Beards and Gay Marriage

[PRmerger]

So in a discussion with someone regarding the Catholic position on marriage I proffered the natural law argument.

Specifically, I offered the argument: “If an act does not achieve its natural end, that act is detrimental to the organism. Thus, the natural end of the sexual act is to procreate and unite. Any act that thwarts this natural end of the sexual act is therefore immoral. Gay sexual acts do not procreate, (nor unite), therefore they are immoral.”

Question: the “natural end” of the beard is to grow. Thus, it would appear to be contrary to the moral law to shave one’s beard. Clearly, this is not immoral. But why?

Responses?

(Note to wags: no comments about whether it’s immoral to shave one’s beard if that someone happens to be a woman. )

 

[davidv]

So in a discussion with someone regarding the Catholic position on marriage I proffered the natural law argument.

Specifically, I offered the argument: “If an act does not achieve its natural end, that act is detrimental to the organism. Thus, the natural end of the sexual act is to procreate and unite. Any act that thwarts this natural end of the sexual act is therefore immoral. Gay sexual acts do not procreate, (nor unite), therefore they are immoral.”

Question: the “natural end” of the beard is to grow. Thus, it would appear to be contrary to the moral law to shave one’s beard. Clearly, this is not immoral. But why?

Responses?

(Note to wags: no comments about whether it’s immoral to shave one’s beard if that someone happens to be a woman. )

How does shaving inhibit the beard’s abilitiy to grow? Most shaving does not interfere with the hairs’ roots.

Is “to grow” the correct description of the purpos of a beard?

 

[Thorns]

Shaving is just part of hygiene. Hygiene is natural.

The beard also isnt part of a set of faculties, like eating and sex are, for example. Eating and sex have a proper order and a purpose. A beard does not.

 

[PRmerger]

How does shaving inhibit the beard’s abilitiy to grow? Most shaving does not interfere with the hairs’ roots.

Is “to grow” the correct description of the purpos of a beard?

What, then, would be the natural end of a beard if it’s not to grow?

 

[PRmerger]

Shaving is just part of hygiene. Hygiene is natural.

This is begging the question, Thorns.

The beard also isnt part of a set of faculties, like eating and sex are, for example. Eating and sex have a proper order and a purpose. A beard does not.

In Philosophy we examine the “natural end” of things. All things in our body have a natural end or purpose (except for, for some reason, the appendix, which appears to be “just there”)

What is the natural end or purpose of a beard? It does have one!

 

[RedFox0456]

Didn’t men have beards to help protect our faces from harsh conditions? Growth isn’t the end but the means by which that end is achieved.

 

[Thorns]

Yes, a beards natural end is to protect the face. If the face is protected without the beard, even.though it still grows, the natural end is still achieved.

Quite clearly the beards use is contingent upon era and location, whereas sex isnt because its order is inherent.

 

[stewstew03]

So in a discussion with someone regarding the Catholic position on marriage I proffered the natural law argument.

Specifically, I offered the argument: “If an act does not achieve its natural end, that act is detrimental to the organism. Thus, the natural end of the sexual act is to procreate and unite. Any act that thwarts this natural end of the sexual act is therefore immoral. Gay sexual acts do not procreate, (nor unite), therefore they are immoral.”

Question: the “natural end” of the beard is to grow. Thus, it would appear to be contrary to the moral law to shave one’s beard. Clearly, this is not immoral. But why?

Responses?

(Note to wags: no comments about whether it’s immoral to shave one’s beard if that someone happens to be a woman. )

I would make a distinction between “natural end” and “natural.” A “natural end” (as part of Natural Law) is something purposeful and orderly; something intentional for the preservation of humanity. A mother might use her hands to feed her children (ordered) or to strangle them (disordered). In both instances she uses her hands “naturally” – but the former is consistent with Natural Law while the latter isn’t.

Beards are “natural” but don’t have a “natural end” because hair follicles are not intentional beings.

