Beards and Gay Marriage

[PRmerger]

Your premise is wrong; it is not act of sexual intercourse has a “natural end”; rather it is our human person that has a natural purpose. It is the human persons joined in marriage that are called to be fruitful and multiply; there is no equivalent natural requirement to grow a really long beard.

It is actually both–the human person and human acts ought to be rightly ordered.

Just like the human person is ordered towards doing acts which are healthy, so to is the act of eating ordered towards a natural end.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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 clear distinction here is that growing a beard is not a moral imperative. A beard or no beard makes no moral difference and therefore there exists no moral constraint either way regarding growing or cutting a beard. Human life, however, is a moral good, in itself, and, therefore, the proper moral end for human beings as moral agents is to promote their own flourishing extended through their offspring.

A human agent would, therefore, require a legitimate reason for NOT continuing their existence (as a clear moral good) by leaving offspring.

Before the good Dr Taffy brings up the point about celibate priests again, we can preempt that objection by saying that priests extend their moral concern to all humanity on a higher plane - devoting themselves to the spiritual welfare of all human beings - a higher good than abetting the temporal physical existence of themselves and potential offspring.
The reasons a gay couple have for not procreating would not meet minimal standards regarding the legitimacy of not leaving offspring and definitely are not on par with those a priest could offer. At best, they are choosing to meet each other’s physical and emotional “needs,” but they COULD (orientation arguments notwithstanding) do this with a person of the complementary sex AND leave enduring offspring. In other words, they could take the higher moral option but simply choose not to without a sufficiently good reason. Recourse to emotional “attractions” or “revulsions” are never good enough reasons to avoid moral imperatives. “Your honour, I have always had a strong revulsion to being without money and have this overwhelming attraction to its possession, which is why I robbed the armored car. I couldn’t help myself.”

 

[DrTaffy]

If you are talking about bi-sexuals as opposed to homosexuals, that’s so.

No, I am talking about same sex couples. Who can and do produce children, quite deliberately.

Peter Plato’s argument seems to be that exclusive same sex orientation “renders null legitimate procreative “purposes” for reproductive organs” and that therefore exclusive same sex orientation must be ‘morally illegitimate’ - yet exclusive same sex orientation does not prevent procreation. Priestly vows of celibacy do - yet you are suddenly squirming around to find an excuse for saying that they are not morally illegitimate.

But a bi-sexual is still a sodomite.

Priests who are celibate are not sodomites. They cannot be condemned as sodomites.

So your only argument is to call homosexuals ‘sodomites’?

Homosexuals don’t get to be called Father because they have not earned the title in any sense of the word.

Even when they have fathered children? Nice logic.

 

[DrTaffy]

You cited an essay. If you’re serious about redefining norms, then please cite a study (preferably published in a top-tier peer-reviewed journal) that utilizes a reputable methodology (i.e, large, random, and representative sample observed longitudinally) that demonstrates the “equality” of same-sex parenting.

I cited a review article, which was both published in a peer-reviewed journal and cites many many original studies. That you think it was about same-sex parenting only highlights how little you thought you are giving this debate.

The point, of course, is that while (some) Catholics try to assert that homosexuality damages civilisation, there is no evidence for this - and greater evidence that Catholicism does.

 

[DrTaffy]

In a forum, all members are invited to post responses to all posts.

Sorry, I forget that you need these things spelled out to you.

Naturally, you are free to respond. You did, after all, and I replied rather more politely than you have to me.

I was merely highlighting the fact that the person to whom that question was posed, who has been castigating me for not defining marriage (when I had already done so) was still refusing to answer the same question he was criticising me for allegedly not answering.

If one prefers to dialogue with only one individual, we use what’s called the Private Message system.

Yet you did not. You posted a message and questions aimed specifically at me, publically. Odd, that?

Essentially what you are proposing is a government registry for friendships. And for incestuous/polygamous relationships.

No. I am proposing a definition for the word ‘marriage’ - one which must, therefore, cover all the ways the word is or has been used. So I may not approve of underage marriage, but that does not mean that the word does not apply to such marriages.

Given how you gas on about square circles, I would have thought you would get this.

 

[frobert]

The clear distinction here is that growing a beard is not a moral imperative. A beard or no beard makes no moral difference and therefore there exists no moral constraint either way regarding growing or cutting a beard. Human life, however, is a moral good, in itself, and, therefore, the proper moral end for human beings as moral agents is to promote their own flourishing extended through their offspring.

