Beards and Gay Marriage

[PRmerger]

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.

What is essential is that all sexual acts be ORDERED TOWARDS their natural end.

However, they need not achieve the end (procreation).

Thus, since marital acts during pregnancy, after menopause, during infertile periods are still ORDERED TOWARDS procreation and union, they are moral/licit/permissible.

In a same-sex marriage, the “unite” part appears to be pretty much the same.

Huh? I am finding it difficult to see how 2 women can be united in a sexual act. There is no One Flesh Union.

Why cannot the Church treat same-sex marriage as a marriage between two infertile people, say when the wife is too old for childbearing?

Because that would be like saying, "Why can’t the National Baseball League (or whatever it’s called) say that 2 teams that come to a baseball diamond with this as their equipment:

http://www.hereistheplace.com/Dance/daniellebagt.jpg

who want to play with their backs to each other…are playing baseball?"

Why can’t they?

Because…

it’s not baseball. Even if they want to call it baseball.

It’s something else.

However, analogous to a couple in which the wife is too old for childbearing would be a senior citizens team coming to a baseball diamond and playing against the St. Louis Cardinals. What they would be doing would be playing baseball, ordered towards winning, even though the senior citizens team would never achieve the goal of winning. It’s still baseball.

 

[PRmerger]

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?

Interesting, this!

 

[PRmerger]

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.

I have often heard apologists argue the natural law position by using the example of an eating disorder. The natural end of of eating is to satisfy hunger, as well as provide nutrition.

Bulimia is disordered because it thwarts one of the purposes of eating: to provide nutrition.

Using your argument above bulimia would not be a disordered act. Or, even if it’s disordered, it’s “not under the moral law of the New Covenant.”

How would you respond to that?

 

[LittleFlower378]

Talking about beards St.Clement of Alexandria in his work **The Paedagogus **, talks about beards and hair. When talking about the difference between man and woman He says that men are hairy and rough and women are smooth. He chides those men that use a razor to cut there hair which makes themselves look like a woman!

 

[Ion]

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. )

Indeed a statement is equivalent with HER contra positive but in this case you cant phrase the direct statement because nobody knows why the beard grows. Maybe the natural end it’s the act in itself to grow, like to disperse some unneeded chemicals. In this situation to cut the beard is like doing yourself a favor. And the fibers are going to fall anyway, one by one.

 

[Estevao]

Not every frustrating of nature’s purposes is a serious moral failure on natural law ethics. But if it’s something to do with the maintenance of the species itself and the health and wealth of all those involved in childrearing: man, woman and children, then yes, using the sexual faculty contrary to its purposes is a serious moral failure.

Moreover, and this comes up what you will find quoted in the Catechism’s article on the sin of masturbation, article 2352, in turn quoting something from a document from the CDF entitled persona humana:

“The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.”

Natural law theory condemns using a faculty contrary to it’s natural function, thereby acting contrary, or “frustrating” its natural end. It does not condemn using it for something other than its end. The example of somebody playing soccer with a basketball fits in here (however a soccer ball wouldn’t be a part of natural law ethics in the first place).

So whatever the natural function and end of facial hair is (and I think one would have to reason what these are first before saying that shaving acts contrary to them), I don’t think shaving is acting contrary to that end, but even if it were, that wouldn’t necessarily be a serious moral failing.

 

[rossum]

What is essential is that all sexual acts be ORDERED TOWARDS their natural end.

I dispute your singular “end”. There are multiple ends (plural), including to unite. We are agreed that intercourse is allowed between married infertile couples because that intercourse is directed towards the end of uniting the couple. That is despite the fact that procreation may be impossible. As the OP points out, there are multiple ends: “to procreate and unite”.

Could God miraculously make an infertile couple fertile? Of course He could. He can make a man from clay, and a woman from a rib. He can easily make an infertile couple, or a same sex couple, fertile should He wish to. He is omnipotent.

However, they need not achieve the end (procreation).

But they can achieve the end of uniting. You are limiting ends unnecessarily.

rossum

 

[Ion]

I dispute your singular “end”. There are multiple ends (plural), including to unite. We are agreed that intercourse is allowed between married infertile couples because that intercourse is directed towards the end of uniting the couple. That is despite the fact that procreation may be impossible. As the OP points out, there are multiple ends: “to procreate and unite”.

Could God miraculously make an infertile couple fertile? Of course He could. He can make a man from clay, and a woman from a rib. He can easily make an infertile couple, or a same sex couple, fertile should He wish to. He is omnipotent.

But they can achieve the end of uniting. You are limiting ends unnecessarily.

rossum

There are many examples of infertile couples who have had a child, even women at menopause or all sort of conditions.

You can examine you own nature and see that you were made in such a way that you can’t be fertile by yourself.

Union can be only between the woman and her man, and this is from Adam and Eve.

You try to confuse people by using the word “uniting” with the most general meaning and then substituting the meaning where the meaning should be the one in the Catholic marriage. Maybe you have confused first yourself?
The Catholic and also the Orthodox Church have done such a good job educating the people that it took 400 years until the liberalism started to destroy the public opinion in the matter of homosexuality. If the protestants would have been less busy with their own opinions, it would have taken even longer.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I dispute your singular “end”. There are multiple ends (plural), including to unite. We are agreed that intercourse is allowed between married infertile couples because that intercourse is directed towards the end of uniting the couple. That is despite the fact that procreation may be impossible. As the OP points out, there are multiple ends: “to procreate and unite”.

Could God miraculously make an infertile couple fertile? Of course He could. He can make a man from clay, and a woman from a rib. He can easily make an infertile couple, or a same sex couple, fertile should He wish to. He is omnipotent.

