Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[HauntedJame]

HauntedJame

*Actually, no. I got my history from when I was in High School, in the books. *

Did your history book tell you of a plot by Hitler to have Pius XII kidnapped?

At the war’s end, the Allies conducted war crimes trials at Nuremberg. General Donovan later preserved confidential reports of these trials which, after his death, were donated to the Rutgers University School of Law. The reports are now available for the public to read online. The first of the published reports, a 120 page document titled “The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian Churches,” was produced by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), a forerunner of the CIA. The 1945 report includes the following remarks: “Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked to meet this situation [church influence] by complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion. The best evidence now available as to the existence of an anti-Church plan is to be found in the systematic nature of the persecution itself.”

Did your high school text reveal anything of that sort?

Did it also reveal that Hitler was an admirer of Nietzsche, the most famous atheist who ever lived?

I don’t want to derail this thread, but it’s important to answer unfounded allegations (such as the notion that the Nazis were bona fide Christians - even though at time Hitler wanted it believed for public relations reasons that he was) with the facts of history.

Well, Hitler was also a vegetarian…are all vegetarians evil? Now, I never said that the Christians were Catholic, or that all the Nazis were Christians. But a lot were and somehow found a way to carry their faith alongside their political agendas. And I hate to say it, but there is also a difference between a Nazi and the high up ones.

There are Christians in all different shapes and sizes. A lot of white South Africans were Christians during the Apartheid. Not all, but a lot.

Anyway, we are going away from the thread so we should really end this discussion and go back to the homosexual one.

 

[HauntedJame]

My dear friend,

Cordial greetings.

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

The increasing prevalence and normalizing of homosexual acts of depravity, which are commplacently regarded by the avante-garde as interesting variants, is a dreadful mark of God’s wrath upon our Western civilization which delights in its post-Christian character.

The honourable nature of the married state is grounded in the fiat of God, whilst the illegitamate desire for homosexual deviancy derives its proper name from the city of Sodom, which was obliterated on account of it (see Gen. 19: 5).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

How about the New Testament for a change? The old testament gets a bit dull after you get it shoved down your throat because you’re gay.

And if the natural law goes that way, then how come there are animals that exhibit homosexual natures? If we go by nature, animals would be the most pure example of it and a lot of animals are both homosocial and homosexual of nature. Not all, but some species.

Maybe homosexuality is nature’s way of keeping the population down?

 

[davidv]

How about the New Testament for a change? The old testament gets a bit dull after you get it shoved down your throat because you’re gay.

No one is forcing anything down your throat. You are posting here on your free will, right?

And if the natural law goes that way, then how come there are animals that exhibit homosexual natures? If we go by nature, animals would be the most pure example of it and a lot of animals are both homosocial and homosexual of nature. Not all, but some species.

I will thank you not to compare me with a brute animal. I am made in the image and likeness of God. This includes an intellect, a will and an immortal souls. These are not shared with the brute animals.

Maybe homosexuality is nature’s way of keeping the population down?

Pure speculation on your part?

 

[Portrait]

The problem is…just because something is unnatural, it doesn’t automatically mean it is wrong.

It is ‘unnatural’ for people to eat ready prepared meals from supermarkets or tinned food, but it doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

It is ‘unnatural’ for humans to fly in planes, but it doesn’t make it wrong.

It is ‘unnatural’ for people to be able to communicate with other people in different countries via electronic devices, but it doesn’t make it wrong.

I could go on, but it would be boring LOL The point in the same.

People all over the world, Catholic, Christian, Jewish, Agnostic, all of us, do things everyday that are ‘unnatural’, and live in a manner that is ‘unnatural’ for humans. Yet, we don’t say it is wrong.

So to assert that something is wrong just because it is ‘unnatural’ is not only hypocritical of any human being who lives in the 21st century, but is also flawed as an idea.

Dear Michael,

Cordial greetings and I am tempted to say, fancy meeting you here. Hope you enjoyed the rock music debate - what a pity it had to end.

