somehow not whole? And if loving and caring for another person requires completion in a heterosexual relationship, does this not devalue love for members of the opposite sex that does not include a sexual component?

Wholeness is not to be found in someone else. When two people are in love, they must bring their wholeness to one another. If one of the partners is not already whole, (s)he will not become whole because of a heterosexual relationship.

Also, the original post seems to indicate that procreation is the only valid form of sex, but this is obviously wrong. The clitoris of a woman serves no other purpose other than sexual stimulation. Regular masturbation among males helps decrease the risk of prostate cancer and provides psychological relief from stress and sexual tension, and thankfully it is safe and STD free. Heterosexual couples not capable of procreating still express their love to one another and relieve sexual desire through their union. Why should homosexual couples not do the same? Because it is “unnatural?” And who will define unnatural? Masturbation is considered natural, but it’s not procreative, nor does there seem to be an obvious physical purpose for it despite psychological benefits and health benefits and the natural urge. If it is healthy and the urge is there, how can it be unnatural? Such definitions are merely subjective.

And what would you suggest that an intersexed person do? Someone who is neither genetically or physically male or female? Should they not experience romantic love? Has such a person not been made in the image of God and have every right to love and marriage as anyone else? The world is not always black and white. There are many shades of grey.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The original post is implying that a person is not whole unless (s)he is in a heterosexual relationship and that love between two people of the same sex is somehow selfish, and yet many homosexual couples have been together for years,completely devoted to each other despite hatred, oppression, and general disapproval from society. Some have even been disowned by their friends and families.

Furthermore, what about people who are genuinely asexual or called called to celibacy?

That is not what the argument intended to imply. I basically said, that to engage in homosexual relationships or to have a sexual attraction to the same sex is a disorder of the fact that we are male and female because the natural end of our being male and female is a heterosexual relationship. Those Christians who are celibate are called to celibacy by God given a particular moral context that justifies celibacy. God is that which is most natural. Unity with God is the most natural end to which we are in act, and thus God is justified, given some circumstances, in overriding that which God has created. The presit hood have been called to celibacy by God.

As for the so called hatred and oppression; while i despise those who beat up and bully gays, the fact that they do suffer does not determine whether or not gay relationships are natural.

Are these people somehow not whole?

When i say that a heterosexual relationship “fulfills” the fact that we are male or female, i do not intend to imply that we are not fully male and female unless we engage in a relationship. When i say “fulfill”, i mean only that if we choose to engage in a sexual relationship we must understand that the natural end of our being male or female is a heterosexual relationship. The potentiality of a heterosexual relationship and the giving of new life is the reason why we are male and female; its in this fact that we can see that its our true nature to engage in heterosexual relationships and have children. It is good to seek that which fulfills the end to which your nature is in act; but it does not necessarily mean that one is in error for not actualizing a particular potentiality.

Is celibacy wrong? It depends on why we stop seeking a potential companion. It is ultimately God that fulfills us, and sometimes, given a particular context, their duty to God is far greater than the fulfillment of some potentiality. And thus this may mean that one is required to disengage from the potentiality of sexual relations. In any case, the right or wrong of celibacy is not what will determine the right or wrong of my argument and is besides the point.

Also, the original post seems to indicate that procreation is the only valid form of sex, but this is obviously wrong. The clitoris of a woman serves no other purpose other than sexual stimulation.

Part of being a “woman” is having a clitoris. But this does not change the fact that Procreation is the natural end of our heterosexual nature. That we can have pleasure when we have sex as men and women does not change the fact that heterosexuality is the ontological end to which are nature is in act.

To be continued…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If it is healthy and the urge is there, how can it be unnatural? Such definitions are merely subjective.

There is nothing subjective about what i am saying. Heterosexuality is the natural objective end of our being male and female.

And what would you suggest that an intersexed person do?

Be celibate, if they cannot achieve the natural end for which they are male and female.

Someone who is neither genetically or physically male or female? Should they not experience romantic love?

They have a disorder, thus it would be better for them to remain celibate since they cannot objectively determine whether they male or female.

Has such a person not been made in the image of God

They have been made in the image of God, but that does not change the fact that they evidently have a disorder.

and have every right to love and marriage as anyone else?

