So, what counts as a delusion in your book? Are Muslims “delusional” for believing that the definition of marriage can involve one man and four women? Are Lutherans “delusional” for believing that they have the Real Presence in their communion and not just bread and wine?
Natural law is a religious philosophy and doesn’t have anything to do with what takes place in the natural world, biology or science. Homosexual behavior, for example, is quite common in nature not only in our own species, but in many other species as well. It must serve some purpose even if that purpose is not readily apparent. According to the famous biologist, Edward O. Wilson, a professor emeritus in Harvard University’s Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, in his book On Human Nature (pp. 141-143):
How so? How does it help society?
Other biologists also believe that homosexual behavior in other species serves to strengthen alliances and social ties between same-sex members within a group, flock, herd, etc.
Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean that things that happen in nature that seem immoral to some of us are, as Maximilian said, “against…biology”. They might be against the religious philosophy called “natural law” that was mostly developed by theologians in the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, but that does not mean that they are against biology. Many of these things no doubt developed as part of evolution and serve or served some purpose.
Assuming this is correct, that homosexuality is normative behavior by whatever standard we can agree on, so what?
If some people inherit genes which predispose them to homosexuality and assuming that they don’t have any children, then those genes will be passed down by their brothers and sisters.
But they get passed down at a lower rate during each generation. Homosexuals are significantly less likely to parent children than non-homosexuals. One would expect that a homosexual gene that originated thousands of years ago, would be nearly extinct by this point in history.
A hundred years ago, many people would also have thought that the idea of a woman or a black man being President to be silly, too.
… and make a mockery of God’s Sacrament. It is not a ritual that has it’s sanction from God, but a ritual that receives it’s sanction from the prince of this world who presides over it. The couple do not consecrate each other, but instead are bound to ensure mutual destruction. Recall that no accredited good is created when one is in a state of mortal sin, more so if one makes a direct challenge to God by mocking this precious gift to man.
I don’t think so, the idea of women leaders like Victoria were well known, as well as the idea of black and other minority presidents and emperors in various nations.
The issue is attending a ceremony that endorses a sin.
This is a perfectly valid response. However, what are the ramifications if I disregard this and attend anyway? I tell you right now, this is a deal-breaker. I WILL attend a loved one’s wedding even if it is same-sex.
