Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

  • Thread starter Thread starter Portrait
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The argument is that it is a sin because it is disorderrf use of one sexuality.
No one has been able to explain in this thread how saying that homosexuality is disordered amounts to saying more than that you think it is wrong.

The point of Natural Law is to explain why something is wrong. It fails to do that. The so-called explanations for morality based on Natural Law are no better than explaining why opium makes people drowsy by saying that it has the dormative virtue.

Why is it wrong? Because it is unnatural. What do you mean by “unnatural”? It means that I think it is wrong.
 
No one has been able to explain in this thread how saying that homosexuality is disordered amounts to saying more than that you think it is wrong.

The point of Natural Law is to explain why something is wrong. It fails to do that. The so-called explanations for morality based on Natural Law are no better than explaining why opium makes people drowsy by saying that it has the dormative virtue.

Why is it wrong? Because it is unnatural. What do you mean by “unnatural”? It means that I think it is wrong.
You can find out why it is wrong here. You are free to disgree with it, but do not say you don’t know why.
 
You can find out why it is wrong here. You are free to disgree with it, but do not say you don’t know why.
Until you tell me why the claim that something is unnatural is different from merely saying that you think one ought not do it, I still don’t know why. Perhaps you can point out the relevant part of that link to this particular discussion?

Be honest, davidv, have you really ever used the notion of Natural Law to do any personal serious moral deliberation about what you yourself ought to do, or have you only ever used the notion to confirm one of your existing prejudices? Yeah, that’s what I thought, and that’s why Natural Law is nothing more than a tool of oppression–a way of trying to claim the authority of the eternal and the Natural for your personal prejudices.
 
Many people sin? What are you talking about? And why does that justify homosexuality?
you cant… ask me to justify homosexuality. its your belief system that says it is morally wrong, so it is you who must provide evidence supporting your beliefs. hence the “organism” argument Charlemagne used.

you asked me to back up my premise. here is me backing up my premise. many people sin and are happy in sin. it does not drive them to dispair and then suicide. it is not homosexuality that drives people to suicide, it is the mindset of their peers, and the pressures society puts upon them thanks to christian morality. if sin caused suicide, there would be a lot more people killing themselves.
 
expanding further…

you cant… ask me to justify homosexuality. its your belief system that says it is morally wrong, so it is you who must provide evidence supporting your beliefs. I dont have to prove homosexuality right, i just have to prove your argument wrong.
 
Until you tell me why the claim that something is unnatural is different from merely saying that you think one ought not do it, I still don’t know why. Perhaps you can point out the relevant part of that link to this particular discussion?

Be honest, davidv, have you really ever used the notion of Natural Law to do any personal serious moral deliberation about what you yourself ought to do, or have you only ever used the notion to confirm one of your existing prejudices? Yeah, that’s what I thought, and that’s why Natural Law is nothing more than a tool of oppression–a way of trying to claim the authority of the eternal and the Natural for your personal prejudices.
How I use Natural Law or not is irrelevant to its basis for moral principles. I kindly ask that you not answer your question of me yourself. Everytime I attempt to determine that morality of some act, by definition I am using Natural Law.

I am sure I have prejudices, just like you do. I doubt highly if you really know what mine are, however.
 
expanding further…

you cant… ask me to justify homosexuality. its your belief system that says it is morally wrong, so it is you who must provide evidence supporting your beliefs. I dont have to prove homosexuality right, i just have to prove your argument wrong.
There is obviously such a thing as a sexual health disorder, just as much as there is obviously such a thing as a mental health disorder. We have people who have sexual desires for children or animals. You might sometimes find people that are turned on sexually by inanimate objects, and yes, there are people who have same sex attractions. There is one thing in common that all these desires have, and this is the fact that they do not fulfil the fundamental nature of a person. Now when I say fundamental, I mean the unified person as “whole” in terms of their entire objective nature as one unified singular. Homosexuality is thus defined as a disorder because it does not fulfil the natural form of human beings (male and female), and thus undermines the unity that is a person.

