Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[Laurie_Gibson]

Abu,
1] Of course I think that murder and stealing are wrong.
2] They cause unhappiness and society could not function if they were allowed…
3] What has this to do with my previous posts or the question at the head of this thread?

Laurie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Reply to Luke,

Sorry I did not respond sooner:

Quite true, if the sex organs which have evolved for straight sex did not exist then homosexuals could not use them for gay sex.

But why does that make this use wrong?

Regards

Laurie

 

[Abu]

Laurie Gibson
could you explain to me clearly and simply why ‘unnatural in the Natural Law sense’ = ‘wrong’, without bringing God into the discussion. So no need to bring God in….why because something is unnatural in the Catholic sense, is it also wrong?
1] Of course I think that murder and stealing are wrong.
2] They cause unhappiness and society could not function if they were allowed…
3] What has this to do with my previous posts or the question at the head of this thread?

Everything. Since your selfist criterion appears to be your only ethical principle, what produces pleasure has to be right. Murder and stealing then could be pleasurable and would then hardly cause unhappiness if you can get away with it. Why should the criteria be civil law, made by selfist humans on your terms? Without God, selfism reigns.
In post #37 we’ve seen C.S. Lewis acknowledging the wrongness of murder and stealing as against the natural moral law – which is why they are wrong, as is homosexual activity.

Camerong
I would say that simply because man is pre-inclined to believe something is wrong, this is not very strong evidence that it is so. Man, unschooled in religion or societal concepts of morality, likely has no problem with casual sex, for example, and may well be racist, sexist, etc. Natural inclinations, then, do not seem accurate indicators of morality–at the most, I think they can be used to show the existence of morality, but not what that morality entails.

We’ve seen in post #37 a recognition of the natural moral law and confessions of the Ancient Egyptians.
Roman philosopher Cicero (died 43 B.C.) wrote in De Republica, 3.22: “True law is right reason in agreement with nature. It is of universal application, unchanging, everlasting. We cannot be freed from it by Senate or people. This law is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens, but is eternal and immutable, valid for all nations and for all times. God is the Author of it, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient to it is abandoning his true self and denying his own nature.”

 

[Luke_K]

Reply to Luke,

Sorry I did not respond sooner:

Quite true, if the sex organs which have evolved for straight sex did not exist then homosexuals could not use them for gay sex.

But why does that make this use wrong?

Regards

Laurie

Because when used for gay sex or any sexual act that is not ordered towards procreation, the action becomes a lie. You are using the organs in a way that mimics natural marital relations, which exist for the purpose of procreation. Yet you deliberately change the context of the act so that procreation does not occur. You are saying one thing with your body and another with your will. It’s like a person who gorges on food but then makes himself throw it up afterwards.

Gay sex only exists as a non-sensical distortion of something else. It uses that which it owes its existence to (genitals) in a way that directly opposes that which it owes its existence to (procreation). Doesn’t that make it seem wrong to you?

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Abu,

Your post is not to the point.

1] This thread is not debating whether or not morality is possible without God.
2] Nor is it debating whether gay sex is unnatural because it is contrary to Natural Law because that is agreed.

Go back and read post No 1 and then compose an answer.

Laurie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Dear Luke,

Thanks for your interesting contribution.

Gay sex is not an actual lie because only a statement can be so. It is a lie in a metaphorical sense in that it is using one’s sex organs in a way for which they were not intended. So gay sex is therefore unnatural. But we have agreed about that.

However we need to show it is also wrong.

The metaphor fails in one respect. An actual lie involves an intention to decieve and that is usually wrong. Gay sex involves no such deception and so we need something else to show its wrongness.

We don’t seem to have it yet.

Best wishes

Laurie

 

[Portrait]

Hi Portrait,

You say:

'semen is a reproductive substance inherently connected with the good of sexuality and the creation of a new human life

Maybe so but the vast majority of semen is not used to create new life. Only two of the millions of sperms that I have produced have done this! I cannot see then that it matters for us to ensure that all the others ‘have a chance’ do you?

