A secular case against gay marriage

[rossum]

No. Please understand the distinction. You are trying to justify something as common good by saying

1. I desire it
2. If I have it, I will be happy
3. If I am happy, I can work well

That is unacceptable. Why? Because what a person considers as happiness should be evaluated as distorted or not based on common view.

You have misunderstood my argument. My apologies for not expressing myself more clearly.

Look back at your post about the celibate doctor:

Celibacy can be for the sake of common good. A doctor can choose to remain celibate so that he can concentrate his energy on his work to save the lives of patients.

My point was that same sex marriage can also allow someone to concentrate on their work rather than spending their energy on resolving tax problems that would not affect a heterosexual couple. I even provided a real example. I was merely copying your argument and pointing it the other way. You are arguing against your own example.

The issue here Rossum is that Canada even allowed it to be called a marriage in the first place. We are not talking about the ethics of what we must do in a society where gay marriage is accepted. We are talking about the ethics of first allowing gay marriage to begin with.

Consider what a civil marriage is. It is an association between two people together with a contract. Every adult has the right of association, both in America and in Canada. Every adult has the right to enter into contracts. In terms of civil law there is no issue with same sex marriage in either country.

Also, please pay attention to the argument. What part of that argument makes infertile couples marrying a bad thing?

What part of the “common good” is served by an infertile heterosexual marriage that is not also served by an infertile same sex marriage? Obviously neither result in children. What “common good” applies to one and not the other?

Freedom to pursue happiness is not a definition of common good that all will accept.

But many will. Those are the people you have to convince. It is easy to convince people who agree with you. The difficult part is convincing the people who do not agree with you. They do not always share the same premises so you have to work much harder at establishing your premises. You cannot just assume them.

However, the idea that

1. Any action if adopted by all that will lead to the destruction of the human race is contrary to the common good

is something everyone in general accepts.

I do not. The action of being a celibate Catholic priest will lead to the destruction of the human race if adopted by all men. Are you saying that it is contrary to the common good to have any Catholic priests at all? The action of being a policeman is contrary to the common good because if everyone was a policeman then there would be no farmers to grow food and everyone would starve. Your logic fails because of the “if adopted by all” phrase. That is patently ridiculous and results in everyone and everything being against the common good except possibly for hermaphrodite farmers. Think about “If everyone were female…” to see how silly your criterion is.

What about yourself? If same sex marriage is made legal (or if you moved to Canada) would you become homosexual? Why do you think that other people would change if you yourself won’t change? Where are your figures for the massive increase in homosexuality in the Netherlands following the legalisation of same sex marriage there in 2001?

You are basing your argument on something that won’t happen. That does not make for a strong argument.

rossum

 

[JABA]

What about yourself? If same sex marriage is made legal (or if you moved to Canada) would you become homosexual? Why do you think that other people would change if you yourself won’t change? Where are your figures for the massive increase in homosexuality in the Netherlands following the legalisation of same sex marriage there in 2001?

You are basing your argument on something that won’t happen. That does not make for a strong argument.

rossum

Humans inherently have a pack mentality. We, even without noticing judge others on many different aspects and compare them to ourselves and society at large for a definition and basis for normality. We want to blend in and fit in and not be outcasts from others. This is why we have trends, culture etc.

Leading on from this, it’s true that with homosexual marriage, won’t mean all people will become homosexual, but, through allowing homosexual marriage, disordered sexual orientations are being promoted in a society and seen as acceptable within a culture.

As people want to fit, be part of a group, you will find more people in homosexual relationships, in a pro-gay society such as this.

I have two gay friends at work(This is in Australia). One guy is from Vietnam and is in a homosexual relationship. He said that culturally, homosexual relationships are not considered acceptable in his Vietnamese culture. He said if he lived in Vietnam, he would married a woman and lived a very different life than the one he has here in Australia. In Australia, homosexuality is promoted and considered acceptable, making it much easier to live and choose this type of lifestyle.