Any free human act that does not lead to the fulfilment of human nature as a unified whole is a sin because it oppresses and contradicts human nature as a unified whole for the sake of some selfish agenda. The fact that some gay people are truly in love with each-other is irrelevant since falling in love is not what ultimately defines ethically valuing another human being as an existential whole. One can be in love and yet be abusive and selfish to their partner, undermining love as a perfectly good act. We can also think that we are doing good when in fact we are undermining the value of human life. To truly care for and value the good of a person is to wish the whole of their form (biological and psychological) the greatest good in respect of their whole form. To truly value a human being is to wish them the fulfilment of everything that they are objectively and in their entirety; and in doing so you will attempt to actualise or encourage people to actualise that possibility insofar as that is practical. This includes the fact that they are biologically men and women, because being a man or a women is apart of who we are as persons. Thus, in terms of their sexuality, to wish a “man” or a “women” the greatest good is to wish them the fulfilment of the fact that they are “men” and “women”; and the biological fulfilment of being a man or a women is a heterosexual relationship. Thus a person who has homosexual desires but never-the-less hopes for the fulfilment of human beings, will wish for the fulfilment of their heterosexuality despite any desires that they have or unhappiness they incur upon themselves as a result of depriving their sexual erges. They will do this if they truly respect and value what human beings are by nature. Human beings morally fulfil their nature by acting in unison to what they are as a whole. Thus when the nature of the mind acts in unison with the sexual ends to which our biological natures as a whole are in act (Male & female = heterosexuality ) then that person, as a unified whole, is fulfilling his or her true nature.

Of course, in order to understand that, you would have to first value human nature in it entirety and you would have to admit the teleological nature that is evident in our sexuality and moral discourse. But you obviously do not want to and neither do those who think that homosexuality is no different to heterosexuality, because you perceive the fulfilment of ones immediate desire as being more important than fulfilling ones true nature. We live in an era where people think that human nature is something to be exploited, it is merely an opportunity to exploit the senses; this unfortunately leads some people in the greater sin of perceiving human life and human value as something that is thus dispensable and objectively meaningless. The Catholic faith is trying to keep humanity from going down that destructive path. They are not trying to oppress sexuality, what we truly are. They are trying to fulfil human sexuality as it truly is; how we truly are. The Church is trying to save the world, it is trying to save a true and fulfilling notion of humanity that elevates man beyond the pitiful and careless user mentality that we have toward our natures. The church is the last line of defence against the existential nihilism that will soon engulf the world, and is even now consuming our children.
 
There is obviously such a thing as a sexual health disorder, just as much as there is obviously such a thing as a mental health disorder. We have people who have sexual desires for children or animals. You might sometimes find people that are turned on sexually by inanimate objects, and yes, there are people who have same sex attractions. There is one thing in common that all these desires have, and this is the fact that they do not fulfil the fundamental nature of a person. Now when I say fundamental, I mean the unified person as “whole” in terms of their entire objective nature as one unified singular… Since this is a definitional claim on your part, I think the whole point your are making comes down to what you mean by “entire objective nature” means, and why you apply it to every living human.

So, how do you define and justify the definition of this term? It seems non-scientific and non-rational to me, but perhaps if you would explain more it might make more logical sense.
 
I think the whole point your are making comes down to what you mean by “entire objective nature” means.
What we are as an objective whole. When you look at a frog, you do not define it merely in terms of its eyes or its legs, but in respect of its entire form, and the form is defined by the end to which that form is in act.

We are male and female, thus the end to which our sexuality is in act can only be described as heterosexual. We have sexual desire but only in respect of the fact that we are male and female. We are male and female before we have sexual desire. Thus our sexuality is not principally defined by “desire”, but rather, it is defined and recognised by the objective form which represents us (male and female). Experiencing a sexual attraction for a tree is not true sexuality because it is not in conformity with the fact that we are male and female. Our biological form is ordered to the end of heterosexuality. Thus ones desire is in conformity with ones true sexuality only when it is in unison with the end to which our objective nature is in act. Therefore, one can only fulfil his or her natural form through heterosexual activity. When ones desire deviates from the natural act of our form, we become disconnected from what we truly our. It is not our natural end to have sex with a tree or to fall in love with a tree. We fulfil our natural end, as male and female, only by engaging in heterosexual activity; since heterosexuality is the natural end of being either male of female. Thus it is unnatural for us to have homosexual desires. It is a sexual health disorder in much the same way that having a sexual attraction to a tree is a disorder. Homosexuality oppresses who you are by nature; because it does not fulfil your true nature. If I truly desire the greatest good for a persons sexuality, it would be correct of me to wish that such a person would be fulfilled in being either a male or female; and to be fulfilled in that manner is to be a heterosexual.
 