A human agent would, therefore, require a legitimate reason for NOT continuing their existence (as a clear moral good) by leaving offspring.

Congratulations Peter on the correctness of your reasoning by deductions from Thomistic natural law theory A Thomistic theorist might say growing beards or not is inconsequential my dear fellow.

A non Thomistic natural law theorist would arrive at the same conclusion from deontology and say the ends do not justify the means my dear fellow.

The question remains is would a deontological theorist differ from a thomistic theorist in natural law and if so how?

 

[DrTaffy]

The clear distinction here is that growing a beard is not a moral imperative. A beard or no beard makes no moral difference and therefore there exists no moral constraint either way regarding growing or cutting a beard.

So you are implicitly accepting that merely preventing a biological function is not proof of immorality. So the naive ‘natural law’ argument fails, as I and many others on both sides have said.

So time to ‘put it to bed’, no?

Before the good Dr Taffy brings up the point about celibate priests again,

Gosh, it is almost as though you realise that it invalidates your argument!

we can preempt that objection by saying that priests extend their moral concern to all humanity on a higher plane - devoting themselves to the spiritual welfare of all human beings - a higher good than abetting the temporal physical existence of themselves and potential offspring.

So why can others not do as much? What evidence do you have that other childless couples, whatever their genders, do not also “extend their moral concern to all humanity on a higher plane”?

Either ‘preventing a biological function’ is proof of immorality, or it is not. You cannot claim that it is for same sex couples (even those who do procreate) but that it is not for priests, nuns and monks.

The reasons a gay couple have for not procreating would not meet minimal standards regarding the legitimacy of not leaving offspring and definitely are not on par with those a priest could offer.

a) Yet again, gay couples do procreate.
b) How do you claim to know what reasons a goy (or straight) couple might have for not procreating?

 

[PRmerger]

No, I am talking about same sex couples. Who can and do produce children, quite deliberately

Nope.

There ain’t no way for any same sex couple to produce children.



If they have children, it’s 'cause there’s someone else who contributed that* other* thing that’s necessary to have a baby.

Same sex couples can’t reproduce.

There’s some other person who’s in the picture.

It’s just the way it is, DrTaffy.

Science and biology and all that.

 

[PRmerger]

a) Yet again, gay couples do procreate.

Couple, as in “gay couple”, means two.

For a gay “couple” to reproduce they need a third.

Now, if you want to say that a gay couple plus a third party procreates, then that would be more consonant with biological truth.

Otherwise, it appears that what you are professing is just gaga lala nonsense.

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry, I forget that you need these things spelled out to you.

Naturally, you are free to respond. You did, after all, and I replied rather more politely than you have to me.

Your second sentence is a nonsequitur. What does how polite anyone is have to do with your not knowing that all members are free to respond to all posts?

Yet you did not. You posted a message and questions aimed specifically at me, publically. Odd, that?

Oh, believe me, DrT. I posted it intentionally for the public to read here.

It amuses me to think of everyone reading this discourse.

 

[DrTaffy]

Nope.

There ain’t no way for any same sex couple to produce children.

And yet many gay couples do produce children.

Your beliefs seem to clash with observable reality.

Now, if you want to say that a gay couple plus a third party procreates, then that would be more consonant with biological truth.

Otherwise, it appears that what you are professing is just gaga lala nonsense.

Because it is “gaga lala nonsense” to believe that a woman might give birth without having sex with a man?

Am I going to have to teach you Catholic doctrines again?

 

[PRmerger]

And yet many gay couples do produce children.

Not a single one has done it without a third person. Actually, they need a whole slew of people to accomplish this.

So, not so much a “gay couple” producing children.

More like a whole bunch o’ folks putting their fingers in the bowl to produce something that really only requires one man and one woman.

That is, if you do it the right way.

 

[PRmerger]

Because it is “gaga lala nonsense” to believe that a woman might give birth without having sex with a man?

No, not gaga lala nonsense to believe that there was a singular event in the entirety of human history that rocked the world.

It will never happen again, DrT.

Am I going to have to teach you Catholic doctrines again?

As if.

May I remind you about your claim that the Bible says that Mary and Joseph never had sex?

Can you show me where the Bible says that again? Book, chapter and verse, please.

