Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hi Cherry,

If you are hoping to get a definition of ‘wrong’ you will be disappointed because thinkers have yet to come up with one.And the discussion would fill several books let alone this little thread!

But all is not lost. Although we cannot give a definition of ‘wrong’ we can use the concept successfully in everyday speech. How could we have learnt or understand the word otherwise? And we do know, for example, that if an action causes unhappiness or harm then that is a reason that it may be wrong and, if it is not wrong, that would be because there was another reason which overweighed that consideration.

So this thread has the task of showing that if something is unnatural in the Catholic sense it is also wrong in the everyday sense too.A hard and probably impossible task.

[It is a simple-minded trap in philosophy to say "we cannot discuss right/wrong; the mind, knowledge, belief, courage, virtue… unless we first define these terms. If that were so we could discuss very little!]

Regards

Laurie

 

[Portrait]

Hi Portrait,
For the Catholic homosexual genital acts are contrary to the natural moral law and it is their unnaturalness that makes them both wrong and immoral.
Yes I know that and we are discussing the basis of that view. To do that you have to explain why ‘unnatural’ => ‘wrong’ not just restate it in different words

Moreover, the fact that God is the author of the natural moral law only reinforces our position, for if God is the author of the natural moral law, then surely any infraction of that law is necessarily going to be wrong.
This may be so but remember you are trying to convince an unbeliever

Be that as it may, what do you think is the “basis” of the natural moral law and how binding is it upon men?; has it universal authority? and who is to decide between the quagmire of competing opinions
That is a different and very big question. Let us stick with the question in this thread.

Laurie

PS Your thead has provoked some interesting responses!

Dear Laurie,

Cordial greetings and a very good day to you dear friend. Thankyou once again for your response above and sorry for not replying sooner but I was extemely tired last night and just had to turn in.

After a perusal of the postings of my fellow Catholic brethren, in addition to my own, it is my considered opinion that we have given perfectly valid reasons as to why homosexual deviant acts are contrary to natural law morality. The issue is surely not that we have not submitted reasons but rather that you dissent strongly with these reasons, an entirely different matter altogether my dear chap.

Be that as it may, I will once again endeavour to explain why the unnaturalness of homosexual genital acts per se makes them wrong and a violation of the natural moral law.

Every created thing has cerrtain well-defined tendencies proper to its nature, and man is no exception to this rule. Unlike the instincts and tendencies of irrational things, the law which governs human nature is law in the strict sense of the word, for because of free will the individual is at liberty to obey or disobey. Now this endowment of free will, necessarily accompanying a rational nature, is man’s peril as well as his chief glory, for in freely disregarding the laws of his own nature he is responsible for the resulting ruin and disorder.

Now, to take a few examples, we can perceive by the light of reason alone that it is morally wrong to satisfy the desire for food and drink in a manner which causes grave harm to the whole body or which obscures the use of reason. Similarly, certain faculties, as the power of pro-creation, having a natural purpose and natural organs for that purpose, it is morally wrong to pervert this purpose by homosexual deviant acts or auto-eroticism. Why? because it is contrary to the natural moral law “written” into our physical form.

By the way, the substance of the Decalogue, with the exception of the third commandment, is nothing more than the written expression of the natural law. Thus If I tell a man to live according to his nature, to develop his faculties harmoniously in accordance with their natural objects, and live in a manner befitting the dignity of a human being, I am only telling him to obey the natural law which is a reflection in his nature of the eternal law of God. In telling a man to do good and avoid evil, I am telling him not to break the commandments of God. So you see the two sets of ideas are mutually inclusive.

Sorry, but this issue of the basis of natural law morality is very germane to the subject currently under review, for its genesis will determine its authority and dictate as to whether it is universally binding upon all men. This may be a “big question” but it is surely a highly relevant one, therefore I must press you for an answer.

