Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[Portrait]

F.A.O. DEO VOLENTE

Dear Mark,

Cordial greetings to you and thankyou for your responses, which I have now read and digested.

By way of reply I would first of all state that homosexuals (and the champions of their cause) assert that love is an adequate criterion by which to judge every relationship. It most decidedly is not. The Catholic, along with orthodox Protestants, cannot accept that love is the only absolute, that besides it all moral law has been dispensed with, and that whatever appears to be compatible with love is ipso facto good and wholesome, irrespective of all other considerations. This is erroneous thinking for love requires law to guide it aright. In emphasizing love for God and neighbour as the two great commandments, our Lord and His apostles did not discard all other commandments. On the contrary, Jesus said, “If you love me you will keep my commandments” (St. John 14: 15) and again, “He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me…” (St. John 14: 21). St. Paul wrote that “love is the fulfilling (not the abrogating) of the law” (see Rom. 13: 8-10).

Therefore the loving quality of a relationship is an essential, though per se an insufficient, criterion by which to authenticate it. For example, if love were the only test of authenticity, there would be nothing against polygamy, for a polygamist could certainly enjoy a liaison with several wives, all of whom could be quite happy with this immoral and unnatural arrangement. Clearly, love is not the only yardstick by which to measure what is good or right and hence morally permissible.

Secondly, the Christian repudiation of homosexual deviant acts does not rest, contrary to uninformed popular belief, entirely on a few isolated and obscure biblical proof- texts, whose traditional interpretation can easily be debunked. On the contrary, the negative prohibitions of homosexual perversion make sense only in the light of its positvie teaching in Genesis 1 and 2 regarding human sexuality and heterosexual marriage. To put it simply, without the wholesome positive teaching of Sacred Scripture on sex and marriage, one’s perspective on homosexuality will necessarily be rather skewed.

Finally, what men need to understand is that the clamour to normalize and legitimize homosexuality by ordaining self-confessed homosexuals is part of a much bigger issue (as was women’s ordination), a symptom of a serious malaise in Anglicanism which is highlighted by a continual and unstoppable slide away from orthodoxy and basic historical norms.

A liberalizing trend has taken such a grip on the life of the Anglican communion (at least in the West if not to such an extent in the so called Southern Cone) that its credibility and its witness to historic Christianity is now seriously in question. This is hardly surprising, given that it lacks and authoritative Voice to declare what is the truth respecting faith and morals. Indeed, this is one of the chief reasons why I converted to Catholicism last year and returned to the one true Fold, after being a loyal son of the Church of England for 26 years.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

All existence being natural, and being dependent on a first cause in eventual reduction, whether religious or not, there is a natural understanding in the human being of morality. Whether natural law proceeds from God, as most of us believe or whether natural law was an evolution, which seems philosophically laughable and incongruent to me, (but that’s beside the point), morality proceeds from natural law. (long rant on modernism clipped). Social engineering, primarily in the west, is attempting to override natural law, however you view where NL proceed from. They can’t. They can only use man’s law to make belief in natural law forbidden. It won’t change the way the majority of people think. It will only create temporal consequences if one makes their moral thinking public in some way. Hate crime is already here, and thought crime is right around the corner. I doesn’t make natural rational thought wrong. Only illegal.

Peace,

Steven

Dear Steven,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your post. Sorry it has taken a little while to acknowledge it.

There is indeed “a naural understanding in the human being of morality” and St. Paul clearly says as much in Romans 2: 14, 15; man’s conscience can surely be regarded as an evidence of our inerradicable moral nature, and a proof of the fact that our Creator bears witness to Himself in our hearts. Man’s conscience is that innate faculty that enables him to distinguish right from wrong and which passes independent judgement upon his conduct - “accusing” or else “excusing”, to use the biblical terminology.

Hate crime has most certainly arrived here in the U.K, why, a guest house propietor (be he Christian or not) cannot deny board and lodging to two homosexual men or women on the grounds of deeply held religious convictions, without falling foul of the law. The criminal law is being wrongly used to normalize and legitimize that which is not only at variance with the moral law of God but also natural law as well. This politically correct legislation is unworkable and inequitable and there will be a backlash and adverse reaction to it in due course, as is the case with all asinine and manifestly unjust laws. However, if current trends are anything to go by it does not bode well for the Christian Church, of that there can be no doubt; it will become very costly to be an orthodox Christian in the times ahead.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

Portrait:

An attribute of this nature will die has the nature itself is finite. The obedience to absolute laws will determine our destiny. (see Ecclesiastes)

Andy

Dear AndyF,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for you comments above.

A very good point, as my priest never tires of saying “no one ever cheats on God”. Man cannot sin with impunity, at some point he must answer for his sins and St. Paul is quite emphatic that persistence in homosexual aberrant acts will debar a man from the kingdom of God if he obdurately remains impenitent - “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor theives, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God”. (I Cor. 6: 9-10).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

If that is the best that those above can devise, all that is demonstrated is selfist, personal prejudice – the modernist infatuation with “relationships”, whatever that might mean, to the exclusion of all natural moral law morality down through the ages, and the substitution of meaningless “flourishing” and “wholeness” terms as against the twin ends of marriage and sexuality – unity and procreation.

