Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[CHRISTINE77]

Morally, by having gay sex, they are wrong, but that doesn’t mean they are wrong in all facets of their lives. Most gay people are morally right in many other areas of life. Morally, having any kind of unnatural sex is wrong, because it is guided by lust. St. Augustine’s greatest sin was lust, so he let go of sex all together and served God. By turning to lower things like lust, one is turning toward evil and away from God. That being said, most of us are sinners in one way or another.

Not acknowledging that homosexual acts are sinful is not dealing with the nature of sin. So although I know and like and admire a lot of homosexual people, including my own sister, I cannot condone the gay sex.

 

[StevieD]

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

Your comments about office workers and mountaineers, whilst interesting, do not relate to the subject in hand. I would be unhappy if my son chose to be a mountaineer but would be a great deal more concerned for his safety if he were an active homosexual from a purely statistical viewpoint.

Getting accurate statistics is very difficult in this matter mainly because the gay lobby have successfully hijacked this area of study. However that lobby certainly does not dispute that homosexuals suffer substantially greater incidences of early death and serious physical and mental illness but merely reach different conclusions about the causes. Indeed they often overstate the medical disadvantages of a homosexual lifestyle as well as the numbers of those exposed to it, for their own reasons.
I would recommend that you look at gayconspiracy.info/ which provides all the statistics and relevant published reports with authors’ names and qualifications (or lack thereof).
What ‘axe am I grinding’? And what is your own?

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

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?

Laurie

I’ve read those stats as well but I want to take this back to how the homosexual lifestyle
is wrong from a Natural perspective. Our bodies, male and female, are made to complement each other and in the design are built in protections. In copulation, the
female is not going to get an infection from her male partners sperm. Her body and
secretions protect her from that. There is no such protection for anal sex. So that
copulation leads to bad consequences and therefore is wrong. Too simple, maybe,
but makes sense.

 

[Abu]

From Deo Volente
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. It’s not a matter of opinion anymore. It’s a matter of science.

Such “learning” is selfist justification, as nothing points to such an assumption. That homosexuality is a disorder is certainly psychologically a fact, and certainly NOT a “variant of common human nature” – as though it is God-created – which would highlight the prejudice of activists against God’s condemnation of the vile activity in Sodom and Gomorrah. Face reality. How representative are you of Anglo-Catholics in picking and choosing what to accept in Sacred Scripture and routinely rejecting the commandments to chastity therein?

I will not, under any circumstances, believe that homosexuals are only capable of lust.

No sensible person does, which is why many activists with the disorder get out of the quagmire of carnality and cope chastely with their condition when given the opportunity by loving, competent therapists.

I do not agree with Aquinas’ logic regarding the “right reason” of the venereal act….I agree with the process theology critique…(that Aristotle and Aquinas) irrationally prejudice being over becoming.

You wouldn’t agree, naturally, because you act unnaturally.
Your infatuation with “process theology” reduces the infinite God to a finite state, making man a creator rather than God’s creature – the lethal influence being that all change represents progress, and all progress is good – the death knell for morality.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7774&CFID=40061503&CFTOKEN=83892780
Process Theology and Secularization
by Edwin C. Garvey, C.S.B.
Excerpts:
“ ‘The foundation of belief for the new process theology is the denial of objective truth. The realistic concept of truth "has gradually broken down, and the last century or so has witnessed the gradual emergence of a new concept of understanding the mind and its truth. Though there is scarcely unanimity, there is significant convergence in philosophy toward the view that the human spirit is a self-creative process which fashions itself out of its relations to the world.’ (Dewart, Religion, Language and Truth, p. 121). The scorn which process theologians heap upon Greek philosophy is in reality a scorn for the very notion of objective truth. The mission of Socrates was to endeavor to convince the Sophists that truth is possible; that instead of man being the source of truth, the measure of things, man is made to know reality. And for Aristotle, reality was not a meaningless chaos but was the basis for science and intelligibility.
“St. Thomas believed in truth and this is why he believed that the intellectual disciplines of theology and philosophy are possible. With the Fathers of the Church, he believed that theology was a science based on the descending wisdom of God’s supernatural revelation.

“In a world of process theology and in a technological world of science there can be no question of permanent moral principles which transcend the practical and technical order.”

This has been an opportunity to identify and expose the chaos which has come to be known as “process thought” or “process theology” – so reminiscent of Nietzsche’s “death of God” and the remaking of reductionist values for man and for religion, in order to sanitize sodomy here.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Your comments about office workers and mountaineers, whilst interesting, do not relate to the subject in hand. I would be unhappy if my son chose to be a mountaineer but would be a great deal more concerned for his safety if he were an active homosexual from a purely statistical viewpoint.