It is of no use speaking of the mores of society or early social or parental influences, for to say that societal and parental influences are the source of natural moral law is to say that natural law owes it origin to mere mortal men like you and I. This is a wholly inadequate and intellectualy unsatisfying answer to explain the source of moral obligation; it woefully fails to account for its binding character. Thus, for example, if a parent commands us to deal drugs, our moral obligation is clearly to disobey. No human being can have *absolute *authority over another.

Same problem with “society”, for society only means more individual and flawed men like myself. What right do they have to legislate morality to me? Quantity cannot yeild quality; adding numbers cannot change the rules of a relative game to the rightful absolute demands of conscience.

Therefore we need to establish what is the basis of natural law morality; is its origin merely human or divine? Believe me everything hinges on the answer to that all important question. I eagerly await your answer.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Portrait,

Thanks for your reply. I think I espie a misunderstanding that may be where we are going awry.

The answer to the question at the head of this thread is, strictly, ‘Yes’ and you have explained it very adequately. Natural Law Morality STATES that if some action is unnatural in the sense that it frustrates its natural purpose then it is wrong. So it quickly follows that gay sex is wrong.

But this is obviously not the issue. Natural Law morality ASSUMES that ‘unnatural’ => ‘wrong’ but we are asking the question WHY DOES IT? To state, “Well Natural Law Ethics states this”, does not really answer this and THAT is surely the vital question?

Best wishes

Laurie

 

[catharina]

Hi Cherry,

If you are hoping to get a definition of ‘wrong’ you will be disappointed because thinkers have yet to come up with one.And the discussion would fill several books let alone this little thread!

But all is not lost. Although we cannot give a definition of ‘wrong’ we can use the concept successfully in everyday speech. How could we have learnt or understand the word otherwise? And we do know, for example, that if an action causes unhappiness or harm then that is a reason that it may be wrong and, if it is not wrong, that would be because there was another reason which overweighed that consideration.

So this thread has the task of showing that if something is unnatural in the Catholic sense it is also wrong in the everyday sense too. A hard and probably impossible task.

[It is a simple-minded trap in philosophy to say "we cannot discuss right/wrong; the mind, knowledge, belief, courage, virtue… unless we first define these terms. If that were so we could discuss very little!]

Regards

Laurie

Not hard nor impossible.
I posted this several pages ago and received no responses.
In this thread of big talkers, that seems odd.

Again:

"Even Darwin expounding on ‘survival of the most fit,’ etc., would have to agree
that survival is first dependent upon existence. First existence, 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."

If all folks chose to live as homosexual couples, the species would quickly end for all.

 

[Portrait]

Not hard nor impossible.
I posted this several pages ago and received no responses.
In this thread of big talkers, that seems odd.

Again:

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

If all folks chose to live as homosexual couples, the species would quickly end for all.

Dear Catharina,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your contribution several posts back and the one above. I do recall reading it and concuring with what you said and really did intend to respond and register my agreement - sorry dear sister for that oversight.

Whilst it is quite true what you say, I think many champions of the homosexual cause would respond by saying that because the vast majority of mankind is heterosexual, and only a relative minority homosexual, there is no grave danger of the race not being propagated. Thankfully, not all men will choose to live in homosexual liasons.

Having said that Darwin’s theory surely does chime with the divine mandate: “Be fruitful and multiply”, thus showing that this is the normal and natural order of things.

Please keep on posting.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

Portrait,

Thanks for your reply. I think I espie a misunderstanding that may be where we are going awry.

The answer to the question at the head of this thread is, strictly, ‘Yes’ and you have explained it very adequately. Natural Law Morality STATES that if some action is unnatural in the sense that it frustrates its natural purpose then it is wrong. So it quickly follows that gay sex is wrong.

But this is obviously not the issue. Natural Law morality ASSUMES that ‘unnatural’ => ‘wrong’ but we are asking the question WHY DOES IT? To state, “Well Natural Law Ethics states this”, does not really answer this and THAT is surely the vital question?