Abu, I appreciate your critique. But I think your understanding of these terms is understandably colored by your weariness with the culture wars. In this context, I think that weary understanding leads to a particular cynicism.

It is my understanding that we know the Triune God in terms of his relationship with himself–the Father is the Father because he begets the Son, the Son is the Son because he is begotten, the Spirit is the Spirit because of spiration from the Father, etc. Our most intimate understanding of God is that God is relationship. This in turn enables us to say that God is Love because we recognize in God himself the Lover, the Beloved, and the Love that passes between them. This recognition that God is Love enables us to say that there is any moral dimension to the universe whatsoever because the Good is Love in action.

To say that relationship is important in understanding human telos is to understand human fullness as related to and dependent upon the fullness of God. It is also to recognize that we are who we are because of our relationships with others–principally, our relationship with God determines who we are: we are what God knows us to be. It is also to admit that all of our relationships require certain things from us–that relationship without responsibility is not true relationship. But both the relationship and the responsibility the relationship requires have their sure foundation in love. It is my belief that it is this understanding of things that enabled Augustine, when prompted to articulated the fundamental law of Christianity, stated, “Love, then do what you will.” That isn’t an invitation to selfishness, but an acknowledgement of the transforming and rigorous power of love.

As such, I don’t particularly see this understanding of human relationship to be particularly selfist or selfish. For me, that this basic human telos takes precedent over the biological capacity or potential for reproduction simply means that what is natural for man must take its cues from telos and that biology and everything else about man must be referred to it. That biology is informed by this telos is unmistakable, but the telos is the law, not the biology. The biology represents a capacity for the realization of a kind of relationship which is beautiful, important and fulfilling, but not to the exclusion of other kinds of relationship understood in the terms above.

That we should be able to distinguish a right relationship from a wrong one based on the fruit it produces (human flourishing) seems a no-brainer to me. Where homosexuality is concerned, many claim that the prevalence in the gay community (broadly understood) of promiscuity, suicide, certain diseases, drug abuse, and materialism are all evidence of its wrongness. (I would argue this has less to do with homosexuality per se and more to do with general human brokenness, by the way.) But when homosexual relationships bear good fruit, the whole idea of knowing a tree by its fruit seems to go out the window. Why is that?

"They oppose any limitation of sexual orientation in obedience to the natural moral law. They ‘believe in enjoying life here and now,’ without sacrificing anything for the sake of the future life.”

Your quotation here makes a very big assumption–that because one believes that it is possible for grace to be found in homosexual relationships, one must also believe in hedonism. This is a ridiculous thing to say.

Portrait: Thank you for your post. I have a feeling that many of your critiques may be answered, or at the very least, may be addressed in this post. If you feel they are not, however, I hope you will bring it to my attention.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Portrait]

Hi Portrait,

Thanks for your answer - which does give me a reason. You say:

If something is unnatural then it must necessarily be wrong since it is a departure from is considered normal and appropriate by the vast majority of mankind.

NORMAL Being left-handed is not normal for most of mankind, nor is being able to run 100m in less than 10 seconds so not being normal does not show something to be wrong does it?
APPROPRIATE It is not appropriate for me to wear football gear to play tennis but one would hardly think it wrong - just a bit silly. So it is not clear why, because something is not appropriate it is also wrong
So young fellow on Monday [have a good w/e!] you have some more explaining to do.

[Our old friend ‘bestiality’ is not wrong in my opinion because it is not ‘normal’ or ‘appropriate’ but for other reasons - as I have said before]

Laurie

Dear Laurie,

Cordial greetings and thankyou once again for your above post. Hope you had an enjoyable weekend. Unfortunately it has been teeming with rain all day down here, which I suppose is a good excuse to return to the PC again and start posting on CAF.

The problem with the examples that you cite is that they are not ‘wrong’ inasmuch as no natural function is being frustrated. Moreover, such instances cannot come under the heading of unnatural and improper since man’s good is not in jeopardy by such irregular useage. However, the use of semen for something other than its proper purpose, as in homosexual liaisons or auto-erotic activity, violates the very good towards which it is naturally directed; semen is a reproductive substance inherently connected with the good of sexuality and the creation of a new human life. Hideous vices such as auto-eroticism and homosexual deviant acts are both unnatural AND wrong because they entail wasting the substance that should be directed towards the creation of offspring in the context of a loving union between a man and a woman where this is naturally possible.

You say that beastality is “not wrong in my opinion because it is not “normal” or “appropraite” but for other reasons”. There are two problems with this my dear fellow, 1/ Your opinion would
not be that held by the vast majority of the general public; your average man on the London Underground (or New York Subway) would consider beastality to be wrong and inappropriate because it was unnatural and contrary to the normal course of nature. The issue of consent is utterly inconsequential since there can be no consent issue in what is a manifestly an abnormal and vile act. The same would also apply to an ‘absence of love’. These are the sort of reasons that are adduced for polemical purposes by those who are desperate to uphold a particular theory other than the normal obvious one. 2/ The fact that your reasons would not be those of the average member of the public, naturally (no pun intended) raises questions as to just how correct your “opinion” actually is. It would certainly support my position in so far as I contend that man has a basic intuitive sense as to what is right and wrong, natural and unnatural, irrespective of religion. This being the case his innate faculty would inform him that beastality is wrong because it is unnatural. This is also what occurs in the case of homosexuality since man intuitively perceives, unless he has a radically defective conscience, that such liaisons are wrong because they are unnantural and against nature.

