Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[Laurie_Gibson]

More for John,

Anything outside the norm is unnatural and therefore by definition it is wrong, because wrongness is defined by what is the norm and what is not.
This is what is being discussed here, so you are begging the question.

If we argue that the norm is fallacious because there are so many behaviours that are not the norm, then we are simply denying both natural law and our reasoning powers.
This is not being argued. I do not know what you mean by the norm being fallacious! The onus is on you to show ‘unnatural’ => ‘wrong’, not on me to show the reverse. That’s another story.

, but in this case there is harm done to the entire human society because the norm is held in contempt by those who practice and condone the aberation. Once normative behaviour is trashed, then the body of human society is harmed.
This is incorrect. A gay person does not hold straight people or sex in contempt. I used to run half-marathons but that does not mean I hold non-runners in contempt.

Laurie

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I maintain that some unnatural acts are right and some are wrong. If we can agree on that the next questions would be ‘to which category do we assign faithful gay sex?’ and I would reply that as often the only difference between a faithful gay partnership and a married couple is the nature of the sex therefore both are fine.

You’re right that this is *often *the only difference. But I think you are assuming that married couples are not doing wrong, and (in modern societies) many married couples are doing wrong. The contraceptive mentality has had terrible practical results for society, and has made us more and more individualistic, less and less communitarian. Perhaps the problem is not the *use *of contraceptives, but the *abuse *of contraceptives. Either way, however, many American married couples are using their bodies as a mere means of pleasure, which is wrong.

Mind you, this doesn’t mean we should condemn many (most?) married couples, and it doesn’t mean that we should condemn homosexuals. It just means that they’re doing something that harms them. I am too, since I am a sinner. But I ought to struggle against sin, and I will encourage others to do the same.

Response to Prodigal Son

You want evidence about gay relationships. My daughter has been in a stable loving one for over 20 years. They have many friends who are gay couples whom I have met and, os far as I can judge, the quality of their relationships is similar to that of straight couples- some v good, some v bad, most in between.

In any case the statistics are not relevant. I have strong evidence that most people who take the name ‘Prodigal Son’ are terrible fellows! But, you, the exception, would be very annoyed if I was unpleasant to you because of that!

I’m not sure how one judges “quality of relationship” objectively, but I’ll agree that many gay couples might score reasonably well on this count – certainly if we compare them to your average marriage. But then again, 1 of 2 marriages ends in divorce, so is this a good comparison?

The question here is not legality, but morality. In my mind, most American married couples probably have dysfunctional sexual relationships. So telling me that homosexual relationships are no worse than these relationships does not convince me that homosexual relationships are good (although it does convince me they should be legal). Of course, there are many good aspects to ALL these relationships, gay and lesbian relationships included.

The statistics **are **relevant. Exceptions will always exist. Statistics tell me that robbery has bad results – and “Robin Hood” exceptions do not disprove this natural rule. Now I might be convinced that committed gay relationships are less harmful than uncommitted relationships, and I might be convinced that the actions of lesbians are more excusable than the actions of gay men. *But if you look at the statistical prevalence of promiscuity, disease, and unhappiness among gay men, the numbers are alarming. *And the numbers haven’t gotten much better since Stonewall, which makes it unlikely that societal condemnation is the cause.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Thanks Prodigal,

What you say is interesting but I do not quite see how it answers the question under discussion which is ‘Given that something is unnatural why is it also immoral?’.

Perhaps you have an answer?

Laurie

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Thanks Prodigal,

What you say is interesting but I do not quite see how it answers the question under discussion which is ‘Given that something is unnatural why is it also immoral?’.

Perhaps you have an answer?

Laurie

Well, the question presupposes that we have a useful definition for “natural”. The Christian might identify “natural” with God’s will, and say that God reveals His will through the natural functioning of the world. But the agnostic cannot appeal to God in this regard. And thus, to the agnostic, even establishing the unnaturalness of a behavior does not establish its wrongness. It may, however, give a person *prudential *reasons to avoid the behavior.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

The word ‘natural’ has a number of different meanings. To mention two:

1] It can refer to the way people were before ‘civilisation’. In this sense living in a house is unnatural because huntergathers do not do this.