The other guy is from Germany. He was married for over 16 years, with kids. He only opened up to his wife when they came to Australia and when he started to get in touch with the “gay culture” prevalent in some of the towns and clubs in the city, here in Australia. The funny thing is, he said he was happily married to her, until now.

How many more cases are there like this. Even one case more, is a travesty in itself and reasoning against gay marriage and homosexuality. You take away the means, you will take away the will.

Obviously, one can see the harm in the promotion and acceptability of disordered sexual orientations, let alone promoting them through the union of marriage. This contrary to the common good, like stated before, therefore it’s one the reasons against gay marriage.

 

[rossum]

Leading on from this, it’s true that with homosexual marriage, won’t mean all people will become homosexual, but, through allowing homosexual marriage, disordered sexual orientations are being promoted in a society and seen as acceptable within a culture.

There is no secular case for homosexuality being “disordered”. There is a Catholic case, but not a secular case. In secular terms, homosexuality is a normal minority variant of human sexuality. Homosexuality has been removed from the list of disorders. It is no more abnormal in secular terms than being left handed.

As to people changing their public orientation, you have given two anecdotes. Anecdotes are not data. Where are the numbers form surveys to back up your contention?

rossum

 

[JABA]

There is no secular case for homosexuality being “disordered”. There is a Catholic case, but not a secular case. In secular terms, homosexuality is a normal minority variant of human sexuality. Homosexuality has been removed from the list of disorders. It is no more abnormal in secular terms than being left handed.

As to people changing their public orientation, you have given two anecdotes. Anecdotes are not data. Where are the numbers form surveys to back up your contention?

rossum

There is a “secular case” for homosexuality being a disorder of sexual preference, if you base it on the fixed facts of human biology, anatomy, physiology, sociology and sexual psychology. Nothing can change these facts, only if you choose to ignore them through a subjective secular opinion, which is happening now to justify homosexuality as a normal sexual variant. Subjective secular opinion is the not the same as secular facts.

Just because the catholic opinion agrees and coincides with the above, does not make it just a “catholic opinion”.

Homosexuality is normal variant based on what? They are not hurting anyone, apes do it. lmao!

The answer is, it’s actually based on nothing more than a subjective opinion and not on fixed secular facts of the observable and measurable reality. I work in mental health, with people with mental illness. The problem, what is considered a mental illness or disorder is sometimes based on nothing more than ones own cultural interpretation of the observable variants in human behavior. Many times, we get doctors from two different cultural backgrounds, with them assessing the same patient and determining they have a mental illness, while the other does not. They both come to different conclusions.

One of the reasons, why homosexuality was taken down as a disorder of sexual preference, as many of those psychiatrists and those in the DSM, were homosexual themselves and lobbied and influenced the change. There have been some unsuccessful lobbies by pedophiles for some similar changes. Only time will tell if the succeed. They probably will, if people continue to base normality on just observable variations and subjective opinion. Which are all subject to change, like which has happened to justify homosexuality.

Variation does not equal normality. You are confusing, an observed variation in behavior as a justification for normality. This is not the case, as a certain percentage and variation of adults have sexual attraction towards children, some towards animals, some towards dead people, some towards relations. So if say, 20% of adults had sexual attraction towards children, that would make pedophile a normal sexual variant will it?. It will not from a biological, anatomical, physiological, sociological and sexual psychological point of reference, but it will make it an acceptable variant from a subjective opinion.

No one can change the fixed secular facts, that homosexuality is disorder of sexual preference, just like any other sexual disorder, like pedophilia and any other sexual variations. Unless you choose to ignore the secular facts, which you are, therefore making any argument for homosexuality flawed, illogical and based on nothing but a secular opinion.

Yes, anecdotes are not data. Even if I wanted to find a survey, I would not find it. But,you can choose to ignore this anecdote.

As a Buddhist, I thought you would be against homosexuality. Didn’t the Dalai Lama previously write something about this?