 

[christus_vincit]

I think the problem here is the assumption that the purpose of a bread is “to grow”. Does that mean I am morally obligated not to cut my toe nails as well?

Clearly, as others have pointed out, the purpose of the beard is to protect the face. Therefore, the wearer of the beard has the choice to shave it accordingly - even if this means he doesn’t wear a beard at all if the face is in no need of protection.

It is unquestionable, however, that the ends of sex are unity and procreation. So homosexual relations are a perversion of those ends.

The concept of the “beard dilemma” does get one thinking. Would it somehow be immoral to play soccer with a basketball? Am I not violating the telos of a basketball to do so? Perhaps I am, but does this violation carry any moral worth?

 

[losh14]

Interesting proposition:

Specifically, I offered the argument: “If an act does not achieve its natural end, that act is detrimental to the organism.”

This isn’t actually the natural law basis for opposing homosexual activity. The natural law objection is that any sexual activity that is not open to the possibility of procreation is intrinsically disordered. That includes anything other than what biologically could lead to the creation of another human being.

The sexual act does not have to achieve its end (otherwise intercourse without pregnancy would be immoral), but must not be frustrated by human design from doing so.

Question: the “natural end” of the beard is to grow. Thus, it would appear to be contrary to the moral law to shave one’s beard. Clearly, this is not immoral. But why?

Growing a beard is not under the moral law of the New Covenant, any more than cutting a sprig of basil off a basil plant or consuming food before it goes moldy. The natural law objection to homosexual acts applies very specifically to sexual activity and is an explanation of the purpose behind the objection, and the Church’s understanding of the reason for sex in the first place.

Going a bit deeper, the natural law objection to illicit sexual activity is an attempt to frame our understanding of the teaching we receive from Scripture. We do not receive similar instructions about the natural use of facial hair follicles, for example - Ez 44:20 notes that priests of the Old Temple must keep their hair neatly trimmed, and Ac 18:18 notes that Paul had his hair cut because of a vow, and several verses note cutting beards as a sign of mourning or repentance, but there’s no discussion compelling a man to never cut his beard.

 

[losh14]

As someone of Native American descent - and unable to grow a convincing beard even after several weeks of trying - I publicly muse whether there is a purpose to a beard:

Clearly, as others have pointed out, the purpose of the beard is to protect the face. Therefore, the wearer of the beard has the choice to shave it accordingly - even if this means he doesn’t wear a beard at all if the face is in no need of protection.

Fair. From contextual documents contemporary to the writing of the Christian Scriptures, we also find that the beard has a societal use. It may connote maturity, neatness, wealth, class or other affiliation. The modern context for American men allies closely with social groups - the expectation is generally that men in corporate roles will be clean-shaven, while some identifying with craft, machining or trades tend to grow beards. This is not universal by any stretch, but in absence of compelling evidence from Scripture (ie, Rev 21:8 for sexual immorality), there’s not reason to consider that beards fall under moral law according to the New Covenant.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Interesting proposition:

This isn’t actually the natural law basis for opposing homosexual activity. The natural law objection is that any sexual activity that is not open to the possibility of procreation is intrinsically disordered. That includes anything other than what biologically could lead to the creation of another human being.

The sexual act does not have to achieve its end (otherwise intercourse without pregnancy would be immoral), but must not be frustrated by human design from doing so.

Growing a beard is not under the moral law of the New Covenant, any more than cutting a sprig of basil off a basil plant or consuming food before it goes moldy. The natural law objection to homosexual acts applies very specifically to sexual activity and is an explanation of the purpose behind the objection, and the Church’s understanding of the reason for sex in the first place.

Going a bit deeper, the natural law objection to illicit sexual activity is an attempt to frame our understanding of the teaching we receive from Scripture. We do not receive similar instructions about the natural use of facial hair follicles, for example - Ez 44:20 notes that priests of the Old Temple must keep their hair neatly trimmed, and Ac 18:18 notes that Paul had his hair cut because of a vow, and several verses note cutting beards as a sign of mourning or repentance, but there’s no discussion compelling a man to never cut his beard.