What we are as an objective whole. When you look at a frog, you do not define it merely in terms of its eyes or its legs, but in respect of its entire form, and the form is defined by the end to which that form is in act. Is our only human purpose to reproduce? Is that a frog’s only living purpose? Do you really reduce life only to the making of more diploid beings?
We are male and female, thus the end to which our sexuality is in act can only be described as heterosexual
 
. You need to EXPLAIN this, not merely state it.

. This is clearly false, or this thread would not exist. There would be no gays.
I can only advise that you re-read the post and the other post I made before that again . If you read it properly it might become more clearer to you.
 
I can only advise that you re-read the post and the other post I made before that again . If you read it properly it might become more clearer to you.
I read them AND responded. And have now asked you further clarifying questions. Is your only response, “Read me again”? It’s ok with me if you don’t have more to say; just make it clear and I will not ask you anything more.
 
I read them AND responded. And have now asked you further clarifying questions. Is your only response, “Read me again”? It’s ok with me if you don’t have more to say; just make it clear and I will not ask you anything more.
Its not clear to me that you did read them properly, and if you don’t understand the arguments given, then there is nothing more I can say. To me, the fact that you are a male, or a female, is clear evidence of the fact that our natural biological end is heterosexuality. Having a penis or a virgina is evidence of the fact that the two are biologically complementary and teleological ordered that way in order to fulfil a particular end. You are a male in respect of there being such a thing as females. You produce sperm in your testicles in light of the fact that women produce eggs to be fertilised and visa versa. Its not something difficult to see, unless you have spent your whole life being un-reflective and taking things for granted. If that’s the case, there is not much I can do for you accept say open your eyes. Its your choice if you choose to do so.

Sorry that I can’t help you out more.
 
Sigmund Freud:
“The only unnatural sexual behavior is none at all.”
Alfred Kinsey:
“The only unnatural sexual act is that which you cannot perform.”
my friend has this book called “SEX in the Animal Kingdom”. I think it might open your eyes as to what “natural” (with an emphasis on NATURE) sexual behavior is.

i think my sources are more reliable than yours.

Furthermore, just because one type of human has a penis and the other one has a vagina and if you put the two together babies come out doesnt mean diddly. It just means one type of human has a penis and the other type has a vagina and if you put the two together babies come out. Logically there is absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.

The argument goes:

A
B
.’. A, B

A
B
.’. C is a fallacy.

it gets better though.

A
A
B
B
.’. A,A
OR
.’. B,B
OR
.’. A,A,B
OR… nevermind i think you get the idea.

PS, if you did indeed state what human nature was, then please repost a concise blurb as i couldn’t make head nor tails of your post as you kept talking about human nature without defining it first (i did a ctrl F search for “human nature is” and it came up with nothing). please state your premises first.
 
Its not clear to me that you did read them properly, and if you don’t understand the arguments given, then there is nothing more I can say. To me, the fact that you are a male, or a female, is clear evidence of the fact that our natural biological end is heterosexuality. Having a penis or a virgina is evidence of the fact that the two are biologically complementary and teleological ordered that way in order to fulfil a particular end. You are a male in respect of there being such a thing as females. You produce sperm in your testicles in light of the fact that women produce eggs to be fertilised and visa versa. Its not something difficult to see, unless you have spent your whole life being un-reflective and taking things for granted. If that’s the case, there is not much I can do for you accept say open your eyes. Its your choice if you choose to do so.

Sorry that I can’t help you out more.
Our species has never required that every individual be fertile, nor that every “couple” reproduce, and certainly not that every couple reproduce every time they have sex. That is empirical truth. Sex and reproduction are not and have never been INDIVIDUAL requirements.

Your reference to “teleology” needs explanation, or it simply looks likes vague philosophical term-dropping.

The only “end” that I see to our living is “death,” another empirical truth.

If all you are saying is that reproductive organs are primarily for reproduction, well…duh. Of course. And our mouths are primarily for eating and breathing, and our eyes are primarily for seeing, and our ears primarily for hearing, and our feet primarily for locomotion…
 
If all you are saying is that reproductive organs are primarily for reproduction, well…duh. Of course. And our mouths are primarily for eating and breathing, and our eyes are primarily for seeing, and our ears primarily for hearing, and our feet primarily for locomotion…
Well duh, then you must accept that teleology exists.
 
Well duh, then you must accept that teleology exists.
“teleology” as an idea exists, for sure. What is your point? You seem no longer to be engaging in the exchange of ideas here. I made several points above. Do you have any other responses?
 
Whats the primary use of copper? or of granite? or simply of the letter A?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top