 

[rossum]

There is a “secular case” for homosexuality being a disorder of sexual preference, if you base it on the fixed facts of human biology, anatomy, physiology, sociology and sexual psychology.

False. The facts are that homosexuality has been present throughout human history in a minority of people. Just as with blue eyes and left handers, there is a minority that is always present and not disordered.

The American Psychological Association says:

Is homosexuality a mental disorder?

No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder…

Source: Sexual orientation and homosexuality

Nothing can change these facts

Correct, and you are on the wrong side of the facts.

Homosexuality is normal variant based on what? They are not hurting anyone, apes do it.

Yes they do. See Homosexual behavior in animals.

As a Buddhist, I thought you would be against homosexuality. Didn’t the Dalai Lama previously write something about this?

Buddhism has the same split as Christianity, there are some against homosexuality and some who do not see a problem. IIRC the Dalai Lama is on the conservative side, though sometimes he is talking about celibate monks and not about lay people.

rossum

 

[Eufrosnia]

You have misunderstood my argument. My apologies for not expressing myself more clearly.

Look back at your post about the celibate doctor:

My point was that same sex marriage can also allow someone to concentrate on their work rather than spending their energy on resolving tax problems that would not affect a heterosexual couple. I even provided a real example. I was merely copying your argument and pointing it the other way. You are arguing against your own example.

But you are arguing after the fact. If homosexual activity is discouraged, then there is no such thing as a tax issue to begin with. People shouldn’t be expecting inheritances as a spouse does from a “marriage” to begin with.

Consider what a civil marriage is. It is an association between two people together with a contract. Every adult has the right of association, both in America and in Canada. Every adult has the right to enter into contracts. In terms of civil law there is no issue with same sex marriage in either country.

Once again, you argue from an after-the-fact position. The issue here is whether the civil law in these countries are correct in allowing same sex marriage to begin with. The answer here is no. So it does not make sense to talk about reducing the plight of those engage in it.

If anything, we should be increasing it so as to discourage such activity.

What part of the “common good” is served by an infertile heterosexual marriage that is not also served by an infertile same sex marriage? Obviously neither result in children. What “common good” applies to one and not the other?

I think you are confusing things here. My question is as to how my argument would be constructed against infertile couples marrying.

To explain better, the directly equivalent premise for this in my argument will be

A*) IF all couples were to have an infertile marriage, then it will be against the common good.

But such a statement is nonsensical. Infertility is a state. Not an act like homosexual activity. So the correct premise would be

B*) IF all couples were to pursue infertility, then it will be against the common good.

And that is a sensible statement.

It is important to realize that my argument didn’t directly speak about

1. IF gay marriage were to be adopted by all…

but rather

1. IF homosexual activity were adopted…

But many will. Those are the people you have to convince. It is easy to convince people who agree with you. The difficult part is convincing the people who do not agree with you. They do not always share the same premises so you have to work much harder at establishing your premises. You cannot just assume them.

Many will? Is not your premise that “pursuit of happiness = common good” incorrect by proof of counter-example?

1. Pursuit of happiness = common good
2. Pedophile John Doe finds happiness in molesting kids
3. Molesting kids is unacceptable and against the common good
4. Therefore, pursuit of happiness cannot be the (at least a sole) definition of common good

I do not. The action of being a celibate Catholic priest will lead to the destruction of the human race if adopted by all men. Are you saying that it is contrary to the common good to have any Catholic priests at all? The action of being a policeman is contrary to the common good because if everyone was a policeman then there would be no farmers to grow food and everyone would starve. Your logic fails because of the “if adopted by all” phrase. That is patently ridiculous and results in everyone and everything being against the common good except possibly for hermaphrodite farmers. Think about “If everyone were female…” to see how silly your criterion is.

Perhaps it will help if you understand Catholic Theology better here. Not all can just become priests. They must be call to the priesthood. The Church decides that and it can also reject.

That being said, you also bring up a question I already answered in my blog post discussion.

The Catholic priest, garbage collector, police man, female are all necessities for the common good. These do not qualify for the scope of my argument.