Moreover Laurie, the problem with these examples, and others to which you have refered previously, is that they will always be subject to dispute and hence uncertain. We always come back to the same problem old chap, namely, who is to decide who is correct and who is wrong between say you and myself or my Catholic brethren on this thread?. The only satisfactory way of answering that question is to discuss the whole issue of our basis of morality and ascertain which is the most rational and convincing belief system of the two. Thus far, notwithstanding our pleas, you have refused to do this. Now if you are so sure that you are correct, then surely you have nothing to loose by engaging in such a discussion.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Dear Portrait,

Thanks again for your reply. Sorry weather is poor, no doubt it is heading this way.

Let us see where we are with this.

The question is this:
‘Why if something is ‘unnatural in the sense of frustrating the purpose of the action’ is it also wrong?’
[We have agreed that such an action is against Natural Law Morality and so this morality would declare it wrong but we are looking for a justification of the jump from ‘it is unnatural’ [as defined] to ‘it is wrong’.
You replied: If something is unnatural then it must necessarily be wrong since it is a departure from is considered normal and appropriate by the vast majority of mankind.
So I pointed out that there were plenty of non-normal and inappropriate actions which we would both agree were quite OK.
You now reply with unnecessarily graphic detail that gay sex is wrong because ‘it does not fulfil its natural purpose’.

I cannot believe that you wrote this. I can only think that you were in a rush. WE KNOW THAT GAY SEX FRUSTRATES THE PURPOSE OF THE SEX ACT AND IS THEREFORE UNNATURAL. We have agreed this is so.
BUT WE ARE DEBATING WHY THIS MAKES IT WRONG!
You have not provided me with a reason at all have you? All you have done yet again is describe how it is unnatural. Please, please, please, take this point and give me a non-believer a reason why ‘unnatural’ => ‘wrong’.
Just describing how an action is unnatural does not do this.

Later in your post I was amazed to read yet again of an innate faculty that everyone is supposed to have which tells them about right and wrong! Was it a different Portrait, your twin brother perhaps, who agreed with me that as his conscience tells him that unnatural = wrong but mine says the opposite re gay sex, we needed some way to decide whose conscience was giving out the truth?

So far despite post after post you have given me no reason that stands up for half a minute as to why an unnatural act is a wrong one.

Yet again let me summarise our discussion.

You: If something is unnatural it is wrong. So gay sex is wrong
Me; Why?
You: Lots of stuff about how gay sex frustrates the purpose of sex
Me: I quite agree. Gay sex is unnatural, but why is it wrong?
You: More stuff about gay sex being unnatural.
Me: The same reply.
You: Gay sex is against Natural Law Morality.
Me: I know that because if something is unnatural Natural Law morality says it is wrong. However I want to know the justification for this deduction.
You: It is against a person’s conscience.
Me: Well it is not against mine. So how we decide whose conscience it giving us the truth?
You: Because it is not normal or appropriate.
Me: If that was the justification then running fast or playing tennis in football gear would also be wrong.
You: Yes but gay sex also frustrates the purpose of sex.
Me: [Head in hands!] Of course it does, we agree it does, because we have agreed it is unnatural – now will you please tell me why that makes it wrong?

I am not going to leave this or move on until you give me something that is an answer or admit that you cannot.

All the best

 

[Portrait]

Dear Portrait,

Thanks again for your reply. Sorry weather is poor, no doubt it is heading this way.

Let us see where we are with this.

The question is this:
‘Why if something is ‘unnatural in the sense of frustrating the purpose of the action’ is it also wrong?’
[We have agreed that such an action is against Natural Law Morality and so this morality would declare it wrong but we are looking for a justification of the jump from ‘it is unnatural’ [as defined] to ‘it is wrong’.
You replied: If something is unnatural then it must necessarily be wrong since it is a departure from is considered normal and appropriate by the vast majority of mankind.
So I pointed out that there were plenty of non-normal and inappropriate actions which we would both agree were quite OK.
You now reply with unnecessarily graphic detail that gay sex is wrong because ‘it does not fulfil its natural purpose’.

I cannot believe that you wrote this. I can only think that you were in a rush. WE KNOW THAT GAY SEX FRUSTRATES THE PURPOSE OF THE SEX ACT AND IS THEREFORE UNNATURAL. We have agreed this is so.
BUT WE ARE DEBATING WHY THIS MAKES IT WRONG!
You have not provided me with a reason at all have you? All you have done yet again is describe how it is unnatural. Please, please, please, take this point and give me a non-believer a reason why ‘unnatural’ => ‘wrong’.
Just describing how an action is unnatural does not do this.

Later in your post I was amazed to read yet again of an innate faculty that everyone is supposed to have which tells them about right and wrong! Was it a different Portrait, your twin brother perhaps, who agreed with me that as his conscience tells him that unnatural = wrong but mine says the opposite re gay sex, we needed some way to decide whose conscience was giving out the truth?