Getting accurate statistics is very difficult in this matter mainly because the gay lobby have successfully hijacked this area of study. However that lobby certainly does not dispute that homosexuals suffer substantially greater incidences of early death and serious physical and mental illness but merely reach different conclusions about the causes. Indeed they often overstate the medical disadvantages of a homosexual lifestyle as well as the numbers of those exposed to it, for their own reasons.
I would recommend that you look at gayconspiracy.info/ which provides all the statistics and relevant published reports with authors’ names and qualifications (or lack thereof).
What ‘axe am I grinding’? And what is your own?

I see - it is all a conspiracy is it? If you go on to Evangelical sites you discover that all the scientists in the world are involved in a gigantic conspiracy to make us believe in evolution covering up all the flaws in the evidence. You and the website you advocate think there is a conspiracy to cover up the ‘facts’ about the risks of the gay lifestyle. How convenient.

I had hoped you would refer me to an impartial scientific source, instead it is a biased rant with few references. I have seen more persuasive websites ‘proving’ that alien abductions occur or that the moon landings did not happen.What is needed is hard evidence presented in research papers accepted by the scientific community.

I had hoped too that you understood how science works and that you might have an understanding an qualifications in statistics. It seems you have neither - yet you are ready to make unpleasant allegations from a position of ignorance and prejudice.

The axe I have to grind is this. If you are going to make such allegations - you need to be able to back them up in the proper manner and refering me to the website of some chap who is foaming at the mouth as he writes is not doing that.

So, if you cannot back up your claims in a proper scientific manner and if you have no qualifications in this area, don’'t you think that you ought to withdraw your unpleasant and hurtful insinuations?

 

[John21652]

I see - it is all a conspiracy is it? If you go on to Evangelical sites you discover that all the scientists in the world are involved in a gigantic conspiracy to make us believe in evolution covering up all the flaws in the evidence. You and the website you advocate think there is a conspiracy to cover up the ‘facts’ about the risks of the gay lifestyle. How convenient.

I had hoped you would refer me to an impartial scientific source, instead it is a biased rant with few references. I have seen more persuasive websites ‘proving’ that alien abductions occur or that the moon landings did not happen.What is needed is hard evidence presented in research papers accepted by the scientific community.

I had hoped too that you understood how science works and that you might have an understanding an qualifications in statistics. It seems you have neither - yet you are ready to make unpleasant allegations from a position of ignorance and prejudice.

The axe I have to grind is this. If you are going to make such allegations - you need to be able to back them up in the proper manner and refering me to the website of some chap who is foaming at the mouth as he writes is not doing that.

So, if you cannot back up your claims in a proper scientific manner and if you have no qualifications in this area, don’'t you think that you ought to withdraw your unpleasant and hurtful insinuations?

Laurie, I think you need to be a little less belligerent towards StevieD. Even if you disagree with his comments and wish to challenge the validity of the statisctics he mentions, just simply ask for access to those stats. If you get belligerent you will get this thread closed down. It is also getting of topic.

The question is, Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law, so let’s stick to that, shall we?

You amd I were fencing about certain terms used in the debate. Unnatural was one of them. If we look at the Natural Law treatises on this subject, the term ‘unnatural’ is not often used. Instead, the term ‘dosordered’ is bought into play. If we hark all the way back to Cicero, it was he who considered that “True law is right reason in agreement with nature”. What is ‘natural’, or the ‘norm’, is heterosexual sex used for procreation. If the norm be proven, then homosexual sex acts are proven to be wrong under natural law.

i suggest that if you wish to disagree, then you must needs show that homosexual sex acts are not outside that norm.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Your rebuke is accepted. I find it hard to take when people produce ‘statistics’ of doubful validity without any scientific knowledge to back up opinions which are very hurtful. But if I have stepped out of line, I apologise.

To your point. It is agreed that gay sex is unnatural, not normal etc - the question is why does that make it wrong? To say that Natural Law proclaims it so is to beg the question because it is the basis of Natural Law that we are debating. Please read my long post above to Portrait where I explain this in detail.

Thanks

Laurie

 

[djeter]

I see - it is all a conspiracy is it? If you go on to Evangelical sites you discover that all the scientists in the world are involved in a gigantic conspiracy to make us believe in evolution covering up all the flaws in the evidence. You and the website you advocate think there is a conspiracy to cover up the ‘facts’ about the risks of the gay lifestyle. How convenient.