2] It can refer to our primitive feelings uncontrolled by conventions. In this sense it is unnatural to be faithful to my wife. Few male mammals are faithful.

But we are debating the sense in which proponents of Natural Law Ethics use the term. That is, roughly, natural is what furthers the use of a part of the body for its evolved function and so unnatural means ‘using a part of the body in a way that frustrates its purpose’.

Now in the first two example, obviously, and a Catholic would agree, to be unnatural does not make the action wrong. What we are debating is how you move from something being unnatural in this third sense to showing that it is wrong. So far no persuasive reason has been given.

Good wishes to you

Laurie

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The word ‘natural’ has a number of different meanings. To mention two:

1] It can refer to the way people were before ‘civilisation’. In this sense living in a house is unnatural because huntergathers do not do this.

2] It can refer to our primitive feelings uncontrolled by conventions. In this sense it is unnatural to be faithful to my wife. Few male mammals are faithful.

But we are debating the sense in which proponents of Natural Law Ethics use the term. That is, roughly, natural is what furthers the use of a part of the body for its evolved function and so unnatural means ‘using a part of the body in a way that frustrates its purpose’.

Now in the first two example, obviously, and a Catholic would agree, to be unnatural does not make the action wrong. What we are debating is how you move from something being unnatural in this third sense to showing that it is wrong. So far no persuasive reason has been given.

Good wishes to you

Laurie

But here’s what confuses me: how can we talk about the purpose of body parts unless we are talking about God’s purpose for them? How can we leave in purpose, and leave out God? Aristotle tried to do this, but his philosophy has a gigantic epistemological gap in it.

Why should the atheist think that homosexual actions are wrong? He shouldn’t. He might think that it is disadvantageous in some way, or perhaps perverse, but not wrong. Or rather, you would have to clarify to me what persuasive reason an atheist would have for thinking *any *action is wrong, in and of itself. I suspect there is none.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Aristotle simply looked at what bodily parts did. For example the eyes were used for seeing and so he concluded that that was their function. Nowadays we can add observations about evolution and enquire what parts of the body have evolved to do. So no need to bring God in. Just as well because the claim being discussed here is that a person, who reasons honestly, but without reference to God, can come to see that unnatural behaviour in also wrong.

As regards your next point. There is everyday ethics and there is ethics in philosophy. For example in everyday ethics, it is wrong to kill a person for no other reason than you dislike them, because it causes unhappiness, it breaks the law, society could not run efficiently if this type of behaviour was allowed, it infringes their rights, mere dislike is not enough reason to end a life…Simple! And people can discuss ethical issues without difficulty usually because we understand the everyday meaning of the terms. In philosophy there are questions about the justification of ethics which fill many text books and the issues are far from simple. There are non-believers who view ethics as being objective and not a matter of opinion. There are others who take the view that, at base, ethics is a matter of subjective emotions, but who do not think that ‘anything’ goes. On sites like this one people make vast generalisations [invariably] incorrect on the basis of little knowledge and specious over-simple arguments! I am not saying that you are doing this. However, on this tread, these vast issues have to be put on one side or the topic here would get forgotten.

It is – if something is unnatural [in the Natural Law sense of this term] why is it also wrong?

Perhaps there is no reply outside of Faith?

Regards

Laurie

 

[John21652]

Response to Portrait.

Hello again. My reply to your post.

You say: What I am saying is that the normal course of nature, heterosexual coitus, is what is natural and normal for our race to perpetuate the species

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hello John,

Thanks for this response. You start a number of hares here to which I am not going to respond because I can only discuss one issue at a time.