Would you not concur that from a purely biogical perspective those of the same sex are not made for intimate ‘face to face’ copulation, physically or genetically? Biology dictates that the vagina is made to accommodate the penis. Moreover, the vagina has natural lubrication and multiple layers of protective skin cells in a way in which the anus does not, hence the dangers of infection and disease from anal penetration are glaringly self-evident. It is in this respect alone unnatrual and wrong, for how could it be fraught with such complications if it were right and normal?

Whilst pro-creation may not be the only goal, though it is certainly the primary one, it is clearly a major part of it. Without heterosexual intercourse as the right and natural expression of human sexuality, the future of mankind would surely be in jeopardy.

Man brings a fallen human nature into a social environment that itself bears all the marks of sin, and homosexual deviant acts are just one of the distortions and disorders that can result from that interaction. Homosexuality is an evidence that our society has suffered ethical disintegration.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[colmcille1]

How about the New Testament for a change? The old testament gets a bit dull after you get it shoved down your throat because you’re gay.

And if the natural law goes that way, then how come there are animals that exhibit homosexual natures? If we go by nature, animals would be the most pure example of it and a lot of animals are both homosocial and homosexual of nature. Not all, but some species.

Maybe homosexuality is nature’s way of keeping the population down?

Aha, I was wondering when this desperate tactic(animal kingdom) would be employed to somehow bolster the untenable gay argument!
Ever heard of these words: soul, spirit, conscience, reason?
Nobody here is asking you to justify YOUR LIFE. Indeed, that is not at issue.
What we are challenging you on though, is the justification of a lifestyle that has been shown to be unnatural.
Leave the animal kingdom out of the picture. Your “arguments” are skewed enough as it is without you dragging defenceless dumb animals into it.
They cannot speak for themselves(or had you not noticed ?) and, judging by your posts, you can barely do the same.
Enjoy your soul, spirit, conscience, reason but try to employ them maturely once in a while.

 

[larkin31]

I will thank you not to compare me with a brute animal. I am made in the image and likeness of God. This includes an intellect, a will and an immortal souls. These are not shared with the brute animals.

Then why tie the moral limits of human sexual intimacy to reproduction only, which is no greater than that of the beasts?

 

[larkin31]

Michael

*I refer to my previous post…even if you believe that homosexuality is unnatural, and not everyone does, unnatural does not automatically equal wrong. *

Do I detect a little ambivalence here? That while an unnatural act does not automatically equate with wrong, it might equate in given instances with wrong?

How would we know the difference?

Being thoughtful usually reveals the difference.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

HauntedJame

*How about the New Testament for a change? The old testament gets a bit dull after you get it shoved down your throat because you’re gay. *

What is your point? The New Testament is for homosexual sex?

Paul in Romans:

“For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

It’s true that civilizations take a long time to decay, but the case could be made that ours has been in decay for a long time. The great historian Will Durant in The Lessons of History argued that the advance of homosexuality was a sign of decay, and thought it was helpful to note that our generation had not yet rivaled that of ancient Greece or Rome. Interestingly, his book was published in 1968, the year of Woodstock, the same year that the floodgates of hedonism in all its rampant forms were opened.

Even the Greeks and the Romans were not so bold as to make marriage between members of the same sex, though living together was common. In California today a lunatic judge reversed the entire course of history by declaring marriage to be a right protected by the United States Constitution. The right to life, some say, is not protected by the Constitution, but the right to marry a person of the same sex is?

And exactly where in the Constitution is that right even implied, never mind mentioned?

How far down the road of insanity are we headed?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

*Being thoughtful usually reveals the difference. *

Or unthoughtful? When we are unthoughtful, anything goes!

 

[Portrait]

Then why tie the moral limits of human sexual intimacy to reproduction only, which is no greater than that of the beasts?

Dear larkin31,

Cordial greetings again and hope all is well dear friend.

Natural law only appertains to creatures who are endowed with the power of reason. The old Catholic Encyclopedia cites St. Thomas Aquinas when defining natural law: “According to St. Thomas the natural law is nothing else than the rational creatures participation in the eternal law of God”.

Remember, many animals also eat their young but we had better not go there.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[larkin31]

larkin

*Being thoughtful usually reveals the difference. *

Or unthoughtful? When we are unthoughtful, anything goes!