So far despite post after post you have given me no reason that stands up for half a minute as to why an unnatural act is a wrong one.

All the best

Dear Laurie,

Thankyou for your reply above. Let me try and help relieve your headache with all this, if I can.

First, as far as I am concerned I have cogently argued why homosexual genital acts are unnatural AND wrong on the basis of natural law. This is why I cannot admit to not being able to do it because I think I have, repeatedly in fact. However it appears that my arguments have mostly gone unheard or that, unfortunately, you have just failed to be persuaded by them for whatever reason, or indeed by the arguments of my Catholic brethren on this thread. Perhaps it is down to my poor debating skills that I have not been able to effectively argue my case in a compelling enough manner. If that is so then I am largely to blame and I offer my sincere apologies old chap.

In the example that I gave in my last post I was contending that the hideous vices of homosexual aberrant acts and auto-erroticism were wrong because they entailed wasting the reproductive fluid that should be directed towards the creation of a new life within the context of a marrige between a man and a woman where this is naturally possible. This is wrong because in a homosexual liaison this is not naturally possible and is hence against the natural law or plainly opposed to the natural order things. To go against nature in this respect is as wrong as inducing vomiting in order to avoid weight gain - remember our food is intended naturally to go on a one way journey only so it is wrong to prevent this from happening.

Moreover, I said that your average man on the (lets use an old fashioned metaphor) Clapham omnibus would see this quite clearly just as he would perceive that beastality was wrong and contrary to nature. He would not go in search of obscure answers or analogies, since he would have no theory to uphold at all costs. Exercising his basic ethical intuition he would instinctively know that both beastality and homosexual genital acts were wrong *because * they were unnatural and contrary to nature.

It is only your opinion that I have given you no reason that bears scrutiny as to why unnatural homosexual deviant acts are also wrong. What you surely mean is that you have failed to be convinced by my reasons, an entirely different affair my dear fellow. My only plea is that I have endeavoured to put my case to the best of my ability.

As to why your conscience tells you that homosexual deviancy is perfectly normal conduct, I can only surmise that you have either supressed or hardened your conscience in this particular area of morality. There may be cultural reasons behind this but I suspect that the fact that your own daughter is a lesbian has played no small part in colouring your thinking on this issue, perhaps a great deal more than you would be prepared to admit.

At the very heart of the controversy between us is the fact that as an atheist you do not accept that there are eternal standards of normality or naturalness whereas I, as a Christian, do. That said, the vast majority of mankind embrace the view that homosexual deviant acts and liaisons are a violation or confusion of nature and this indicates, an embryonic sense, at least, of the natural law inerradicably stamped upon man’s consciousness. The fact that the vast majority do think this way, be they Christian or non-Christian, is also a strong indication that that opinion is the right one.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[StevieD]

I believe that homosexuality can be proved to be undesirable from a totally non-religious standpoint (and possibly therefore wrong in some respects).
The statistics for the US and Europe clearly show that homosexuals are more likely/much more likely than heterosexuals to :

Commit suicide
Attempt suicide
Suffer premature death from causes other than suicide
Be murdered
Be sexually or physically abused by a partner
Be sexually or physically abused generally (excluding homophobic attacks which are rare)
Suffer serious and/or repeated instances of sexually transmitted diseases
Abuse drugs or alcohol
Suffer mental illness

Now the homosexual lobby acknowledges these differences but places the blame absolutely on the rest of society for its treatment of homosexuals. This is questionable as a ‘gay lifestyle’ has now been accorded general acceptance for many years but the stats get worse not better. There is also no discernible difference in the stats between the most liberal societies and those where society has been slower to accept this as a choice.
If the statistics do not change over time, then the gay lobby will either have to deny the obvious or accept that the statistics arise from the lifestyle itself and not from society’s attitude towards it.

 

[Abu]

Deo Volente
But when homosexual relationships bear good fruit, the whole idea of knowing a tree by its fruit seems to go out the window. Why is that? It is my belief that it is this understanding of things that enabled Augustine, when prompted to articulated the fundamental law of Christianity, stated, “Love, then do what you will.”

Your infatuation with what you call “love” among homosexual activists is a favourite among all of those who fantasise that the natural law implanted in us by the Creator is non-existent. So Christ’s command also is rejected “Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.” (Mt 7:19-20), because you choose to adopt the selfist doctrine of subjective self-morality and self-worship. Your interpretation of Christ and St Augustine fits selfism to a T. How strange that you should play St Augustine against Christ to suit “anything goes” in the name of “love”. How convenient to forget that “If you love Me, keep My commandments.” (Jn 14:15).

Facing Reality
This subjective selfist morality is exposed by the reality:
scribd.com/doc/20771586/Love-and-Do-What-You-Like
Augustine observes that if a person had to choose between being chastised and being treated affectionately, everyone would pick the latter. Nevertheless, suppose the chastisement comes from a boy’s father and the caress comes from a kidnapper. “In that case,” he says, “it is love which disciplines and iniquity which caresses.” Love does not necessarily mean that you make the other person feel good. First, it requires that your actions flow from a right relationship with that person and with God. If that is the case, says Augustine, “Love and do what you will.”