So please excuse me if I decline to discuss overpopulation or the correct terminology for a permanent and faith gay couple of 20+ years such as my daughter and partner. Nor your slightly factious enquiry about whether I wish to encourage homosexuality – of course I don’t!

Now if you read my posts previous to this you will see that I do understand that the term unnatural is used in a particular way by Catholics. Also I will agree with you that for most people marriage is the norm and that therefore gay sex is unnatural. All this is given – read Portrait’s first post in this thread. The question at issue is ‘why because something is unnatural in the Catholic sense, is it also wrong?’ And I do not think just saying it is, or repeating in different ways that it is unnatural helps answer the question!

For example you say:
However, homosexuality is indeed outside the norm of human sexual behaviour. So lets compare homosexual behaviour with normal sexual behaviour and not something else that may, or may not be, outside the norm, such as football!
Fine homosexual behaviour is outside the norm of human sexual behaviour. I agree. So what? Why is it therefore wrong? Compare it with whatever you like - but just tell me why it is wrong.

I have carefully read all of your post. You make interesting points but nowhere do I read an answer to the question posed here. Perhaps I am being obtuse so could you explain to me clearly and simply why ‘unnatural in the Natural Law sense’ = ‘wrong’, without bringing God into the discussion.

Many thanks

Laurie

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Aristotle simply looked at what bodily parts did. For example the eyes were used for seeing and so he concluded that that was their function. Nowadays we can add observations about evolution and enquire what parts of the body have evolved to do. So no need to bring God in. Just as well because the claim being discussed here is that a person, who reasons honestly, but without reference to God, can come to see that unnatural behaviour in also wrong.

Well, I think that that claim is untrue. For example: some people have urges to eat things that are not food – laundry detergent and such. Now, if we come to ANY agreement on what constitutes natural, we will agree that this is unnatural. But is it wrong? I don’t see why. It is unwise and dangerous, but these facts are predicated on its results. It is a purely contingent fact that laundry detergent causes sickness, and a purely contingent fact that homosexual acts often have bad consequences.

But I don’t see why doing something with bad consequences is ever (for that very reason) morally wrong. Perhaps you don’t want good consequences.

As regards your next point. There is everyday ethics and there is ethics in philosophy. For example in everyday ethics, it is wrong to kill a person for no other reason than you dislike them, because it causes unhappiness, it breaks the law, society could not run efficiently if this type of behaviour was allowed, it infringes their rights, mere dislike is not enough reason to end a life…Simple! And people can discuss ethical issues without difficulty usually because we understand the everyday meaning of the terms. In philosophy there are questions about the justification of ethics which fill many text books and the issues are far from simple. There are non-believers who view ethics as being objective and not a matter of opinion. There are others who take the view that, at base, ethics is a matter of subjective emotions, but who do not think that ‘anything’ goes. On sites like this one people make vast generalisations [invariably] incorrect on the basis of little knowledge and specious over-simple arguments! I am not saying that you are doing this. However, on this tread, these vast issues have to be put on one side or the topic here would get forgotten.

I disagree. If you don’t have a metaethics, then you don’t have an ethics either. I claim that ***no *action can be proved wrong from natural law, without some implicit appeal to a religious system. (By “religious system”, I mean a teleological system that explains why we ought to act naturally). This is a vast generalization perhaps, but it’s also common sense. Aristotle’s religion was the religion of happiness – the assumption that every person wanted to be happy. But I think Aristotle is wrong: most people want to have their desires satisfied more than they want to be happy. So what pseudo-religious system can we propose, to prove that a ethic as fundamental as “do not kill” is valid?

It is – if something is unnatural [in the Natural Law sense of this term] why is it also wrong?

Perhaps there is no reply outside of Faith?

Exactly. You have to put your faith in some ethical system, decide on some worthy goals. This is why people say that ethics is subjective. Without God, ethics is *necessarily *subjective.

 

[camerong]

Allow me another crack at this.