Best wishes

Laurie

Dear Laurie,

Sorry but the answer to your question still depends on the answer to the central question about the whole basis of natural law morality, as I am sure that you must be aware.

I still eagerly await your response to this all important question.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[catharina]

Dear Catharina,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your contribution several posts back and the one above. I do recall reading it and concuring with what you said and really did intend to respond and register my agreement - sorry dear sister for that oversight.

Whilst it is quite true what you say, I think many champions of the homosexual cause would respond by saying that because the vast majority of mankind is heterosexual, and only a relative minority homosexual, there is no grave danger of the race not being propagated. Thankfully, not all men will choose to live in homosexual liasons.

Having said that Darwin’s theory surely does chime with the divine mandate: “Be fruitful and multiply”, thus showing that this is the normal and natural order of things.

Please keep on posting.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Thank you for the acknowledgement and the agreement.

Most generally, I’ll say that if homosexual relationships receive the approval and support of society, then at least the possibility seems to exist that living life as SSA couples is a “good” and the choice is open to all - with applause. Then over the course of time, if such coupling becomes the choice of the majority, in the long run - no more births, no more society. I’ve read quite often that citizens of western Europe are not even close to having a population that brings “re-placement” of citizens through birth. Give outright approval to homosexual coupling and the numbers diminish more.

As a Roman Catholic I believe and rely upon Church teaching.
Yet even the outcomes determined by natural law reflect the outcome
of pro-creation and new births exist only in male/female couples.

PS - dreadfully odd that I had to re-post to get any response, yes?

 

[Cherry5]

Hi Cherry,

If you are hoping to get a definition of ‘wrong’ you will be disappointed because thinkers have yet to come up with one.And the discussion would fill several books let alone this little thread!

But all is not lost. Although we cannot give a definition of ‘wrong’ we can use the concept successfully in everyday speech. How could we have learnt or understand the word otherwise? And we do know, for example, that if an action causes unhappiness or harm then that is a reason that it may be wrong and, if it is not wrong, that would be because there was another reason which overweighed that consideration.

So this thread has the task of showing that if something is unnatural in the Catholic sense it is also wrong in the everyday sense too.A hard and probably impossible task.

[It is a simple-minded trap in philosophy to say "we cannot discuss right/wrong; the mind, knowledge, belief, courage, virtue… unless we first define these terms. If that were so we could discuss very little!]

Regards

Laurie

Hello Laurie,

This discussion seems to be going around in circles, so I was merely trying to help by establishing what constitutes wrong.

Forgive my simple-minded approach.

Regards.

 

[catharina]

Hello Laurie,

This discussion seems to be going around in circles, so I was merely trying to help by establishing what constitutes wrong.

Forgive my simple-minded approach.

Regards.

I applaud your simple-minded approach.
Simplicity is a virtue. Duplicity is not.

You’re correct that any conclusion reached must first address the old rule “define the terms.” If no one can agree on a definition for “wrong” then any discussion is pointless.

 

[Publisher]

Who determines what is “natural law”?

 

[catharina]

Who determines what is “natural law”?

Another term to be defined …

 

[John21652]

Portrait,

Thanks for your reply. I think I espie a misunderstanding that may be where we are going awry.

The answer to the question at the head of this thread is, strictly, ‘Yes’ and you have explained it very adequately. Natural Law Morality STATES that if some action is unnatural in the sense that it frustrates its natural purpose then it is wrong. So it quickly follows that gay sex is wrong.

But this is obviously not the issue. Natural Law morality ASSUMES that ‘unnatural’ => ‘wrong’ but we are asking the question WHY DOES IT? To state, “Well Natural Law Ethics states this”, does not really answer this and THAT is surely the vital question?

Best wishes

Laurie

Hi there Laurie.
I haven’t posted since about the third page of this thread, having been inundated with other worldly matters. I have read through the posts and find them quite interesting. However the post of yours above really caught my attention.