People smile and say amen…and feel quite justified in cultivating the deeds of the flesh until next meeting time when they can chime it again, like a mantra. Their attitude seems to be “ Let us sin so that grace may abound” because after all, we love God don’t we…Paul put that thinking in its place quickly….“God forbid” Romans Ch. 6. [End of reference]

traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02jHomo&Clergy_Hospitality_Morella.html
St Thomas Aquinas:
“The venereal act is rendered unbecoming through being contrary to right reason, and because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called the unnatural vice. This may happen by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Rom 1:27): and this is called the vice of sodomy (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 154, a. 11).”
Since vice = evil doing, moral weakness, morally wrong, there is no question that in normal language sodomy is wrong because it is against the natural moral law with which we are endowed by the Creator.

“The nature of the species is more intimately united to each individual, than any other individual is. Wherefore sins against the specific nature are more grievous. Wherefore among sins against nature, the most grievous is the sin of bestiality, because use of the due species is not observed. After this comes the sin of Sodomy, because use of the right sex is not observed (ibid., II-II, q. 154, a. 12).”

It is only those who make up their own selfist “ethics” who reject the logic and normality of the conclusion.

 

[djeter]

DJ: Male and female are not simply accidental characteristics of human being; neither are they two different creatures. They are irreducibly different in one humanity. The mystery of the sexually other human is a symbol of the absolute mystery of God’s other-ness and of our relatedness to and transcendence towards God as our final personal wholeness and fulfillment.

LG: This is an assertion which needs evidence

I think if you read that carefully you will see it needs no “evidence.” It is simply the way things are and have always been. I don’t think you can discard it as some obscure metaphysical distinction either. As a case, I don’t think you have made it. But I understand your disagreement. It is unfortunate that the world has condemned gay relationships when, conducted in a chaste manner, there is much to applaud.

However, to return to Church teaching, the chasm between male and female is profound. For a man to love a woman is not the same as for a man to love a man or for a woman to love a woman. In same sex relationships you have the advantage of knowing the “other” as you know yourself. That doesn’t happen in male/female relationships. That is why the nature of bodily union between man and woman is fundamentally different and more profound than same sex unions. We see this all across the natural world.

Procreation is a central way in which we share in and image God’s creative power. (Creator comes from the Latin word which means to beget.) The goodness that emerges from the male/female relationship as represented by the child is something the homsexual relationship does not possess.

Once again, I am not “arguing” this but trying to explain the Catholic teaching – so you really don’t need to answer. The Church sees no equivalent case for the homosexual relationship and never will. I see that you don’t agree with any of this but you are honest enough to admit that you don’t understand it either.

Thank you for the exchange.

dj

 

[djeter]

I believe that homosexuality can be proved to be undesirable from a totally non-religious standpoint (and possibly therefore wrong in some respects).
The statistics for the US and Europe clearly show that homosexuals are more likely/much more likely than heterosexuals to :

Commit suicide
Attempt suicide
Suffer premature death from causes other than suicide
Be murdered
Be sexually or physically abused by a partner
Be sexually or physically abused generally (excluding homophobic attacks which are rare)
Suffer serious and/or repeated instances of sexually transmitted diseases
Abuse drugs or alcohol
Suffer mental illness

Now the homosexual lobby acknowledges these differences but places the blame absolutely on the rest of society for its treatment of homosexuals. This is questionable as a ‘gay lifestyle’ has now been accorded general acceptance for many years but the stats get worse not better. There is also no discernible difference in the stats between the most liberal societies and those where society has been slower to accept this as a choice.
If the statistics do not change over time, then the gay lobby will either have to deny the obvious or accept that the statistics arise from the lifestyle itself and not from society’s attitude towards it.

Actually yours is the other case to be made against homosexuality along with the numbers of homosexuals who vote against their condition by pursuing corrective therapies.

The misery of homosexuality is undeniable and is proven by the cognitive dissonance that accompanies “young, happy, healthy and gay.” It’s a little like “young, happy, successful and black” If you vote for that one you ignore the 42% unemployment rate for black youth. Vote for the former and all the negatives you list above come to mind.

The thing is (and as you have noted) many of these problems that plague gay youth occur in so called gay friendly environs such as Denmark and totally negates the homophobia that gay activists blame for their cause. You missed elevated rates of rectal cancer associated with anal sex.

Natural law says cut your finger and it bleeds, so deliberately cutting youself to bleed is wrong. Sad to say, you list shows there is very little positive to be said for homosexuality, hence its “wrongness”.

Any movement that needs to sponsor parades to jack up “pride” obviously doesn’t have it to begin with. The question is why.

Good post StevieD.

dj

 

[catharina]

Abu, StevieD and djeter,

Brilliant posts!
I applaud you - and I thank you.

 

[djeter]

http://payingattentiontothesky.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/kitty-and-lion1.jpg?w=330&h=333

One of my favorite pictures that relates to sin: the sheer inability of man to GET IT. Kitty is not getting it here either.

The post has a series of quotes from Josef Pieper. One in particular from a play by T.S. Eliot in a scene from a play, The Cocktail Party. It brilliantly depicts a transition of this sort at a crucial moment in the play where the concept of sin suddenly shifts from its dismissive “salon” sense to its true, ultimate core.