Regards

Laurie

Dear Laurie,

Cordial greetings and sorry for the delay in my response, but I had a rather busy Spring Bank holiday weekend.

The human male produces an abundance of semen so as to ensure that some will swim to the the egg to effect its fertilization. However, all of these gamete have the potential, at least, to impregnate the female egg and thus create a new life, the only purpose of discharging any reproductive fluid.

Therefore, to cause semen to be emitted for any other purpose than potential reproduction (e.g. as in auto-eroticism or sodomy) is plainly wrong because that is clearly a perversion of the natural use of the reproductive organs.

Unless a man had some polemical viewpoint to uphold at all costs, I do not believe that he would demur at anything that I have said in the foregoing paragraphs. Forgive me if I am wrong, old chap, but it rather seems to me that you are grasping at a straw here because you are so desperate to validate your opinion.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Cherry5]

Dear Laurie,

The human male produces an abundance of semen so as to ensure that some will swim to the the egg to effect its fertilization. However, all of these gamete have the potential, at least, to impregnate the female egg and thus create a new life, the only purpose of discharging any reproductive fluid.

Therefore, to cause semen to be emitted for any other purpose than potential reproduction (e.g. as in auto-eroticism or sodomy) is plainly wrong because that is clearly a perversion of the natural use of the reproductive organs.

Portrait

Hello Portrait,

How does this fit in with Natural Family Planning where the couple meticulously schedule their copulation to avoid pregnancy and yet not be wrong?

Regards

 

[Portrait]

Hello Portrait,

How does this fit in with Natural Family Planning where the couple meticulously schedule their copulation to avoid pregnancy and yet not be wrong?

Regards

Dear Cherry5,

Jolly good to hear from you again and thankyou most kindly for your above question.

N.F.P. is not wrong and unnatural since the potential to create a new life is not being frustrated by any artificial means of birth-prevention. Moreover, even when some form of N.F.P. (e.g. the Billing’s Method) is used, the possibilty of the transmission of life remains always open, in contrast to sodomy and auto-eroticism where there is not the remotest possibility of creating a new life.

The Catholic Church permits and indeed encourages spouses to space births and plan how large or small they wish their families to be, “The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization and contraception)” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2399).

Hope this is of some help to you.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Dear Portrait,

Splendid to hear from you again but we have the same old problem!
You say:

Therefore, to cause semen to be emitted for any other purpose than potential reproduction (e.g. as in auto-eroticism or sodomy) is plainly wrong because that is clearly a perversion of the natural use of the reproductive organs.

But we know that it is ‘a perversion of the natural use etc’ because we have agreed that gay sex is unnatural but you are supposed to be showing that it is also wrong. Saying that it is ‘plainly wrong’ without explaining why, does not really help this project.

I am a patient man and can wait for as long as is necessary!

Regards

Laurie

 

[Portrait]

Dear Luke,

Thanks for your interesting contribution.

Gay sex is not an actual lie because only a statement can be so. It is a lie in a metaphorical sense in that it is using one’s sex organs in a way for which they were not intended. So gay sex is therefore unnatural. But we have agreed about that.

However we need to show it is also wrong.

The metaphor fails in one respect. An actual lie involves an intention to deceive and that is usually wrong. Gay sex involves no such deception and so we need something else to show its wrongness.

We don’t seem to have it yet.

Dear Laurie,

Our reproductive organs are manifestly designed for certain functions and by light of reason alone one can tell that male and female organs are made for different purposes. Moreover, by light of reason alone we can also determine what these purposes are. Thus when someone uses their sexual organs for purposes other than those for which they were specifically designed, then those uses, or rather abuses, are disordered and wrong by natural law.