It is also worth pointing out that the Governments (or Church) does discourage or control the numbers in these professions for an example by giving incentives in terms of salaries, benefits, work hours etc. (Please refer to the blog post comment section if you want to read more).

What about yourself? If same sex marriage is made legal (or if you moved to Canada) would you become homosexual? Why do you think that other people would change if you yourself won’t change? Where are your figures for the massive increase in homosexuality in the Netherlands following the legalisation of same sex marriage there in 2001?

You are basing your argument on something that won’t happen. That does not make for a strong argument.

See, this is your major error. My argument does not hinge on whether everyone will adopt it.

It hinges on the idea that we judge an action which is not clear whether it is contrary to the common good by asking the question

A*) If action X were to be adopted by all, does it cause harm to the common good?

If the answer is yes, then we consider that action as something to be discouraged rather than allowed and encouraged.

It appears to me from your last comment that all this time, you have been arguing with a grave misunderstanding of the argument.

 

[Eufrosnia]

No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder…

Whether you want to list the person who is prone to anger as suffering from a mental health defect or not, it does not change the fact that such behavior is against the common good. Same with homosexual activity.

Whether or not such bodies as the above consider it a mental disorder or not is truly irrelevant. No amount of clinical studies can prove or disprove that homosexual activity is “normal” unless someone wants to commit the naturalistic fallacy.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

That’s a silly argument. First of all you’re making the assumption that the majority of people turn homosexual because they’re told it’s okay to be homosexual, and that may not be true. There could be many factors at play. A favourite amongst the anti-gay crowd is the claim that homosexuals have unresolved childhood issues. The acceptance of same-sex marriage certainly wouldn’t have a part to play in this. I also fail to see how the legalisation of same-sex marriage would lead to it becoming accepted (there are many things I oppose that are perfectly legal) or why it would lead to children being taught that it’s okay. Regardless of what the law states, people will still have their own beliefs and will still pass them onto their children. I’m not sure if what you’re stating is even worth humouring. Even if everyone did become homosexuals, people would still reproduce. They’d still be able to recognise that it’s a necessity.

This is one of the worst slippery-slope arguments I’ve ever seen. Can you give me an example where something even remotely like this has happened?

 

[rossum]

But you are arguing after the fact. If homosexual activity is discouraged, then there is no such thing as a tax issue to begin with. People shouldn’t be expecting inheritances as a spouse does from a “marriage” to begin with.

The point is that the couple were legally married in a secular marriage in Canada. The suit is about equal treatment before the law. If they had been a heterosexual couple married in Canada then there would have been no tax to pay.

So far in human history no law has been able to suppress homosexual activity. I do not expect that to change.

Once again, you argue from an after-the-fact position. The issue here is whether the civil law in these countries are correct in allowing same sex marriage to begin with. The answer here is no.

But you have not provided any good reason why it should not allow same sex marriage. Show us the data from the Netherlands, Canada or wherever showing the dire effects of same sex marriage. If there are no such effects then you will have to look very hard to find a good reason to deny equal treatment before the law.

But such a statement is nonsensical. Infertility is a state. Not an act like homosexual activity. So the correct premise would be

B*) IF all couples were to pursue infertility, then it will be against the common good.

And that is a sensible statement.

Then you would be better off campaigning against contraception because there are far more people using contraception than there are homosexuals. The same with divorce. Both of those are much larger threats to your definition of common good than same sex marriage. An unmarried homosexual is just as unlikely to have children as a same sex married homosexual.

It is important to realize that my argument didn’t directly speak about

1. IF gay marriage were to be adopted by all…

but rather

1. IF homosexual activity were adopted…

Which renders the issue of marriage moot. Homosexuals are going to be sexually active, even if you do not let them marry.

See, this is your major error. My argument does not hinge on whether everyone will adopt it.

Then I suggest that you rephrase it. When I see “if adopted by all” that leads me to think that is what you are saying.