When you really understand sin, it becomes fearful and sometimes the dismissal you see of using porn and masturbation or homosexual sex falls into the salon sense Pieper introduces. But when a marriage fails because a woman has been treated like a porn object or when a young man is faced with some debilitating sexual disease or anally raped by an older man the true ultimate core of sin gets revealed with its breathtaking, horrifying consequences.

Yet Sin is one of the central messages of Jesus ministry – the warning, the pleading that it will stain our immortal souls. We’ve buried it. Those who engage in homosexual sex with all its debilitating abuse of one’s fellow man or woman (heterosexual sex doesn’t get much better, I fear) blow by the notion of sin – probably regard it as archaic, even a joke.

Anyways, you’re welcome to it here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/06/12/understanding-sin-2-sin-in-the-therapeutic-society/

dj

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O DEO VOLENTE

Dear Mark,

Cordial greetings.

Our Lord generally upheld the O.T. laws on sexual behaviour (see St. Matt. 5: 27-30; St. Mark 7: 21-3) and He only spoke of sexuality in the context of lifelong heterosexual marriage (see St. Matt. 19: 4-9). Whilst it is true that He stressed the need for love, He never taught that a motive of love could justify anything. Moreover, He never taught His disciples that because of ‘love’ they were at liberty to disregard the O.T. moral law: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them” (St. Matt. 5: 17).

The sixth commandment - “Thou Shalt not commit adultery” - binds us positively to be chaste, using the sexual faculty (God’s gift) only inside marriage and proscribing all use of it outside marriage. Thus adultery, fornication, masturbation and sodomy are strictly forbidden since they are a violation of the moral law of God.

BTW, since you cite St. Augustine with approval, I thought that the following extracts from his works may be of some interest to you. In his Confessions he comments on homosexuality in the context of discussing his own struggle with heterosexual lust as a young man:

“Can it be wrong for any of us at any time or in any place to love God with his whole heart, and with his whole soul, and with his whole mind, and to love his neighbour as himself? Therefore vicious deeds that are contrary to nature, are everywhere and always detested and punished, such as were those of the men of Sodom. Even if all nations should do these deeds, they would be held in equal guilt under the divine law, for it has not made men in such fashion that they should use one another in this way. For in truth society itself, which must obtain between God and us, is violated, when the nature of which he is author is perverted by a polluted lust”

In his greatest work, The City of God, St Augustine returns to this theme. Speaking of Sodom he says that:

“It was a place where sexual promiscuity among males had grow into a custom so prevalent that it received some kind of sanction generally afforded by law to other activities. But the punishment of the men of Sodom was a foretaste of the divine judgment to come. And there is a special significance that those who were being rescued by the angels were forbidden to look back. Does it not tell us that we must not return in thought to the old life, which is sloughed off when a man is reborn by grace, if we look to escape final judgment”.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

I believe that homosexuality can be proved to be undesirable from a totally non-religious standpoint (and possibly therefore wrong in some respects).
The statistics for the US and Europe clearly show that homosexuals are more likely/much more likely than heterosexuals to :

Commit suicide
Attempt suicide
Suffer premature death from causes other than suicide
Be murdered
Be sexually or physically abused by a partner
Be sexually or physically abused generally (excluding homophobic attacks which are rare)
Suffer serious and/or repeated instances of sexually transmitted diseases
Abuse drugs or alcohol
Suffer mental illness

Now the homosexual lobby acknowledges these differences but places the blame absolutely on the rest of society for its treatment of homosexuals. This is questionable as a ‘gay lifestyle’ has now been accorded general acceptance for many years but the stats get worse not better. There is also no discernible difference in the stats between the most liberal societies and those where society has been slower to accept this as a choice.
If the statistics do not change over time, then the gay lobby will either have to deny the obvious or accept that the statistics arise from the lifestyle itself and not from society’s attitude towards it.

Dear StevieD,

What you have written above evinces all too clearly the unhappy side effects of an alternative life style that is anything but ‘gay’.

Moreover, it is quite telling that in 1974 the American Psychiatric Association voted to drop homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders.

This change in perception rests on the presupposition that the homosexual orientation is biologically determined and unchangeable and much of the current literature focuses on the need to help homosexuals embrace their sexuality (in other words embrace a sinful life style) and cope with discrimination. Indeed, there are those within in the APA who have been calling for an official ban on reparative therapy to change the homosexual condition.

Now that homosexuality has attained ‘nonpathological status’ it is increasingly difficult to ask fundamental questions or to undertake research which challenges the prevailing orthodoxy. As one commentator has put it “this is an area, par excellence, where scientific objectivity has little chance of survival” (J. Bancroft).

The APA is clearly not objective and impartial and would appear to hold a brief for the homosexual movement. Apparently it has now changed its view about the homosexual “gene”:
Strange how there is always some “why” to account for the fact that a minority of the population has a homosexual proclivity!

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Dear Portrait,

Your considered response to my frustration is kind. And deserves a considered reply. I will try by going through what you say, line by line.