By way of analogy, let us suppose that a man decided that he was going to eat for pleasure alone (i.e. gluttony) and not wishing to experience the natural result of such activity, deliberately induced vomiting so as to avoid weight gain. Now such an activity is not ordered towards the natural process of eating and digesting and is hence plainly wrong by any normal standards. Indeed this fact is acknowledged by the mental health professionals as an eating disorder (bulimia). Such action is obviously wrong since food is intended to naturally go on a one way trip only, so to speak, the digestive organs being designed for this very purpose. Now as with bulimia, homosexual deviant acts are likewise intrinsically disordered and contrary to natural law. It is infinitely more disordered to use our sexual organs for uses other than their intended purpose than it is to deliberately induce vomiting; it is of no consequence that one ‘enjoys’ bringing up one’s supper, or has genuine romantic feelings for someone of the same gender. It is unnatural and wrong conduct and our bodies tell us that it is so.

Just as many bulimia sufferers assert that there is nothing wrong with them, so likewise do many homosexuals emphatically affirm that there is nothing wrong with their disorder, which to them is perfectly natural. This proves absolutely nothing, except just how unwell and how blinded to the reality of their plight they actually are; one could say that they are living in a state of denial as to their real condition.

Best wishes

Portrait

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Thus when someone uses their sexual organs for purposes other than those for which they were specifically designed, then those uses, or rather abuses, are disordered and wrong by natural law.

But Portrait, the question is not whether or not it is contrary to natural law or “wrong by natural law”–Mr. Gibson has repeatedly conceded this point (though *I *personally may not). The question is “what allows us to assume that something that is contrary to natural law is also something that is contrary to morality?” I’m sure Mr. Gibson will chime in and clarify if I am presenting his question incorrectly.

As an Ango-Catholic, 12-year-partnered monogamous gay man (whose partner is truly a blessing from God), I’m very much enjoying this conversation.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

You have done it again.

You say:
Our reproductive organs are manifestly designed for certain functions and by light of reason alone one can tell that male and female organs are made for different purposes. Moreover, by light of reason alone we can also determine what these purposes are. Thus when someone uses their sexual organs for purposes other than those for which they were specifically designed, then those uses, or rather abuses, are disordered and wrong by natural law.

We have agreed that gay people do not use their sex organs for their natural function or to put it another way they use them contrary to natural law. But why is that wrong? That is the question!

You seem to think that instead of saying that gay sex is unnatural you say it is contrary to Natural Law, then you make progress. But you do not ‘unnatural’ = ‘contrary to natural law’ so it does not help.

Sorry, I am not being obtuse - you stated the problem admirably in post 1 and must see that your answers so far do not measure up - not anyone else’s so far.

Regards

Laurie

 

[Portrait]

Dear Portrait,

Splendid to hear from you again but we have the same old problem!
You say:

Therefore, to cause semen to be emitted for any other purpose than potential reproduction (e.g. as in auto-eroticism or sodomy) is plainly wrong because that is clearly a perversion of the natural use of the reproductive organs.

But we know that it is ‘a perversion of the natural use etc’ because we have agreed that gay sex is unnatural but you are supposed to be showing that it is also wrong. Saying that it is ‘plainly wrong’ without explaining why, does not really help this project.

I am a patient man and can wait for as long as is necessary!

Regards

Laurie

Dear Laurie,

Thankyou and hope all is well with you my dear chap.

Please forgive me if I sound a little dull-witted, but I thought that I gave a perfectly valid reason as to why semen emissions, other than for the purposes of reproduction, were wrong. It is** “plainly wrong because that is clearly a perversion of the natural use of the reproductive organs”**. Its wrongness lies in its perversion of what is the natural and proper useage of these organs.

Now of course you are at liberty to express your disagreement with this reason, but it is incorrect to state that I have not given any explanation whatsoever.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[catharina]

Dearly beloved friends,

A non-Christian may be prepared to concede that homosexual deviant acts are ‘unnatural’ in the sense that some things plainly have inherent functions (termed teleologies by philosphers). Thus to use one’s reproductive organs for purposes other than that for which they were intended (i.e. procreation) is manfestly unnatural.