What if the naturalness of sex is in terms not only of its purpose, but its importance. What if we say that heterosexual sex is natural, and thus right, because it is the natural unit of society. All people are products of heterosexual interaction–even if that involves modern-day technology, there is still a sperm and an egg. A homosexual couple, by its nature, cannot serve this same function, without borrowing, to some extent, the heterosexual functions of others (at the very least, say, the sperm of a sperm donor for a lesbian couple who will give birth themselves).

I think the important thing is that a heterosexual couple not only functions as the basic unit of society, but also does so through sex–and this is the only circumstance for which this is true. Separating sex from being this basic unit is the unnatural, and thus wrong, aspect of homosexual sex (or heterosexual sex outside of marriage)–and here I mean not just separating sex from reproduction, but separating sex from being parents in ever sense. This is wrong because of the important interaction between sex and raising children. Sex makes the parents indispensable to one another, for example, the mother sees the father as the “father of my child” not merely “the man I love.” Sex in this context also gives parents a bond to the child that is highly desirable. This is not to say, of course, that when single parent households exist, this is wrong, but these things should be carefully avoided. Homosexual couples can never have these things–can never provide these things to their children, or society generally.

I hope some of this makes sense, I hope this will move the conversation in a fresh area? To sum up: heterosexual sex within a marriage is natural and correct not only because our bodies are made for it, but because it is so important to society and children.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

An interesting reply Camerong,

It seems that your argument shows that marriage is important and should be encouraged. But it needs an extra step, which you do not provide, and that is you need to say that everyone should participate. Celibate people and couples who decide not to have children [using NFP so we don’t get sidetracked!] are just as bad as gay people.

It is going to be a hard thing to do I would have thought. There are lots of important roles and functions required for a society to be successful but there is no need for everyone to perform them all.

All the best,

Laurie

Or have I misunderstood what you are trying to say.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hi Prodigal,

It seems then that your view is that it is not possible outside of religion to answer the question posed in this thread namely, ‘if something is unnatural why is it also wrong?’ and to provide an answer which would persuade an honest unbeliever.

This is contrary to the official view of the Catholic Church I think but never mind!

As to the rest of what you say, pardon me if I do not engage with the vast questions you open. Your conclusion which seems to be, that we cannot discuss ethics unless we have sorted out Metaethics, appears to be factually incorrect and, as nobody has sorted out Metaethics yet [will they ever?] the situation must be grim! But to debate this issue is not appropriate here and have we the time or space in any case. Possibly if you open another thread I might comment – provided you narrow the subject down a little – but let me know directly if you do. Thanks

All the best

Laurie

 

[Abu]

We received the concept of “nature” from Aristotle as: “Nature is a source or cause of being moved and of being at rest in that to which it belongs primarily in virtue of itself and not in virtue of a concomitant attribute.” From this the Scholastic definition: “the nature of a thing is its essence considered as a principle of operation.” It is helpful to understand that the concept of “person” is unknown before the Judeo-Christian lineage

Man is capable by his own activity of acquiring what is lacking and developing what is already possessed to fulfill his nature. So man can know his incompleteness; he can see what he is now and discover the direction of fulfillment by scrutiny of his own nature in body, mind and spirit – to achieve himself fully. As a free agent, he has an obligation to achieve himself fully, and this bond of obligation is the natural law. All that is knowable about man through psychology, history or any of the sciences is relevant to the natural law, is part of the natural law. The natural law is outside of man’s control because created by God in man’s nature.
[See Fr Paul M Quay, S.J., in *Why Humanae Vitae Was Right, Ignatius 1993, p 21-4]

The natural law says that if you want things to prosper, you have to use them in accord with their nature. If you want to grow good tomatoes, you have to treat tomato plants in accord with their nature. You have to give them sunshine and water and fertilizer and a good soil. It is something that man can discover by the basis of his own reason.

If his understanding is not obscured by his culture – which happens to be in turmoil through relativism and selfism – the purpose and meaning and nature of sexual intercourse is for babies and it’s for bonding, within marriage, where children can be reared with a father and mother in a stable family unit.