You wrote

Natural Law morality ASSUMES that ‘unnatural’ => ‘wrong’ but we are asking the question WHY DOES IT?

Natural Law morality does not assume that ‘unnatural’ = ‘wrong’ at all. If it did, then everything that is unnatural, or outside the ‘norm’, as you and I discussed a few pages back, would be wrong. Wing walking is outside the norm, or is unnatural. Running a seb 9 second 100 meteres is outside the norm, and perhaps unnatural, However, Natural Law Morality makes no judgements on these things. Natural Law Morality can not assume anything. Natural Law Morality states that something is wrong, which is what*** Portrait*** wrote and he is correct. A moral code is a set of statements concerning behaviour. Any assumptions are dealt with before the moral prescription is promulgated. Take Utilitarianism. Its assumption is that happiness is the first and foremost principle and that actions are right or wrong according to the amounts of happiness actions generate. Natural Law theory, on the other hand, operates from a different set of assumptions. The assumptions, if that is what they are, are the first in a series of steps using deduction. A formed moral code is the last step and it is the one which prescribes that actions are right or wrong.

 

[Cherry5]

Who determines what is “natural law”?

Good Question. As well does it change based on each ones perspective and experience! and/or evolution of nature?

What is natural and normal to me can seem completely ridiculous to someone else.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

What a lot of posts to try to respond to! Here goes –forgive the brevity.

Post 79 Portrait
Volente will no doubt be able to answer for himself. He is of a forgiving disposition and will overlook the unkindness of your description of the love that he and partner have for each other.

Suppose that Volente and I wrote an account of our relationships but leaving out the sex of our partners. Suppose we did not sign our names but asked you to say who had written which. You would not be able to do so. Do you really think that God or anyone cares what we do in our respective bedrooms, given that in both cases we are expressing love and in both cases no children are possible? If you say that the physical differences matter then you owe an explanation. If you say that in his case his actions are unnatural because his sex organs are being used in a non-procreative way and hence offend Natural Law, then you need to explain why ‘unnatural’ so defined is also ‘wrong’. So far this has not been managed.

Post 84 Catherina.
It is very unlikely that everyone or even most people would want to live in gay couples so no worries re population.

Also be wary of ‘evolution’ = ‘good’. It is at least a possibility that men have evolved to be promiscuous

Post 86 Portrait
Until someone can explain to me why the Natural Law Morality assumption that, if something is unnatural, as defined, it will also be wrong, I will not accept that there is a Natural Law to explain.

Post 87 Catherina
Population in most European countries is actually increasing. The world’s population is certainly increasing. Your worries are groundless.

Post 88 Cherry **
Your post was anything but simple minded. It is a very tempting thought ‘we cannot discuss this because we need to define it first’. The philosopher Socrates was the first to fall in – so you are in very good company.
**
Post 89 Catherina
If you can define ‘wrong’ you should not be wasting your time on this website – you should be at Cambridge University explaining your findings to the admiring professors there!

Post 92 John
What I said in your quote was shorthand explained by previous posts. There I agreed that many unnatural things are not wrong. Catholic morality defines ‘unnatural’ in a particular way – it is an action that frustrates the purpose of a bodily function or organ. Now it is unnatural so defined that Natural Law Morality simply states to be wrong. Therefore the crucial and unanswered question is, ‘why does unnatural as defined by natural law’ => ‘wrong’?
Hope that clears up the confusion here.

Thanks and good wishes to all.

Laurie

 

[Portrait]

Dear Laurie,

Regarding homosexual liasons, God most certainly does care as to what takes place behind closed bedroom doors, especially when His moral law and natural law are being violated. Moreover, in Hiis sight two individuals of the same gender cannot express romantic love on an equal footing with a man and a woman since such depraved passions are abhorrent to God.