However, whilst they might allow that homosexual genital acts are aberrant and unnatural, they would say that that does not necessarily make them wrong. They want to know how one leaps from unnatural to wrong. Thus, by way of example they will say that the bridge of the nose was not intended to hold glasses (an unnatural use), nevertheless, it is clearly not a ‘wrong’ thing to do. Again hair on the head is natures way of preventing heat loss, so to shave one’s head is unnatural and frustrates the function of hair. However, nobody would seriously argue that a No. 0 haircut was ‘wrong’. Likewise, they would contend that homosexual deviant acts may well be unnatural, or contrary to inherent functions, but that does not thereby render them wrong and improper.

Since it would be pointless to reference Sacred Scripture or the teaching of the Church, the authority of which atheists do not acknowledge, how can we respond to and refute these arguments by recourse to natural law reasoning only, demonstrating irrefragibly that homosexual genital acts are not only unnatural but wrong and improper also?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Even Darwin expounding on survival of the fitest, etc., would have to agree
that survival is first dependent upon existence. First exitence, then survival.

Homosexual activity will never and can never lead to propagation of the species.
So judging it “wrong” from base of natural law is only conclusion available.

 

[Portrait]

Grace & Peace!

But Portrait, the question is not whether or not it is contrary to natural law or “wrong by natural law”–Mr. Gibson has repeatedly conceded this point (though *I *personally may not). The question is “what allows us to assume that something that is contrary to natural law is also something that is contrary to morality?” I’m sure Mr. Gibson will chime in and clarify if I am presenting his question incorrectly.

As an Ango-Catholic, 12-year-partnered monogamous gay man (whose partner is truly a blessing from God), I’m very much enjoying this conversation.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Dear Mark,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your contibution to the debate. So very glad that you are enjoying the discussion.

Just as people would say that to deliberately induce vomiting to avoid weight gain is wrong (clearly it is not a right thing to do), for food is intended to go on a one way journey only; Likewise it is wrong to use our sexual organs for purposes for which they were not intended (clearly that is also not a right thing to do), for their teleological function is for procreation purposes.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[djeter]

The question is “what allows us to assume that something that is contrary to natural law is also something that is contrary to morality?”​

I don’t know how this may fog up the argument here but I’ve always been bemused by Catholics who intone against the sinfullness or disorder of homosexuality while the Bishops go out of their way to state that homosexual inclination Is not itself a sin. The inclination for anything that counters the proper ends of human sexuality namely adultery, fornication, masturbation, and contraception are not in and of themselves sinful. The ACTS are however.

The Church does not teach that the experience of homosexual attraction is in itself sinful. The homosexual inclination is objectively disordered, i.e., it is an inclination that predisposes one toward what is truly not good for the human person. So would excessive masturbation or obsessive thoughts about fornication or adultery. We are all damaged by the effects of sin, which causes desires to become disordered. As for the desires themselves – hey, this is the world, party on.

“Simply possessing such inclinations does not constitute a sin, at least to the extent that they are beyond one’s control. Acting on such inclinations, however, is always wrong.” Here the Bishops link sin with “wrong.”

Homosexual Acts Cannot Fulfill the Natural Ends of Human Sexuality
By its very nature, the sexual act finds its proper fulfillment in the marital bond. Any sexual act that takes place outside the bond of marriage does not fulfill the proper ends of human sexuality. Such an act is not directed toward the expression of marital love with an openness to new life. It is disordered in that it is not in accord with this twofold end and is thus morally wrong. “Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.” Because of both Original Sin and personal sin, moral disorder is all too common in our world. There are a variety of acts, such as adultery, fornication, masturbation, and contraception, that violate the proper ends of human sexuality. Homosexual acts also violate the true purpose of sexuality. They are sexual acts that cannot be open to life. Nor do they reflect the complementarity of man and woman that is an integral part of God’s design for human sexuality.