Heterosexuality is evidently the natural end of being male and female.

The world is not always black and white. There are many shades of grey.

The fact that heterosexuality is the natural end of our being male and female is black white. There is no excuse to be ignorant of the fact. Those we attempt to argue otherwise are being willfully ignorant either to spite the Catholic faith or because they don’t care about what is right or natural unless it benefits them.

 

[LoverofMary]

Be celibate, if they cannot achieve the natural end for which they are male and female.

An intersexed person is neither. Also, you cannot prove that we are male and female to procreate. It can be argued, we see because we have eyes rather than we have eyes to see. That is, we may procreate because we have the urge, but we don’t necessarily have the urge because we should procreate.

Also, heterosexuals who cannot procreate because of health reasons or because they are beyond the age of procreation are also not using sex for its “natural” end, if by natural you mean, quite narrowly, that sex is only for procreation.

It is also legitimate that some couples may not wish to procreate, even if they can, nor should they be expected to. At one time, procreation was more important, but now, with the problems of overpopulation, times have changed, and we should limit the number of children we have.

This problem requires another response as well. It is quite arguable that homosexuality is “natural.” It occurs in both human and non-human animals, and it is the natural urge of homosexuals (and bisexuals). It is a product of genetic, environmental, and prenatal hormonal interactions, all of which are quite natural. Although I do not argue that homosexuality is a disorder, even disorders are “natural” and can have natural causes.

Sexual behavior in a healthy context appears to be a natural expression of affection and love, and this in itself makes it natural. From this perspective, sex as an expression of love and affection between two members of the same sex is natural behavior for them, just as sex between two members of the opposite sex for reasons other than procreation can be a natural expression of affection.

Finally, just because something is unnatural doesn’t make it wrong, or right. If someone infuriates me, it may be natural to respond with violence, but that doesn’t make it right. And the ears did not evolve to hold ear rings, but that doesn’t make such a use of the ears wrong.

The fact that heterosexuality is the natural end of our being male and female is black white. There is no excuse to be ignorant of the fact. Those we attempt to argue otherwise are being willfully ignorant either to spite the Catholic faith or because they don’t care about what is right or natural unless it benefits them.

I hope my above post has shown how this issue is not so black and white. And it isn’t a fact. It is quite presumptuous of you to assume that someone who holds a different position on the matter is trying to spite your faith or that such a person, myself included, doesn’t care about what is “right” or moral. You have never met me. You are not qualified to judge my character.

James

 

[chrysostim83]

Hi MoM2,

I’m afraid I had a tough time understanding your argument again. Here’s my attempt at schematizing it:

• 
  *]The fulfillment of his or her fundamental nature is a person’s greatest temporal good (premise)
  *]Biological sex is an ingredient in the fundamental nature of persons (premise)
  *]The fulfillment of the fundamental nature of a person requires the fulfillment of every ingredient of that person’s fundamental nature (premise)
  *]A person’s greatest temporal good requires the fulfillment of that person’s biological sex (1,2,3)
  *]The fulfillment of a person’s biological sex is that person’s being in a heterosexual relationship (premise)
  *]A person’s greatest temporal good requires that that person be in a heterosexual relationship (4,5)
  *]Anything that contradicts a person’s greatest temporal good is sin (premise)
  *]Homosexuality contradicts heterosexual relationships (premise)
  *]Therefore, homosexuality is sin (6,7,8)
  
  As usual, this schema is probably wrong: neither you nor I would accept 4 or 7. Maybe you could rework this argument to make it an accurate representation of your ideas? Thanks

 

[Soulewolf]

I basically argued that, the fact that we are male and female, along with the meaning that is intrinsic to such a fact, is evidence that our natural biological form is heterosexual in nature and is thus ordered to that end. This is to say only that heterosexuality is evidently the natural end of our being female or male which is evident in the fact that we are male and female; and thus any sexual activity or sexual attraction that deviates from our fundamental nature as male and female is necessarily disordered and un-natural in relation to that natural end.

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.

The use logic proofs have is that even though sometimes a fallacy might seem logical, when you write it out in equation form, the fallacy is much easier to see.