On the other hand, both the Natural Law and an explicit Scriptural statement provide that childbirth is or shall be painful – yet where is the Church’s prohibition against anesthesia in childbirth?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Natural law takes into account the natural consequences of actions. The shaving of beards does not tend to lead to bad consequences. Contraceptive sexual activity (including gay sex, which is contraceptive) does lead to bad consequences.

 

[Havard]

Haha, I though this thread was going to be about “beards”.

 

[losh14]

On the other hand, both the Natural Law and an explicit Scriptural statement provide that childbirth is or shall be painful – yet where is the Church’s prohibition against anesthesia in childbirth?

Anesthesia doesn’t make childbirth painless. Anesthesia helps the mom focus on what she has to do by making the pain somewhere less than unbearable. Even if the pain is dulled at the moment of birth - that incredible moment I’ve had the blessing of witnessing my wife do for both of our children - there is pain before, and pain after. Anesthesia meant my wife could sleep for a few hours to restore her strength after nearly two days of contractions (and four more hours of labor ahead).

 

[rossum]

So in a discussion with someone regarding the Catholic position on marriage I proffered the natural law argument.

Specifically, I offered the argument: “If an act does not achieve its natural end, that act is detrimental to the organism. Thus, the natural end of the sexual act is to procreate and unite. Any act that thwarts this natural end of the sexual act is therefore immoral. Gay sexual acts do not procreate, (nor unite), therefore they are immoral.”

Sexual acts may unite without being able to procreate, for example when the woman is pregnant, during certain times in her cycle and after her menopause. Since the Catholic Church does allow intercourse during these times, then you cannot say that the “procreation” part is essential.

In a same-sex marriage, the “unite” part appears to be pretty much the same. Why cannot the Church treat same-sex marriage as a marriage between two infertile people, say when the wife is too old for childbearing?

You are making a weak argument here.

rossum

 

[stewstew03]

…the Catholic Church does allow intercourse during these times…

Within the context of a valid marriage, yes.

You are making a weak argument here.

She understands the argument is difficult, and she’s trying to flesh it out. Try being more helpful and less “not helpful.”

 

[rossum]

Within the context of a valid marriage, yes.

Agreed.

She understands the argument is difficult, and she’s trying to flesh it out. Try being more helpful and less “not helpful.”

OK, helpful. Drop the “open to procreation” part of the argument, since any opponent has an obvious point to make in response there. The Catholic Church itself does not require procreation for a valid marriage. Merely because a couple is childless does not give grounds for annulment.

From the Catholic point of view it is probably better to go for consummation, rather than procreation. An infertile opposite sex couple can consummate successfully. Can a same sex couple consummate? A couple that does not consummate can get an annulment because there was no real marriage. Hence it is the consummation part that is essential to a Catholic marriage.

That argument is strong within a Catholic context, but is not so strong in a non-Catholic context, such as when discussing civil law. Of course, civil law already differs from Catholic law in allowing divorce and remarriage.

rossum

 

[Protestor]

I don’t mean for this to be vulgar, but I suggest if you are easily offended not to read the rest of this.

Is it wrong to have intercourse other than vaginally even if the act is completed vaginally? As I see the problem with other types of intercourse is that the man’s seed cannot be used to possibly inseminate his wife. So if the act is eventually open to conception is it still wrong. If you feel uncomfortable answering or if someone else has a better answer link it. It was hard not to describe this without vulgar words I hope I don’t get suspended for this.

 

[stewstew03]

I don’t mean for this to be vulgar, but I suggest if you are easily offended not to read the rest of this.

Is it wrong to have intercourse other than vaginally even if the act is completed vaginally? As I see the problem with other types of intercourse is that the man’s seed cannot be used to possibly inseminate his wife. So if the act is eventually open to conception is it still wrong. If you feel uncomfortable answering or if someone else has a better answer link it. It was hard not to describe this without vulgar words I hope I don’t get suspended for this.

Yes, off-topic. Try a different thread.