At any rate, it pleases me immensely to know that you will never, EVER, make that claim again. (At least, if you are in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics. You can try it on some clueless folks, but I know you won’t ever do that again here. And that makes me very, very satisfied indeed.)

 

[Prodigal_Son]

And yet many gay couples do produce children.

Your beliefs seem to clash with observable reality.

DrTaffy,

You speak very skillfully, and exude confidence. You also seem very intelligent. These qualities make one suspect, on occasion, that you might be saying something true.

However, then you say something like “Gay couples produce children.” And the rest of us are left in absolute awe. How could someone so intelligent say something so evidently false?

In fact, this is one central reason why it is so hard to be a gay-sex-affirming Christian. It’s quite obvious that many gay couples WANT to have children together. But nature – which God created – doesn’t cooperate with this wish. If you assume that gay sex is moral, the only logical conclusions are that (a) God exists, and hates gay people (since he makes their love fruitless), or (b) God doesn’t exist.

All the more reason for a Christian not to assume gay sex is moral.

 

[frobert]

Your premise is wrong; it is not act of sexual intercourse has a “natural end”; rather it is our human person that has a natural purpose. It is the human persons joined in marriage that are called to be fruitful and multiply; there is no equivalent natural requirement to grow a really long beard.

Your statement implies that those not married who are fruitful and multiply fulfill a natural purpose yet some on here say that outside of marriage, all forms of sex are sinful and immoral.

 

[runningdude]

It is actually both–the human person and human acts ought to be rightly ordered.

Just like the human person is ordered towards doing acts which are healthy, so to is the act of eating ordered towards a natural end.

I suppose, but it is human nature that gives intercourse a natural end; the act does not exist divorced from the human person.

Your statement implies that those not married who are fruitful and multiply fulfill a natural purpose yet some on here say that outside of marriage, all forms of sex are sinful and immoral.

…It is the human persons** joined in marriage** that are called to be fruitful and multiply; …

 

[DrTaffy]

No, not gaga lala nonsense to believe that there was a singular event in the entirety of human history that rocked the world.

Pick one - either it is ‘gaga lala nonsense’ to assert that it is possible (which I have not done, but the Catholic Church does) or it is not.

May I remind you about your claim that the Bible says that Mary and Joseph never had sex?

Please do. Show me where I claimed that “the Bible says that Mary and Joseph never had sex”.:ehh:

At any rate, it pleases me immensely to know that you will never, EVER, make that claim again.

Since I never made it, you are easily pleased. Good for you.

May I remind you of where you said this:

Be careful, Dr. Taffy. I won’t report you for this, as it is of supreme benefit to you to be here, in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics.

But it is against forum rules to misrepresent another poster’s position. (see #5 under Conduct Rules)

To intentionally misrepresent my position as saying that I am “denying that sterile couples could licitly have sex” when what I most clearly said was certainly permissible is definitely reportable.

(emphasis added)

Or where the Bible says this:
1 Peter 2:1

Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind.

 

[PRmerger]

I suppose, but it is human nature that gives intercourse a natural end; the act does not exist divorced from the human person.

Okey dokey.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy,

P_S!

You also seem very intelligent.

Seem?

These qualities make one suspect, on occasion, that you might be saying something true.

Suspect? On occasion? Might :bighanky:

However, then you say something like “Gay couples produce children.” And the rest of us are left in absolute awe. How could someone so intelligent say something so evidently false?

Because it is so evidently true. Believe me, I know of a number of gay couples who have produced children.

Note that I never said that they did it without outside assistance, but so what? Why should I care? Why should the State care, if they are just after more citizens?

In fact, this is one central reason why it is so hard to be a gay-sex-affirming Christian. It’s quite obvious that many gay couples WANT to have children together. But nature – which God created – doesn’t cooperate with this wish.

Depends on how you define ‘together’ - although I would note that it is already possible to produce sperm from stem cells harvested from an adult. So children genetically related to both members of a same sex couple are a real possiblity.

If you assume that gay sex is moral, the only logical conclusions are that (a) God exists, and hates gay people (since he makes their love fruitless), or (b) God doesn’t exist.

So does God also hate sterile straight people? Priests? Monks? Nuns?

Are children the only possible fruit of love?

 

[PRmerger]

Are children the only possible fruit of love?

They are the only incarnated fruit of love.

The two become so One that they become three.

Pretty cool.

Except gay couples can never become One so that they become three.