This is like saying that it’s “natural” to cut off your arm because God could miraculously give you a new arm. Acts of sodomy are not acts of procreation.

 

[rossum]

This is like saying that it’s “natural” to cut off your arm because God could miraculously give you a new arm. Acts of sodomy are not acts of procreation.

No they are not. They are acts of uniting within a (civil) married relationship.

Intercourse can (in some cases) procreate. Intercourse can (in some cases) unite. Both procreation and uniting are legitimate purposes of intercourse.

rossum

 

[Bradski]

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.”

May I suggest that it is a particular sexual act between a fertile man and a fertile woman that has the natural end to procreate. So you argument should run: 'Any act that thwarts this particular sexual act is therefore immoral (we can ignore the fact that I don’t think that it would be immoral). The act might be contraception.

Any other act does not have the natural end to procreate so couldn’t be considered immoral.

You might argue that as we all have the necessary equipment, then any act that thwarts it’s natural use is immoral. But not using the necessary equipment for it’s natural use is not thwarting it’s use. Priests do not use their equipment for it’s natural purpose and it’s not considered immoral.

Equally, two gay women do not use their equipment for it’s natural purpose. They are not thwarting it’s use but in this case ‘not using it’ is considered immoral.

How so?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

No they are not. They are acts of uniting within a (civil) married relationship.

Intercourse can (in some cases) procreate. Intercourse can (in some cases) unite. Both procreation and uniting are legitimate purposes of intercourse.

rossum

I see you are under the impression that anal sex is the same act as vaginal sex. Hence you use a single term to refer to them: “intercourse”. But calling two things by the same name does not make them the same.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Its a difficult analogy

The end being procreate male-female is natural selection, anything which deviates from this is a genetic mutation relegated to non-existence at some point . “miracle aside”

“If an act does not achieve its natural end, that act is detrimental to the organism”

Fact is established.

The beards natural end is non sequitur as the beard is predicated on the person thus its natural end is to aide the individual. Just like procreation is.

 

[GaryTaylor]

So the question is, do the beards help with the natural selection thus procreation?

 

[Protestor]

Bulimia is disordered because it thwarts one of the purposes of eating: to provide nutrition.How would you respond to that?

I don’t know this whole discussion is super interesting though. :coffeeread:

By your bulimia example could you also condemn speed eating competitions? I am pretty sure that they do not absorb the nutrition from the food the eat.

I also do not understand your concept of “ordered towards”

Also side note PR I have changed my stance on the discussion we never finished. I was wrong, I think.

 

[Thorns]

I dispute your singular “end”. There are multiple ends (plural), including to unite. We are agreed that intercourse is allowed between married infertile couples because that intercourse is directed towards the end of uniting the couple. That is despite the fact that procreation may be impossible. As the OP points out, there are multiple ends: “to procreate and unite”.

Could God miraculously make an infertile couple fertile? Of course He could. He can make a man from clay, and a woman from a rib. He can easily make an infertile couple, or a same sex couple, fertile should He wish to. He is omnipotent.

But they can achieve the end of uniting. You are limiting ends unnecessarily.

rossum

You fail to realize that the act of sex is only unitive because it is ordered toward procreation, even if procreation is not a capability. Should the capability be restored in an elderly couple, they would procreate.

The same is not true for a same sex couple. The very nature of their relationship is intrinsically sterile. There is no capability that can be restored to allow them to procreate, therefore unity in this type of relationship is impossible to achieve.

Gay sex is like putting on two left shoes or two right shoes. The shoes just werent made to be worn that way, that is why we make a shoe for the left foot amd a shoe for the right foot.

 

[rossum]

You fail to realize that the act of sex is only unitive because it is ordered toward procreation, even if procreation is not a capability. Should the capability be restored in an elderly couple, they would procreate.

So, you deny that the act of sex is unitive in infertile couples? That is a very strange attitude, and seems to fly in the face of common sense.

Is there is difference in the sex act depending on the time of the month or when the wife is pregnant? Does the unitivity (?) of the act change? How can we determine the change in unitivity? How is it measured? Where is your evidence of a change in unitivity? How does a hysterectomy change the unitivity of the sexual act in the marriage?

The same is not true for a same sex couple. The very nature of their relationship is intrinsically sterile. There is no capability that can be restored to allow them to procreate, therefore unity in this type of relationship is impossible to achieve.

And if the husband has had an orchidectomy because of, say, cancer, then do your same remarks apply?

Some heterosexual marriages are sterile for medical reasons. All heterosexual marriages are infertile some of the time. How does this temporary or permanent sterility affect the unitive part of the marriage?

rossum

 

[marywarfield]

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. )

The natural end? Or the split end? Lol.

I would say maybe not applicable to beards as
procreation is not possible for a beard?

 

[Major_Tom]

What is essential is that all sexual acts be ORDERED TOWARDS their natural end.

I’m not sure where the phrase “ordered towards” come from, but I’m guessing this is going to be a fork in the road. What is it’s history?

I am currently taking a chemotherapy drug that is known to cause serious birth defects. What would natural law direct me to do in this case? Cease having sex (to its natural end, as is being defined here); have sex to its natural end, and risk serious birth defects; or complete the act in a different way?

 

[Major_Tom]

“If an act does not achieve its natural end, that act is detrimental to the organism”

Fact is established.

I think you’re definition needs polishing. In order for this organism (me) to survive, I do not need to procreate. Even if I try, and fail, I live just as long.

Now, in order for the human race to survive, it needs to procreate. Is the holistic human race what you are defining as ‘organism’?