It hinges on the idea that we judge an action which is not clear whether it is contrary to the common good by asking the question

A*) If action X were to be adopted by all, does it cause harm to the common good?

If the answer is yes, then we consider that action as something to be discouraged rather than allowed and encouraged.

So, do you agree that celibacy should be made illegal? Likewise taking up any occupation other than farmer? Your argument here is very easily extended to cover a great many things. You need to give you argument a much narrower focus so it does not include all manner of irrelevant cases and other cases which make it clear that your argument is not sensible.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Whether you want to list the person who is prone to anger as suffering from a mental health defect or not, it does not change the fact that such behavior is against the common good. Same with homosexual activity.

Only because your definition of “common good” is such as to make a vast range of human activities against the common good. That is a symptom of the weakness of your case. You have been unable to find something specific against same sex marriage, so you have resorted to a general argument. However that argument is so general that it covers a wide range of other, perfectly legal, activities. Celibacy is just one obvious example.

Whether or not such bodies as the above consider it a mental disorder or not is truly irrelevant. No amount of clinical studies can prove or disprove that homosexual activity is “normal” unless someone wants to commit the naturalistic fallacy.

When I want a medical opinion I will ask someone medically qualified rather than some internet poster. The American Psychological Association is well qualified to give its medical opinion on the secular medical status of homosexuality. Since we are discussing the secular case against gay marriage, then I do not see that using a theological concept like “naturalistic fallacy” is a good argument. The secular deals with the natural world, so it relies heavily on naturalism.

rossum

 

[Monkey1976]

When I want a medical opinion I will ask someone medically qualified rather than some internet poster. The American Psychological Association is well qualified to give its medical opinion on the secular medical status of homosexuality.

I would suggest that you look into how and why homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1973. Spoiler: Medical reasons had NOTHING to do with it.

 

[Eufrosnia]

The point is that the couple were legally married in a secular marriage in Canada. The suit is about equal treatment before the law. If they had been a heterosexual couple married in Canada then there would have been no tax to pay.

I am still not sure what you are talking about. The argument concludes that same sex marriage should not be tolerated or encouraged in the first place. The equal treatment before the law requires that they be told that such activity is unacceptable.

So far in human history no law has been able to suppress homosexual activity. I do not expect that to change.

Um, homosexual activity had been quiet successfully suppressed and continue do be suppressed in other parts of the world. If people in these countries didn’t use their power to threaten other countries through the UN to sign and support the homosexual propaganda, I am sure it will remain that way as well.

T
But you have not provided any good reason why it should not allow same sex marriage. Show us the data from the Netherlands, Canada or wherever showing the dire effects of same sex marriage. If there are no such effects then you will have to look very hard to find a good reason to deny equal treatment before the law.

Please understand the premise of my argument. It does not hinge on the actuality of anything being discovered as wrong in these countries. Rather, it determines that homosexuality is wrong because if everyone were to accept it, it threatens the common good.

What the argument is saying is that actions which are not directly necessary for the common good are evaluated using the following criterion

1. if X is accepted by all, is it contrary to the common good?

If the answer is YES, then the act is contrary to the common good. Hence, do not allow.

Then you would be better off campaigning against contraception because there are far more people using contraception than there are homosexuals. The same with divorce. Both of those are much larger threats to your definition of common good than same sex marriage. An unmarried homosexual is just as unlikely to have children as a same sex married homosexual.

Which part of “far more numbers” is irrelevant to this argument are you not understanding Rossum?

Which renders the issue of marriage moot. Homosexuals are going to be sexually active, even if you do not let them marry.

Please read the argument again because you seem to have missed some of its conclusions. It first concludes that all homosexual activity must be discouraged. The next conclusion is that same sex marriage too should therefore be discouraged.

So you are right in that the government can’t stop you from having sex with another of the same sex in your bedroom. BUT, it can make sure that such things are not promoted in a positive light.

Then I suggest that you rephrase it. When I see “if adopted by all” that leads me to think that is what you are saying.