Homosexual activity “lacks those very elements which could make it a natural sign of the union of persons. This is why the most that can be achieved in a homosexual act is mutual masturbation.” (Michael Palachuk, *Why Is Homosexual Activity Morally Wrong? *Referenced in The Truth About Homosexuality, Section: The Argument from Natural Law, Fr John A Harvey, Ignatius 1996, p 133-4).

Dr William Kraft asserts that the habit of masturbation carries the message that the person has not integrated his social, spiritual, emotional and physical life.” (A Psychospiritual View, 39-45). [Referenced and quoted by Fr John A Harvey O.S.F.S., The *Truth About Homosexuality, Ignatius 1996, p 162).

Fr Harvey (Op. cit. p 134-138) shows that the act of homosexual intercourse lacks the two components that make sexual intercourse natural:

1. The gastrointestinal tract is a hole running through the body – oral or anal intercourse remains on the surface and is not inside the human being, whereas vaginal intercourse is about a real physical union.
2. Since the homosexual act cannot be procreative it cannot unify those engaged in it by tending toward a child who will have characteristics of both parents.

Homosexual acts are ipso facto unnatural

The idea that the use of the God-given infertile periods between husband and wife for serious reasons is equivalent to homosexual acts is devoid of any merit.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

An erudite response Abu.

Your answer, or more accurately, Aristotle’s is that in order to achieve happiness I need to fulfil my potential and that explains why I should have regard to the function/aims of my bodily organs. Then I will flourish.

The problem is that it is not clear why fulfilling my biological function will make me happy. A lemming’s function is to jump off a cliff but a thoughtful lemming may decide that doing this would not make him happy. Similarly a gay person might reason that straight people will find fulfilment in marriage and children but that for him this would only lead to misery and frustration. Why should he not then act in order to get his happiness? You cannot tell him that by not fulfilling his nature he will make himself unhappy because a gay sexual relationship will, in fact enable him to flourish. You can say that it is unnatural but he might respond, “I agree, but why does that make it wrong for a person like me?”

For example, you say;
The natural law says that if you want things to prosper, you have to use them in accord with their nature.
But for a gay person this is just untrue.

Another problem for Aristotle is, why just because something helps me to flourish, that thing is also morally good? For example, many argue that by fulfilling our reproductive function too much we have caused over-population. I don’t want to argue this one but it illustrates the problem. My flourishing needs to be shown to be morally good too.

The second half of your post falls into a trap that many people have landed themselves in. You give chapter and verse to show that gay sex is not natural. You say for example, after some reasoning.
Homosexual acts are ipso facto unnatural
But there is no need for this. In this thread it is agreed that gay sex is unnatural, what we are trying to do is explain why it is therefore wrong.

Aristotle’s answer is clever and ancient but it does not work.

Best wishes

Laurie

 

[Luke_K]

Perhaps gay sex is wrong because it only exists as a distortion or “mimic” of something else. A man engaging in gay sex performs the physical actions that are designed for female genitals and he releases the gametes that are designed for female gametes.

Hetero-sex makes sense because it makes use of the male and female bodies for the purpose for which they evolved. Homo-sex can only exist because it makes use of the organs designed for hetero-sex. If hetero-sex did not exist, homo-sex wouldn’t, but hetero-sex can exist on its own accord.

Kind of like how lies are wrong because they can only exist if the truth exists, yet they are directly opposed to that which they owe their existence to. Truth can exist without lies, but lies cannot exist without truth.

 

[Abu]

Laurie Gibson
it is agreed that gay sex is unnatural, what we are trying to do is explain why it is therefore wrong.

We have explained that homosexual activity is wrong because anything against the natural moral law is wrong. Why?
The Natural Law is “a law that is in principle accessible to human reason and not dependent on (though entirely compatible with and, indeed, illumined by) divine revelation.” (The Clash of Orthodoxies, Professor Robert P George (Princeton),2001, p 169). So that’s where you have to start – with reason, and the effects of acting against reason and the natural moral law.