The Problem.
Natural Law morality states that gay sex is unnatural because such sex frustrates the reproductive purpose of sex. It then says that because it is unnatural it is also wrong.
An enquirer, who might be sympathetic, asks a simple question, “How do you justify going from ‘gay sex is unnatural’ to ‘gay sex is wrong’?”
In other words it is the because above which we are seeking to justify. And to justify it to a non-believer as it is claimed that an honest thinker can be brought to see the correctness of Natural Law morality.

• (1)

Your answer and my comments

In the example that I gave in my last post I was contending that the hideous vices of homosexual aberrant acts and auto-erroticism were wrong because they entailed wasting the reproductive fluid that should be directed towards the creation of a new life within the context of a marrige between a man and a woman where this is naturally possible.
But all this shows is that gay sex is unnatural –which we have agreed it is. It does not show it is wrong. You say it is wrong because it is unnatural [it wastes fluid etc] but isn’t this what you are supposed to be showing? [Do you understand this point?] (2)

This is wrong because in a homosexual liaison this is not naturally possible and is hence against the natural law or plainly opposed to the natural order things.
But we have agreed that it is wrong according to Natural Law morality – we are looking for the justification of Natural Law morality. [Do you follow this point too?] (3)

To go against nature in this respect is as wrong as inducing vomiting in order to avoid weight gain - remember our food is intended naturally to go on a one way journey only so it is wrong to prevent this from happening.
Actually I think this is wrong because it is wasteful not because it is unnatural. So this illustration does not work (4)

Moreover, I said that your average man on the (lets use an old fashioned metaphor) Clapham omnibus would see this quite clearly just as he would perceive that beastality was wrong and contrary to nature. He would not go in search of obscure answers or analogies, since he would have no theory to uphold at all costs. Exercising his basic ethical intuition he would instinctively know that both beastality and homosexual genital acts were wrong because they were unnatural and contrary to nature.
You are unwise to invoke this man! A few short years ago this man would agree that white people are superior to coloured. On the issue of gay sex I would not be surprised to learn that this bus passenger asserting that so long as gay people do not frighten the horses or cause unhappiness they can do what they like in the privacy of their own rooms. In any case we need some way to discover if what this man feels is correct or not. So he is no help. (5)

It is only your opinion that I have given you no reason that bears scrutiny as to why unnatural homosexual deviant acts are also wrong. What you surely mean is that you have failed to be convinced by my reasons, an entirely different affair my dear fellow. My only plea is that I have endeavoured to put my case to the best of my ability.
Well why not look at (1) to (5) above and explain where I am mistaken. To summarise:

Is my formulation of the problem correct? (1)
Do you see that your point (2) just shows that gay sex is unnatural which we agreed at the start?
Do you follow at (3) that we have also agreed that Natural Law would declare it wrong – but that we need the justification of this?
As we do not agree why vomiting up food is wrong this illustration does not help (4)
The man on the omnibus probably does not agree with you! In any case his intuitions need justification (5)
Continued in the next post*

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

For Portrait - remaining comments

As to why your conscience tells you that homosexual deviancy is perfectly normal conduct, I can only surmise that you have either supressed or hardened your conscience in this particular area of morality. There may be cultural reasons behind this but I suspect that the fact that your own daughter is a lesbian has played no small part in colouring your thinking on this issue, perhaps a great deal more than you would be prepared to admit.
Of course if you are correct then this might be the reason why my conscience is defective. On the other hand if I am right then we would need to explain away your wonky conscience – perhaps an obsessive devotion to an old fashioned religion. But we cannot decide which way to go until we have decide whose conscience is telling the truth.

At the very heart of the controversy between us is the fact that as an atheist you do not accept that there are eternal standards of normality or naturalness whereas I, as a Christian, do.
Who said I was an atheist? I do think there are objective moral standards. But we are discussing the justification of Natural Law morality not my views on the matter. My question could be put by a person sympathetic to this viewpoint and keen to understand it.

That said, the vast majority of mankind embrace the view that homosexual deviant acts and liaisons are a violation or confusion of nature and this indicates, an embryonic sense, at least, of the natural law inerradicably stamped upon man’s consciousness. The fact that the vast majority do think this way, be they Christian or non-Christian, is also a strong indication that that opinion is the right one.
Is this correct? Most people in the Liberal West accept gay sex as OK so the majority you refer to cannot be ‘vast’. In any case what most people think is not a way to discover right and wrong. Until quite recently most people accepted slavery and the inferiority of women.

Please try to consider what I have said above carefully. My answers to your points may not be cogent but please answer them rather than just repeat what you have said before in different language. Many thanks

Laurie

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Your infatuation with what you call “love” among homosexual activists is a favourite among all of those who fantasise that the natural law implanted in us by the Creator is non-existent.

Abu, thank you for continuing the discussion. I must admit, however, that I am hesitant to do so, as I am beginning to be persuaded that our interaction will produce more heat than light.

But I will say this–it will be difficult to continue any sort of conversation if, when I say “love”, regardless of the context, you assume that I am speaking in code and that I what I really mean to say is “lust” or “anything that might make me feel good.” I understand that any assurance that this is not what I am doing or intending will likely be unfruitful. Because, being a homosexual myself, I must be incapable of actual love, and must therefore be unable to tell the difference between love, lust, pleasure, and pleasure-seeking. No matter how many times I say love, you will only hear lust. Normally, I would simply brush that off as an un-Christian cynicism passing itself off as an easy zeal, but it occurs to me that dismissing it in this way would itself be uncharitable. Let me assure you that I hear what you are saying, and it saddens me to know that you believe that I (and people like me) am incapable of love. You have condemned me out of hand. I will pray for you.