I think that part is fine. It just needs some more specific qualifiers as to which actions qualify to the argument. If you have suggestions as to how I should phrase it, let me know.

T
So, do you agree that celibacy should be made illegal? Likewise taking up any occupation other than farmer? Your argument here is very easily extended to cover a great many things. You need to give you argument a much narrower focus so it does not include all manner of irrelevant cases and other cases which make it clear that your argument is not sensible.

Let me state a more refined argument for you

---

1. Any acts that are
   ---------------> a. not necessary for the common good
   ---------------> b. is contrary to the common good if accepted by all
   are considered contrary to the common good.
2. Acts that are contrary to the common good should never be allowed or promoted
3. Homosexual activity IF practiced by all causes problems for the society and human propagation.
4. Homosexual activity is not necessary for the common good
5. Therefore , homosexual activity is contrary to the common good
6. Therefore, homosexual activity must not be allowed or encouraged
7. Therefore, same sex marriage should not be allowed or encouraged

---

 

[Eufrosnia]

Only because your definition of “common good” is such as to make a vast range of human activities against the common good. That is a symptom of the weakness of your case. You have been unable to find something specific against same sex marriage, so you have resorted to a general argument. However that argument is so general that it covers a wide range of other, perfectly legal, activities. Celibacy is just one obvious example.

Celibacy is not an obvious example at all. One can argue that some people with some duties that require total dedication should remain celebate for the sake of fulfilling that duty to society i.e. common good. So celibacy becomes a necessity for performing the common good. Only way homosexual activity would qualify is if engaging in it is required for the common good

And please Rossum, the argument is first and foremost conclusion is against homosexual activity. If you pay attention to the argument, you should know that.

When I want a medical opinion I will ask someone medically qualified rather than some internet poster. The American Psychological Association is well qualified to give its medical opinion on the secular medical status of homosexuality. Since we are discussing the secular case against gay marriage, then I do not see that using a theological concept like “naturalistic fallacy” is a good argument. The secular deals with the natural world, so it relies heavily on naturalism.

Medical science cannot say if a certain activity should be considered normal. It can say if it is normative. But it cannot say if it is normal. Naturalistic fallacy is also not a theological concept. Are you sure you are familiar with what you are talking about here?

As far as normative goes, I do not need a medical faculty to tell me that homosexual activity is not normative.

Only thing medical fields can say is that homosexual activity has biological roots. But so does rape. Whether either of them are normal is not up to the medical field to decide.

 

[RevDon]

But you are confusing the argument though. It does not hinge based on the idea that everyone will adopt it. It hinges on the fact that

1. if everyone were to adopt it, it will do harm to humanity.
2. Thus homosexual activity is against the common good
3. Therefore, since it is wrong to promote/accept things contrary to the common good, it is wrong to promote/accept homosexual activity

Whether or not people actually change their minds and will become gay is not really relevant to the success of the argument.

An argument, however valid in universal principles, that is contrary to experience should not be used to justify law.

1. Everyone WILL NOT adopt a homosexual lifestyle because homoexuality is not an option, not a choice; it is part of an individual’s intrinsic makeup.
2. The argument began as a justification to deny the option of marriage to same-sex couples. Since homosexual persons are who they are, the possibility of marriage neither discourages nor promotes homosexuality; it just promotes the kind of relationship that is described by “marriage,” mutual, loving, exclusive, life-long. The denial of that possibility promotes relationships that are promiscuous. It is undeniable that this is a greater harm to the common good, if for no other reason than the possibility of the spread of STD’s.
3. Therefore, I cannot accept that the premise of denying the right of homosexuals to marry is to uphold the common good.

When discussing marriage, I think it is important to consider the imagery that one is using in order to form moral judgments. A very small part of what human beings call marriage transpires in the bedroom. Consider what marriage means when situated at the dinner table. What part of marriage occurs in the kitchen? Is there an image of marriage that can be observed at church?
Can marriage be seen in the supermarket? on an athletic field? at a school?