Homosexual Acts “Are Contrary To The Natural Law.”
Consequently, the Catholic Church has consistently taught that homosexual acts “are contrary to the natural law. . . . Under no circumstances can they be approved.” In support of this judgment, the Church points not only to the intrinsic order of creation, but also to what God has revealed in Sacred Scripture. In the book of Genesis we learn that God created humanity as male and female and that according to God’s plan a man and a woman come together and “the two of them become one body.” Whenever homosexual acts are mentioned in the Old Testament, it is clear that they are disapproved of, as contrary to the will of God. In the New Testament, St. Paul teaches that homosexual acts are not in keeping with our being created in God’s image and so degrade and undermine our authentic dignity as human beings. He tells how homosexual practices can arise among people who erroneously worship the creature rather than the Creator:

*“Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. St. Paul listed homosexual practices among those things that are incompatible with the Christian life.” *[See 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10.]

The above comes from a post I made today that includes a Fr. Richard John Neuhaus piece that looked back to the statement of the US Bishops, “Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care.” I introduce it here followed by reading selections from the statement.

payingattentiontothesky.com/causes-of-homosexuality-a-christian-appraisal-of-the-data/homosexuality-and-loves-duty/

In this case of homosexual acts I would say that contrary to natural law is also something that is contrary to morality. Or at least that is what I get from the Bishop’s statement.

dj

 

[Luke_K]

Dear Luke,

Thanks for your interesting contribution.

Gay sex is not an actual lie because only a statement can be so. It is a lie in a metaphorical sense in that it is using one’s sex organs in a way for which they were not intended. So gay sex is therefore unnatural. But we have agreed about that.

However we need to show it is also wrong.

The metaphor fails in one respect. An actual lie involves an intention to decieve and that is usually wrong. Gay sex involves no such deception and so we need something else to show its wrongness.

We don’t seem to have it yet.

Best wishes

Laurie

You don’t think we communicate and make statements with our bodies and gestures? If your will doesn’t match what your bodily actions are communicating, then it’s a lie. The man performs the actions that are intrinsically directed towards procreation and which exist for the same reason, but he prevents that procreation from happening. He says, “I’m going to do everything that leads to and exists because it procreates the species, but I’m going to do it in a way that prevents the procreation from happening.”

What would you think of a person that ate food but prevented his body from digesting it? Or a person who plugged his nose every time he tried to breathe in? Or a person who smiles at you but covers up his face so you don’t see it? Or a boyfriend who kisses his girlfriend but puts his hand between their lips?

Gay sex is wrong because it acts in contradiction to that which it owes its existence to.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hi Portrait,

Thanks again. Now you say about gay sex:
“plainly wrong because that is clearly a perversion of the natural use of the reproductive organs”.
But to say that gay sex is ‘a perversion of the natural use of the reproductive organs’ is just another way of saying that it is unnatural!

Unnatural = frustratingthe natural purpose of a bodily part = contrary to Natural Law = perversion of the natural use of the reproductive organs = not what the organ has evolved for = whatever other words you care to use!!!

Do you see that it does not help to simply describe the action in words which ammount to the same thing?

So, whatever words you use, the question remains - so why is it wrong?

All the best,

Laurie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hi Catherina,

Nice of you to join in!
You say:
Homosexual activity will never and can never lead to propagation of the species.
So judging it “wrong” from base of natural law is only conclusion available.

If everyone was gay or if gay people argued that everyone should become so, then, if you agree that human survival is a good thing, you would have a point. But neither of these things are true and so it is not clear why gay sex is wrong.

Also a gay person who agreed with you would be celibate and so not reproduce anyway.

Finally, of course gay sex is contrary to Natural Law, but we are discussing why that makes it wrong?

All the best,

Laurie