True, and no one is arguing for that here. Thoughtfulness denies the possibility of moral anarchy.

 

[larkin31]

Dear larkin31,

Cordial greetings again and hope all is well dear friend.

Natural law only appertains to creatures who are endowed with the power of reason. The old Catholic Encyclopedia cites St. Thomas Aquinas when defining natural law: “According to St. Thomas the natural law is nothing else than the rational creatures participation in the eternal law of God”.

Remember, many animals also eat their young but we had better not go there.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

huh?

My point is, why limit the sexual capacity and purpose of the highest being in creation to the same purpose as that of the lowest being? Eroticism has a much greater role in human social development and consciousness than for any other creature. But we can’t morally explore this? Even when there is no injury to fellow humans, and consent is freely given both ways?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

Eroticism has a much greater role in human social development and consciousness than for any other creature.

And for that reason must be controlled so that it does not run riot.

Prostitution is a case in point. A man and women give each other pleasure, supposedly no one is hurt, and they do their act freely, without coercion. Is there a Constitutional right to prostitution?

Likewise, a mother and an adult son may freely give themselves in sex, or an adult woman and her father can freely give themselves to each other in sex and declare to themselves that there is plenty of pleasure for both and no one is hurt. Do you agree?

Again, a man may freely marry several women, or a woman may freely marry several men all at the same time and declare that no one is hurt and there is plenty of pleasure and love to go around. Would you like to see polygamy restored? Is there a Constitutional right to polygamy?

If men have the right to marry other men, why don’t they equally have the right to marry as many women as they can support at the same time? If women can marry other women, why can’t they also marry as many men as they want at the same time they are married to all those women?

Do you detect any rush toward moral chaos if the rights of homosexuals to marry each other is granted? By what logic would you say that no such rush to a demand for all the rights enumerated above would be possible?

 

[larkin31]

larkin

Eroticism has a much greater role in human social development and consciousness than for any other creature.

And for that reason must be controlled so that it does not run riot.

Prostitution is a case in point. A man and women give each other pleasure, supposedly no one is hurt, and they do their act freely, without coercion. Is there a Constitutional right to prostitution?

Likewise, a mother and an adult son may freely give themselves in sex, or an adult woman and her father can freely give themselves to each other in sex and declare to themselves that there is plenty of pleasure for both and no one is hurt. Do you agree?

Again, a man may freely marry several women, or a woman may freely marry several men all at the same time and declare that no one is hurt and there is plenty of pleasure and love to go around. Would you like to see polygamy restored? Is there a Constitutional right to polygamy?

If men have the right to marry other men, why don’t they equally have the right to marry as many women as they can support at the same time? If women can marry other women, why can’t they also marry as many men as they want at the same time they are married to all those women?

Do you detect any rush toward moral chaos if the rights of homosexuals to marry each other is granted? By what logic would you say that no such rush to a demand for all the rights enumerated above would be possible?

Gays have already been given this civil right. The horse is out of the barn.

If you think that this is leading to incest or moral chaos, then sell all your holdings, give it to the poor. Shut off your internet, your tv, your radio, and devote yourself to saving your soul when the gay hordes enter your home and put your head on a pike. A rainbow-colored pike, that is.

I don’t treat slippery-slope worries about legal bestiality and incest with much more respect than mockery. Sorry.

And I can take or leave polygamy. Whatever.

 

[MichaelR]

I think the point about using comparisons to the animal kingdom is this…

The argument here is that homosexuality is wrong because it is not natural.

It is then pointed out ‘how can it not be natural when animals do it, and they don’t have the ability to be morally corrupted, so you can’t blame it on that’.

Then you argue that it doesn’t count, because humans have free will and morals to guide them.

Well, then that’s just contradicted your argument, because the basis of it was that it wasn’t natural…but now you’re saying that actually, it’s up to you to use morals to change the behaviour…well then, that’s going against nature. If you have to consciously use judgement to go against primal behaviours, then that’s what’s going against nature.