Laws are deciding whether the benefits of marriage may be extended to people of the same sex who wish to commit their lives to each other. How will those people be affected in hospital rooms? in Probate courts? Does their union promote harm to society, or does it promote order and compassion?

Churches are deciding whether the graces of people of the same sex who, despite facing a society in which there is extensive judgment and prejudice, wish to live a monogamous, loving relationship will be recognized as part of God’s gift to the Body of Christ. Yes, the physical parts don’t fit together in the usual way, but that is so little of the graces that come from the union of two souls. Consider Jesus’ response to the question about whose husband the seven-time widow would be. It’s about the union of spirit!

The argument about procreation is also too narrow. Human beings can copulate with the result of offspring. So can alley cats. Genesis shows God being creative, bringing forth life in many different ways. It is following that passage that people are created in God’s image–the image of one who is creative. Procreation is a very crude form of generativity, the portion of the God image in human beings that enriches the world in countless ways. Generativity can be accomplished by solitary people, and has been, but the multiplied power of generativity that comes from loving and being loved is a great good for the world. By their fruits you will know them.

 

[RevDon]

There is no secular case for homosexuality being “disordered”. There is a Catholic case, but not a secular case. In secular terms, homosexuality is a normal minority variant of human sexuality. Homosexuality has been removed from the list of disorders. It is no more abnormal in secular terms than being left handed.

As to people changing their public orientation, you have given two anecdotes. Anecdotes are not data. Where are the numbers form surveys to back up your contention?

rossum

Rossum, I am obviously in agreement with your stance on this issue. The anecdotes given illustrate the necessity of deeper consideration of the issue. I read these as examples of pressure on the part of a heterosexual majority to enforce conventional mores, to the detriment of individuals who, given freedom, would find other ways to live.

The heterosexually-married man found a beard and convinced himself that such was his lot in life. Is it possible that he lived up to the requirements of marriage? Could he have been a good husband and father? I’d say yes to both. However, there was an underlying doubt about the truth of his life. Without more information, I can’t judge the health of the marriage, but the degree of unhappiness he was experiencing is given some evidence by his separation. This is not to know anything of how happy his wife might have been.

The Catholic Church once proclaimed that the end (purpose) of marriage was the procreation and nurture of children. Today that end sits beside the mutual love of spouses as a reason for people to get married.

In secular society, order is an end of marriage, such as the establishment of the legitimacy of children, the support of children, and the inheritance of property. Civil law gives benefits and privileges to married couples, including (but not limited to) the exclusion of spouses from the necessity of supplying testimony against each other, in recognition that two have become one.

Aside from the procreation argument, which I believe has been addressed adequately elsewhere in this string, there is really no argument that can show harm when two people intend to live in unity.

 

[rossum]

Um, homosexual activity had been quiet successfully suppressed and continue do be suppressed in other parts of the world.

I disagree. The public and overt expression of homosexual activity has been suppressed. What goes on in private behind closed doors is a different thing.

Please understand the premise of my argument. It does not hinge on the actuality of anything being discovered as wrong in these countries. Rather, it determines that homosexuality is wrong because if everyone were to accept it, it threatens the common good.

So, you have determined that celibacy should be treated exactly the same as homosexuality. If everyone were celibate then the human race would die out, which is not conducive to the common good.

Let me state a more refined argument for you

1. Any acts that are
   ---------------> a. not necessary for the common good
   ---------------> b. is contrary to the common good if accepted by all
   are considered contrary to the common good.

Is celibacy “necessary for the common good”? No it is not.
Is celibacy “contrary to the common good if accepted by all”? Yes it is.

You are still catching celibacy with your broad definition.

Actually, celibacy is a reasonable example. Some people are called to celibacy while most are not. Some people are homosexual while most are not. An even smaller number of people may switch from one to the other. You have still not found a definition that will do what you want.

