Do you mean homosexuality or homosexual acts, they are a bit different in that one is a state of being and the other is actionsAll of the arguments I’ve ever heard against homosexuality come from a few Bible verses, such as the ones in Leviticus and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Are there any arguments that don’t stem from one of these verses?
I mean gay marriage.Do you mean homosexuality or homosexual acts, they are a bit different in that one is a state of being and the other is actions
Where procreation is in principle impossible marriage is irrelevant and therefore not needed. In Principle means relating to the definition of. A man who is infertile still retains his man-ness as fertility is not part of the definition of being a man, mutatis mutandis a woman. Conjugal sex (i.e. between a man and a woman) in principle can result in offspring and so marriage is in principle still relevant. Additionally many times infertility can be cured as it is temporarily induced by external stimuli, in women for example infertility can be induced by improper eating and so a corrected diet can restore fertility, for both men and women imbalanced hormones can cause it and when the hormonal levels are corrected fertility is restored .I mean gay marriage.
However there are many situations where infertility is permanent. For example, if a woman has no ovaries or non-functioning ones (either as a natural defect or as a side effect of some surgery) there’s no way she’ll ever conceive a child. Likewise, if a woman has passed menopause she also isn’t going to conceive. Yet the church still says relations within those contexts are valid, even though they are not open to life.Where procreation is in principle impossible marriage is irrelevant and therefore not needed. In Principle means relating to the definition of. A man who is infertile still retains his man-ness as fertility is not part of the definition of being a man, mutatis mutandis a woman. Conjugal sex (i.e. between a man and a woman) in principle can result in offspring and so marriage is in principle still relevant. Additionally many times infertility can be cured as it is temporarily induced by external stimuli, in women for example infertility can be induced by improper eating and so a corrected diet can restore fertility, for both men and women imbalanced hormones can cause it and when the hormonal levels are corrected fertility is restored .
Which still does not detract from her woman-ness. In principle conjugal sex can result in offspring, as she retains her woman-ness she can still participate in conjugal sex in such a way as to meet the definition. With homosexual acts they are not only incidentally impossible to procreate, they in principle can not result in procreation.However there are many situations where infertility is permanent. For example, if a woman has no ovaries or non-functioning ones (either as a natural defect or as a side effect of some surgery) there’s no way she’ll ever conceive a child. Likewise, if a woman has passed menopause she also isn’t going to conceive. Yet the church still says relations within those contexts are valid, even though they are not open to life.
Common sense.All of the arguments I’ve ever heard against homosexuality come from a few Bible verses, such as the ones in Leviticus and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Are there any arguments that don’t stem from one of these verses?
Sure. Here is a scientific argument- It is contrary to the natural order. Not even among the beast does it exist.All of the arguments I’ve ever heard against homosexuality come from a few Bible verses, such as the ones in Leviticus and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Are there any arguments that don’t stem from one of these verses?
Actually, it does exist among animals. I’m not saying that the fact that animals do it makes it right, but your assertion that animals do not display homosexuality is wrong.Sure. Here is a scientific argument- It is contrary to the natural order. Not even among the beast does it exist.
Here is an aesthetic argument- Most people find it repulsive and distasteful.
Here is a anthropoligcal argument- Most cultures hold it in contempt.
I believe the string is asking about non-biblical arguments.Homosexual acts by their very nature contradict the human nature we have been endowed with by God. They are a contradiction of who we are and have been designed to be by God as male and female. The Bible expounds on this Truth and gives us deeper insight to how God has made us and why, but you don’t need the Bible to be able to tell homosexual acts are a perversion of how we were designed to work. What really is being argued is whether this perversion is a bad thing or not.
Understanding why its wrong requires an understanding of what God designed sex for and what marriage really means. This concept is the core of what JPII talks about in his book “The Theology of the Body”. When you understand what sex is all about and the purpose God intended for it, homosexual acts seem absurd. This understanding can come about just through a study of the body without considering divine revelation, but if you have divine revelation to help you get there why not use it?
The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that the founders of our country recognized and understood that humans have a specific human nature endowed by God that should be recognized and upheld. They made this clear when they spoke about “inalienable rights” and “self-evident Truths”. All humans laws are subject to this natural law. While legal ambivalence is permissible on many issues, it is never permissible to have a law that directly contradicts natural law.