To address the actual mechanics of natural or not, as posed in an earlier post…

It was said that homosexuals can’t have intimate ‘face-to-face’ sex, a sort of way that showing the body isn’t designed for it. Well…not wishing to draw a diagram, but…yes they can.

Equally, I don’t want to go into too much detail here, but again in a previous post the workings of the vagina and penis an anus was gone into in great detail. A consideration…if anal penetration of any sort is so unnatural, then why is the ‘male g spot’ located in the anus? One of the single biggest pleasure spots for men. If you’re saying the body has been designed with precision and skill for heterosexual sex, this seems something of a design flaw.

But actually putting that aside, I don’t believe that the mechanics of body parts is actually the key to nature. After all, a man’s penis is not possessed and suddenly ceased with the need to seek out a woman or a man for that matter. It’s the attraction and yearning of the mind…and if a man has an attraction to another man, then it is nature.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that the body was specifically designed for homosexuality…what I’m saying is I think that the body and mind is built for sexuality in general, homosexual, heterosexual, and every shade of grey inbetween.

 

[Portrait]

huh?

My point is, why limit the sexual capacity and purpose of the highest being in creation to the same purpose as that of the lowest being? Eroticism has a much greater role in human social development and consciousness than for any other creature. But we can’t morally explore this? Even when there is no injury to fellow humans, and consent is freely given both ways?

Dear larkin31,

My apologies for misunderstanding your point.

Catholics only maintain that the* primary* purpose of carnal copulation is pro-creation, not that that is its only purpose. Of course it is also an expression of the deep love and affection between a husband and wife, that almost goes without saying.

The Church opposes homosexual liasons because they are “intrinsically disordered” and an abuse of our human nature and as such they cannot be engaged in without being guilty of mortal sin, irrespective of any consent freely given.

By the way, have you examined the the tacit assumption that carnal copulation does not have to be pro-creative? I would suggest it is because our culture blithely assumes the legitimacy of birth-prevention without examination. Most people nowadays think of the sexual act as separated from pro-creation because they start from the contraception mentality of our secular culture. As a culture we have come to view homosexual acts as legitamate only because we first severed the sexual act from pro-creation through a misguided contraceptive mentality, but it has not always been so. Clearly, it is this cultural severance of sex and pro-creation that has been the groundwork for making homosexual acts of depravity legitimate.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[larkin31]

Dear larkin31,

My apologies for misunderstanding your point.

Catholics only maintain that the* primary* purpose of carnal copulation is pro-creation, not that that is its only purpose. Of course it is also an expression of the deep love and affection between a husband and wife, that almost goes without saying.

Your attempt to temper the RCC position is undercut by their condemnation even of masturbation, and their moral requirement that ALL non-accidental ejaculation be in a woman’s unprotected vagina. ALL eroticism must be in service of, and end with, vaginal ejaculation. And this is ALL based on being open to the pro-creative process.

QED.

 

[larkin31]

…Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that the body was specifically designed for homosexuality…what I’m saying is I think that the body and mind is built for sexuality in general, homosexual, heterosexual, and every shade of grey inbetween.

Indeed.

Our very existence is suffused with sensory and sensual stimulai, both pain and delights. Whole body eroticism, is, frankly, the best there is. I mean no disrespect to Catholics with this, but the moral requirement that ejaculation between a married couple be vaginal (or not at all, although sex without ejaculation is not supposed to occur either, not intentionally, anyway) is just plain ridiculous to me. It freaks me out that a religion would even wade into the matter in such a detailed, controlling way. But there it is!

 

[edwest2]

huh?

My point is, why limit the sexual capacity and purpose of the highest being in creation to the same purpose as that of the lowest being? Eroticism has a much greater role in human social development and consciousness than for any other creature. But we can’t morally explore this? Even when there is no injury to fellow humans, and consent is freely given both ways?

This is called moral relativism. People can consent to do all sorts of things to each other. Who draws the line? Nobody? That results in anarchy.

There is such a thing as right and wrong. Opinions rarely matter. Only the truth. People will defend the truth.

The flesh wars against the spirit. Catholics should mortify the flesh.

God bless,
Ed