How convenient to forget that “If you love Me, keep My commandments.” (Jn 14:15).

I have not forgotten. But have you forgotten what Jesus commanded? “This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.” (John 15:12).

Love does not necessarily mean that you make the other person feel good. First, it requires that your actions flow from a right relationship with that person and with God. If that is the case, says Augustine, “Love and do what you will.”

There is nothing in my previous post that was in disagreement with this quotation. Do you honestly believe that my partner and I go about the effort and difficulties of making a home with all of the various shared setbacks, slogs, happinesses and heartbreaks that that entails because we merely lust after each other and secretly want little more than a reasonably steady rutting partner? But I suppose, in fact, that that is your belief. And I am sorry for it.

[
St Thomas Aquinas:

](http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02jHomo&Clergy_Hospitality_Morella.html)

I’m afraid I’m not generally sympathetic to Aquinas–partly because his scholasticism opened the door to nominalism, partly because I agree with the process theology critique of him and of Aristotle, that they both unnecessarily and somewhat irrationally prejudice being over becoming.

That having been said, I do not agree with Aquinas’ logic regarding the “right reason” of the venereal act. If I did, I am sure I would reach his conclusion(s), too. This is due, partly, to the growing understanding (using reason) that human sexuality is not singular (or heterosexual by default). A singular sexuality is the assumption that must be made for the catechism and Aquinas (and natural lawsexual morality, really) to make sense in this regard. But we are learning more and more that human sexuality is not de facto heterosexual–that homosexuality is indeed a minority variant of the common human nature and experience. Holding a view to the contrary is more and more analogous to believing in the Ptolemaic vision of the heavens in the face of the Copernican revolution. It’s not a matter of opinion anymore. It’s a matter of science. And Aquinas’ science was, simply, wrong in this regard.

Portrait, you wrote this:

[ he comments on homosexuality in the context of discussing his own struggle with heterosexual lust as a young man:

Portrait:
Confessions](http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02jHomo&Clergy_Hospitality_Morella.html)

Given that the context of your quotations is one of lust, I can support his condemnation of homosexual lust wholeheartedly. But I will not, under any circumstances, believe that homosexuals are only capable of lust. That would be to deny my own experience, to give the lie to what I know to be true, and in the process, to sin against love itself. I cannot do it. And I will not apologize for my incapacity.

Having said that, Portrait, I always appreciate exchanging views with you.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace & Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

I believe that homosexuality can be proved to be undesirable from a totally non-religious standpoint (and possibly therefore wrong in some respects).
The statistics for the US and Europe clearly show that homosexuals are more likely/much more likely than heterosexuals to :

Commit suicide
Attempt suicide
Suffer premature death from causes other than suicide
Be murdered
Be sexually or physically abused by a partner
Be sexually or physically abused generally (excluding homophobic attacks which are rare)
Suffer serious and/or repeated instances of sexually transmitted diseases
Abuse drugs or alcohol
Suffer mental illness

Now the homosexual lobby acknowledges these differences but places the blame absolutely on the rest of society for its treatment of homosexuals. This is questionable as a ‘gay lifestyle’ has now been accorded general acceptance for many years but the stats get worse not better. There is also no discernible difference in the stats between the most liberal societies and those where society has been slower to accept this as a choice.
If the statistics do not change over time, then the gay lobby will either have to deny the obvious or accept that the statistics arise from the lifestyle itself and not from society’s attitude towards it.

What a very unpleasant, unscientific and illogical post!

Which studies do you refer to? Are they accepted by the scientific community or just by people like yourself with an axe to grind? What are the percentages here? For example what % of straights attempt suicide and what % of gays? Which populations in each case?

And why do you think, even if your figures are correct, the cause is their homosexuality and not, say, the realisation that the largest Christian Church plus most Muslims have consigned them to Hell.

People who climb mountains are more likely to die young, people who work in offices are likely to be less healthy that those with open-air jobs. So what do we conclude -that mountainers need to be careful and offfice workers ought to take exercise.

Finally how many gay couples do you know? I know many and most are well-balenced individuals and I can see no reason why your ‘statistics’ should make them alter a life style that brings them joy, love and fulfillment.

Laurie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

More questions for Stevie D

Your statistics. Are they for all gays? Do you have the comparative rates for male gays and for lesbians. Do you have the comparative figures for gays in stable relationship v those that are not. How do the figures compare across the different age groups? What about the comparison of gays who are out and those still in the closet?

I wonder too on a related subject if you know the comparative figures for celibate catholic priests who commit sexual sins v the married clergy in other Christian churches and if, as I suspect, the Catholic figure was higher would you then advocare clergy getting married? Your silly 'logic; would suggest you should.

My final question is about your qualifications to discuss statistics. Have you a maths or statistics qualification and, if so, at what level. You must have some good ones to speak on an issue like this and to use statistics to condemn so many of your fellow human beings.

Laurie