Morality is not new or limited to Christians. It has been an issue since ancient times.
For instance the Code of Hammarubi and the 42 negative confessions of the Ancient Egyptians – 22. Have you polluted yourself?

John Finnis writes: “for Aquinas, the way to discover what is morally right (virtue) and wrong (vice) is to ask, not what is in accordance with human nature, but what is reasonable.” So, then, human good is in accord with reason and human evil lies outside the order of reasonableness: “So human virtue, which makes good both the human person and his work, is in accordance with human nature just in so far as it is in accordance with reason; and vice is contrary to human nature just in so far as it is contrary to the order of reasonableness.” (Aquinas, Summa, I-II, qu. 71, art. 2, resp.).

“To ascertain the reasonableness of something, one must examine cause-and-effect relationships, a process that calls for scientific research and study.”
[See *Christians For Freedom, Chafuen, Ignatius 1996, p 29-30].

**God as the source of morality (EWTN)
Answer by Richard Geraghty on Dec-15-2006: **
God is the source of morality in two ways. The first is as the Creator of man as a creature of reason, which is the same as a creature with a conscience. Thus man has a natural knowledge of the basics of right and wrong. He knows that he should honour God and not create idols, that he should respect his neighbours and not lie, cheat or murder them, that men and women should be faithful to each other in marriage and not mess around with adultery and fornication, that parents should use their authority over their children for the sake of the children and not their own sakes. These are the natural laws which men know because they are human. This does not mean that they follow this knowledge because, having free will, they often spend a great deal of their lives in not following these norms but insist on inventing rules of their own. They know but they do not do and so become blind and stupid, as St. Paul says in his letter to the Romans in chapters one to three.

The natural law and morality
tothesource.org/3_17_2010/3_17_2010_printer.htm
The natural law is the law of human being alone—not other animals, not birds, not rocks, not trees, not planets. The natural law arises from our particular nature. It is natural insofar as it is rooted in our nature, and moral insofar as our nature defines what is good and evil for us.
Well, just what are we? We are rational, moral animals—the only rational, moral animals. We are the one animal that must think even to survive, and the one animal whose actions are not governed by instincts but are judged by standards of good and evil. We don’t consider it cruel not to teach your dog to read, but we think that keeping children from getting an education deprives them of something they should have. We don’t jail rambunctious roosters for forcing themselves on beleaguered hens, but we send men to the slammer for rape.
Our status as the only rational, moral animal is the source of our natural belief that human beings are distinct from other animals. That is the origin of all laws against murder, for the notion of “murder” assumes that killing a human being is fundamentally distinct from killing a chicken, and that the murderer actually had the moral freedom not to kill (otherwise, jailing the man would make as much sense as jailing the knife). Let go of this fundamental assumption, and soon killing anything will be considered murder (as some animal rights activists maintain) and a murderer’s DNA will be the only culprit (as genetic determinists maintain).
This status as rational animal is exactly what is meant by the assumption that human beings are made in the image of God. The Ten Commandments are, in moral substance, not unique to the ancient Jews. As C. S. Lewis noted in his Abolition of Man, the moral commands to honor parents, not murder, not lie, not steal, and so on, are found everywhere. They are found everywhere because they arise from human nature. To ignore them, or manipulate them, can only result in the destruction of human nature, the Abolition of Man.
Dr. Benjamin Wiker

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Abu this is all very fine and dandy but I must be very obtuse because I cannot see in your post the answer to the question, ‘why if it is unnatural is it also wrong?’. Please help an old chap out by telling me your answer in simple terms.

Many thanks

Laurie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Also Abu, I wrote a detailed reply to your last post but you have just ignored everything in it, which is a little surprising.

Regards

Laurie

 

[Abu]

Laurie Gibson
Do you believe that murder and stealing are wrong or not? Why?