You yourself acknowledge, even unwittingly, natural law morality the moment you disapprove of certain behaviours and declare them to be wrong or immoral. Thus when you say, for example, that beastality is unnatural you are also saying that it is wrong and improper, for if it is unnatural how can it possibly be right? Clearly, it is either right or wrong, it cannot be both (remember the question of consent is inconsequential when it comes to an unnatural union; consent is only valid in natural and normal relationships).

Thus, my dear chap, the crucial question remains unanwered by you so far, what is the basis of natural law morality according to Mr. Gibson?; What criterion do you use to appraise people’s conduct and pass judgement upon it, for example, when you say that Catholics are monstrous because they disapprove of and reject homosexual liasons which are detestable to their God?

When you respond to this question I sincerely believe that we will make some progress with our discussion, even if in the end we have to agree to differ.

That’s all for now. Goodnight and pleasant dreams.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[John21652]

What a lot of posts to try to respond to! Here goes –forgive the brevity.

Post 92 John
What I said in your quote was shorthand explained by previous posts. There I agreed that many unnatural things are not wrong. Catholic morality defines ‘unnatural’ in a particular way – it is an action that frustrates the purpose of a bodily function or organ. Now it is unnatural so defined that Natural Law Morality simply states to be wrong. Therefore the crucial and unanswered question is, ‘why does unnatural as defined by natural law’ => ‘wrong’?
Hope that clears up the confusion here.

Thanks and good wishes to all.

Laurie

Well, I am having some trouble following what you argue. Your post that I responded to says *“Natural Law morality ASSUMES that ‘unnatural’ => ‘wrong’ but we are asking the question WHY DOES IT?” *When I point out that that is not correct, you sidestep the point and then write of Catholic morality stating something. Of course Catholic morality states something. That is what a moral code does. It states what is right and wrong. It does not assume as you first wrote, because the assumptions have been dealt with. All moral codes state something, because the underlying philosophy is predicated upon certain assumptions and world views. Utilitarianism has certain premises, as did the Stoics and even Fichte, who taught that the supreme obligation is to love self above everything and all others on account of self. You also make the mistake in simply attributing Natural Law to the Catholic Church. The Greeks and Romans had a Natural Law view of the world also. The definitions of natural law, are equivalent, not by some proof of pure reason, but by history, experience, economics, and observation. The issue here is sex in same sex relationships and that needs to be our focus. However, it seems when posters give you natural law reasons why homosexuality is wrong, you side step by saying show me how it is wrong, when that is what they have done, because Natural Law reasoning has certain processes which lead natural law adherents to state that something is wrong. What you are after is the processes which lead to the natural law moral edict. Correct?

Cheers,
John

 

[Abu]

John21652
Laurie Gibson has the stated hang-up that he doesn’t want God in any discussion on sodomy, so blindly refusing to acknowledge conscience, the inbuilt natural moral law, the ancient Egyptians, and Cicero. (post #43).
The Pagans could recognise that slavery was wrong.
medicolegal.tripod.com/catholicsvslavery.htm
Roman jurists had already developed the maxim that any doubts in cases of freedom or slavery, should be resolved in favor of liberty.—William E. H. Lecky (1838-1903), The Substance of History of European Morals (from Augustus to Charlemagne), 2 vols, ed. Clement Wood (New York: Vanguard Press, 1926), I, p 295.

For example, Roman jurist Domitius Ulpianus (c. 160 A.D. - 228 A.D.) had said, “by the law of nature all men are equal.”—Digest, L, 17.32; and “natural law regards all men as equal”—On Sabinus, Book XLIII.
Once again we see that the principle that good ought to be done and evil avoided is available to all using reason, and cause and effect, even if weakened by Original Sin.

Quaker
Who determines what “natural law” is?

God has created our human nature with a conscience and the natural moral law principles, which you have seen even pagans are able to enunciate through reason based on cause and effect. Christ founded His Church which teaches His truths based on the natural moral law and on Revelation and enables all aspects of behaviour, including newly proposed actions, to be evaluated in accord with the natural moral law. Hence embryonic stem cell research is shown to be wrong, as is the age-old sodomy.