1. Homosexual activity IF practiced by all causes problems for the society and human propagation.

1. Homosexual activity is not necessary for the common good

1. Therefore , homosexual activity is contrary to the common good

1. Therefore, homosexual activity must not be allowed or encouraged

1. Celibacy IF practiced by all causes problems for the society and human propagation.
2. Celibacy is not necessary for the common good.
3. Therefore , celibacy is contrary to the common good.
4. Therefore, celibacy must not be allowed or encouraged.

You still have some work to do fine tuning your argument.

rossum

 

[tskrobacz]

I disagree. The public and overt expression of homosexual activity has been suppressed. What goes on in private behind closed doors is a different thing.

So, you have determined that celibacy should be treated exactly the same as homosexuality. If everyone were celibate then the human race would die out, which is not conducive to the common good.

Is celibacy “necessary for the common good”? No it is not.
Is celibacy “contrary to the common good if accepted by all”? Yes it is.

You are still catching celibacy with your broad definition.

Actually, celibacy is a reasonable example. Some people are called to celibacy while most are not. Some people are homosexual while most are not. An even smaller number of people may switch from one to the other. You have still not found a definition that will do what you want.

1. Celibacy IF practiced by all causes problems for the society and human propagation.
2. Celibacy is not necessary for the common good.
3. Therefore , celibacy is contrary to the common good.
4. Therefore, celibacy must not be allowed or encouraged.

You still have some work to do fine tuning your argument.

rossum

It is difficult to step out of the boat of popular discord/belief systems to truly trust that God really is in control and to love self and other without judgment of our own failings and regardless of who the other is or what they believe or do.

The love by which we love God is the very same love with which God has first loved us.

 

[JABA]

False. The facts are that homosexuality has been present throughout human history in a minority of people. Just as with blue eyes and left handers, there is a minority that is always present and not disordered.

I don’t dispute that homosexuality has not been present throughout human history. My point is, that an observable behavior seen in humans, does not justify it as being ordered. It can’t get any more simpler than this. If this were the case, pedophilia, incest, zoophilia and any other disordered sexual behavior observed in humans, throughout history, should also be accepted as ordered, as it’s seen in humans.

Your “observed behavior in humans” argument is a flawed justification for homosexuality as it justifies other disordered sexual orientations.

The American Psychological Association says:

Is homosexuality a mental disorder?

No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder…

Source: Sexual orientation and homosexuality

I wonder when the American psychological association, will start to justify and accept other disordered sexual behaviors as normal. Only time will tell. They probably don’t have enough pedophiles on the boards.

Correct, and you are on the wrong side of the facts.

No, I just choose to accept and not ignore the cold hard, secular fixed objective facts of reality. You should read some of these facts too. Human anatomy, biology, physiology, sociology and sexual psychology. These are the facts, which I base that homosexuality is a disorder of sexual preference.

I do choose to ignore, subjective secular opinions, which happen to justify homosexuality.

 

[Crescentinus]

At this time, point goes to Jaba.

 

[rossum]

I don’t dispute that homosexuality has not been present throughout human history. My point is, that an observable behavior seen in humans, does not justify it as being ordered. It can’t get any more simpler than this. If this were the case, pedophilia, incest, zoophilia and any other disordered sexual behavior observed in humans, throughout history, should also be accepted as ordered, as it’s seen in humans.

There are other reasons for those to be wrong. Paedophilia and zoophilia are wrong because of issues of consent – one party cannot give consent. Adult incest sometimes has issues of consent, but in that case there are the effects on possible children to consider.

Adult homosexuality with a non-relative does not have any of those issues.

I wonder when the American psychological association, will start to justify and accept other disordered sexual behaviors as normal.

Irrelevant. You have no reasoned objection to their current position, so you raise objections to fictional positions they have not taken. How about, “The Catholic Church’s position on marriage is wrong because they might declare interracial marriage to be sinful (Nehemiah 13:25)” That is not a good argument and likewise your argument is not a good one either.

I do choose to ignore, subjective secular opinions, which happen to justify homosexuality.

It is easy to support one side of an argument if you ignore all the evidence for the other side.

rossum