 

[catharina]

What a lot of posts to try to respond to! Here goes –forgive the brevity.

Post 79 Portrait
Volente will no doubt be able to answer for himself. He is of a forgiving disposition and will overlook the unkindness of your description of the love that he and partner have for each other.

Suppose that Volente and I wrote an account of our relationships but leaving out the sex of our partners. Suppose we did not sign our names but asked you to say who had written which. You would not be able to do so. Do you really think that God or anyone cares what we do in our respective bedrooms, given that in both cases we are expressing love and in both cases no children are possible? If you say that the physical differences matter then you owe an explanation. If you say that in his case his actions are unnatural because his sex organs are being used in a non-procreative way and hence offend Natural Law, then you need to explain why ‘unnatural’ so defined is also ‘wrong’. So far this has not been managed.

**Uhhh, yes, I believe that “God cares” about what we do in our bedrooms, on the streets, in the classroom, etc… I believe that God cares about activity in the bedroom because God has so revealed it. SO simple.

I understand that you believe ‘differently’ - although I’ve no idea what you believe. **

Post 84 Catherina.
It is very unlikely that everyone or even most people would want to live in gay couples so no worries re population.

Also be wary of ‘evolution’ = ‘good’. It is at least a possibility that men have evolved to be promiscuous.

No. I’m not implying or accepting that evolution is “good.” Darwin believed in promoting the concept of evolution and he supported the notion that survival is a paramount goal of evolution. If evolution leads all to eventual acceptance of homosexual couples, then there is a potential for the end of the species. Why do you imagine that I said anything else - or that I ever worry about it?

Post 86 Portrait
Until someone can explain to me why the Natural Law Morality assumption that, if something is unnatural, as defined, it will also be wrong, I will not accept that there is a Natural Law to explain.

Post 87 Catherina
Population in most European countries is actually increasing. The world’s population is certainly increasing. Your worries are groundless.

Again, you imagine that I’m “worried.” Rather ridiculous thought on your part. More to the point, if you’ll re-read my post I mentioned “citizens” failing to repopulate their nations - so once more you twisted my words or you failed to understand them. Perhaps you have worries?

**Post 88 Cherry **
Your post was anything but simple minded. It is a very tempting thought ‘we cannot discuss this because we need to define it first’. The philosopher Socrates was the first to fall in – so you are in very good company.
**

Post 89 Catherina**
If you can define ‘wrong’ you should not be wasting your time on this website – you should be at Cambridge University explaining your findings to the admiring professors there!

Of course I can define ‘wrong’ and ‘evil’ and ‘sin’ because I embrace a Christian ethic. Guessing that Cambridge doesn’t? Poor Cambridge … .

Post 92 John
What I said in your quote was shorthand explained by previous posts. There I agreed that many unnatural things are not wrong. Catholic morality defines ‘unnatural’ in a particular way – it is an action that frustrates the purpose of a bodily function or organ. Now it is unnatural so defined that Natural Law Morality simply states to be wrong. Therefore the crucial and unanswered question is, ‘why does unnatural as defined by natural law’ => ‘wrong’?
Hope that clears up the confusion here.

Thanks and good wishes to all.

Laurie

 

[djeter]

Hi Djeter,
We are discussing the following question;

Assume (1) that gay sex is unnatural and (2) that we are going to deal with this matter without reference to God - why is gay sex wrong?

More briefly 'why does ‘unnatural’ => ‘wrong’?

The very first post by Protrait explains this well.

So you will see that your full and interesting post does not answer this because you spend some time showing that gay sex is unnatural [agreed] and in other places you bring in God, the Bishops etc which would have no influence on a non-believer.

So, agreed that gay sex frustrates the natural purpose of sex, why is it also wrong?

Look forward to hearing from you.

Laurie

Hi Laurie:

Well if I could interpolate from another post I made recently. Professor Robert George wrote on what Marriage is and what it isn’t.

The error of gay sex can be viewed in its attempt to be sanctified by marriage. Everyone agrees that marriage, whatever else it is or does, is a relationship in which persons are united. But what are persons? And how is it possible for two or more of them to unite?

The view typically (if often unconsciously) held by advocates of liberal positions on issues of sexuality and marriage is that the person is the conscious and desiring aspect of the self. The person inhabits (or is somehow associated with) a body, certainly, but the body is regarded (if often only implicitly) as a sub-personal reality, rather than a part of the personal reality of the human being whose body it is. The body is viewed as an instrument by which the individual produces or otherwise participates in satisfactions and other desirable experiences and realizes various goals.

For those who formally or informally accept this dualistic understanding of what human beings are, personal unity cannot be achieved by bodily union. Persons instead unite emotionally (or, as those of a certain religious cast of mind say, spiritually). And, of course, if this is true, then persons of the same sex can unite and share sexual experiences together that they suppose will enhance their personal union by enabling them to express affection, share pleasure, and feel more intensely by virtue of their sex play.

The alternate view of what persons are is the one embodied in both the historic law of marriage and what Isaiah Berlin once referred to as the central tradition of Western thought. According to this view, human beings are bodily persons, not consciousnesses, or minds, or spirits inhabiting and using non-personal bodies.

A human person is a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit. Far from being a mere instrument of the person, the body is intrinsically part of the personal reality of the human being. Bodily union is thus personal union, and comprehensive personal union — marital union — is founded on bodily union.

Hence gay sex, because it rejects this view of Christian anthropology, is wrong. If you wish to throw God out of the argument (part of the central tradition of Western thought expressed above) , well there is no need to advance any sense of right or wrong. Historical experience demonstrates that, for societies and for individuals, the autonomy of reason cannot successfully replace the authority of God. As is Dostoyevsky, whose Ivan Karamazov observed that, without God, “everything is permitted.”

We could answer that the tradition of moral philosophy goes back to classical Greece and therefore does not have all its roots in the Judeo-Christian faith in the God of Israel. We could qualify it further by noting that a disposition to benevolence, a benevolence that takes pleasure in the happiness of others, is part of human nature. Nonetheless, the sense of moral obligation as it was cultivated for the last fifteen hundred years is hardly conceivable apart from faith in the God of the Bible. So throw out God, as appear to be your want here, makes this an intellectual exercise of limited worth.

Professor Robert P George discusses The Illusions of Married Personalism here, which will tell you what marriage is and why gay ‘marriage’ is a secular conceit. Believe in it or the “rightness” of homosexuality and you turn your back on vast tracts of Catholic real estate and human happiness. But if your audience is secular atheists, they’ve done that already. So what’s the point?

dj

 

[Abu]

Laurie Gibson
Population in most European countries is actually increasing. The world’s population is certainly increasing

More waffle, in that there is a demographic winter over Europe and it is fast approaching in the rest of the world.
The immoral end, justification of sodomy, does not justify the means – misrepresentation over the immorality or over the demographic winter.
demographicwinter.com
“**Demographic winter” denotes the worldwide decline in birthrates, also referred to as a “birth-dearth,” and what it portends. **

Demographer Philip Longman (author of The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity) observes: “The ongoing global decline in human birthrates is the single most powerful force affecting the fate of nations and the future of society in the 21st century.” Worldwide, birthrates have been halved in the past 50 years. There are now 59 nations, with 44% of the world’s population, with below-replacement fertility.

Sometime in this century, the world’s population will begin to decline. At a certain point, the decline will become rapid. We may even reach population free-fall in our lifetimes. For some countries, population decline is already a reality. Russia is losing three-quarters-of-a-million people a year. Its population (currently 145 million) is expected to fall by one-third by 2050.