I had hoped you would refer me to an impartial scientific source, instead it is a biased rant with few references. I have seen more persuasive websites ‘proving’ that alien abductions occur or that the moon landings did not happen.What is needed is hard evidence presented in research papers accepted by the scientific community.

I had hoped too that you understood how science works and that you might have an understanding an qualifications in statistics. It seems you have neither - yet you are ready to make unpleasant allegations from a position of ignorance and prejudice.

The axe I have to grind is this. If you are going to make such allegations - you need to be able to back them up in the proper manner and refering me to the website of some chap who is foaming at the mouth as he writes is not doing that.

So, if you cannot back up your claims in a proper scientific manner and if you have no qualifications in this area, don’'t you think that you ought to withdraw your unpleasant and hurtful insinuations?

Laurie:

gayconspiracy.info/homodiseases.html

I looked at this page on the site. I didn’t see any “foaming at the mouth.” Simply a list of diseases and the elevated rates of incidences in the gay community based on various studies that are footnoted.

Why not provide some information that denies these studies or conclusions instead of going off on StevieD? Are you claiming here that gays do not suffer from elevated rates of disease?

dj

 

[StevieD]

The axe I have to grind is this. If you are going to make such allegations - you need to be able to back them up in the proper manner and refering me to the website of some chap who is foaming at the mouth as he writes is not doing that.

So, if you cannot back up your claims in a proper scientific manner and if you have no qualifications in this area, don’'t you think that you ought to withdraw your unpleasant and hurtful insinuations?

How many times do I have to say this? The homosexual lobby do NOT contest that the incidences of suicide, death, violence and sexually transmitted disease are significantly greater amongst homosexuals than the population in general, they merely disagree about the reasons.
Check out the authorities quoted on the site if you wish - they are all fully quoted, or go to some sites sympathetic to your view and see what they say. Now goodbye!

 

[DPMartin]

The only example I see that might help is. Is it natural to covet one’s neighbor’s wife?

What is natural is man believes he should do something about it. But if he disregards the temptation to believe, that he should do something about it. Sin, or better said, separation from God’s Presence is not at the door. What if Adam and Eve did nothing about what was said at the tree of knowledge of good and evil? What if Cain did nothing about his discontent that God had respect for his brothers offering and not his? Just because a lie is articulated, that might cause one to consider, does not mean something must be done about it. Other than to disregarded it as a lie about one’s self or what one is, or what one ought to do.

The Maker defines what He has made is, not the made.

Man makes vehicles, man defines what the vehicles are, the vehicles do not define themselves.

Many look to find their place in the world and let the world, or trust the world to define who or what they are. But if one looks to find their place with God, then most assuredly they trust God’s definition of who and what they are.

 

[Portrait]

Portrait, you wrote this:

[ (3, 16, 30) he condemns what he terms “shameful acts against nature”. Were he to speak or write thus in our day and age he would be roundly denounced as a ‘homophobe’, so unmistakable is his meaning.

However, if there is still any residual doubt in your mind respecting St. Augustine’s position on homosexual aberrant acts, then I would draw your attention to the fact that as a ‘doctor’ of the Church he would have been nourished up in the words of faith and sound teaching. Thus he would be aware that as regards Sodom, the men of that nefarious city are said by St. Jude to have “acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust” and that they “serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire” (see v. 7 cf. II Pet 2: 6-10). Here the unnaturalness of their conduct is quite clearly emphasised. Perhaps St. Augustine had this very text in mind when he spoke of “vicious deeds that are contrary to nature” and “shameful acts against nature”.

There are, and this has often struck me, curious parallels between our contemporary scene and Sodom, for that city was famed for its affluence and softness as well as its immorality and unnatural vice - and, of course, like any men come of age , they thought they had outgrown the idea of God. Alas, they found out their mistake too late. The total obliteration of Sodom was allowed by God in order to bring home to succeeding generations that unrighteousness will end in ruin. Immoral and unnatural conduct ultimately always produce suffering (see StevieD’s post No.168) and disaster be it in Lot’s day or our own.

Without wishing to deviate from the topic currently under review, even a brief survey of the early Church period (100-600 AD) reveals that the Church was opposed to homosexual deviant acts for four reasons: 1/ it was harmful to young boys, 2/ it was the chief sin for which Sodom was punished, 3/ it was contrary to the divine order as disclosed in Sacred Scripture and 4/ (the topic of this thread) it was against nature and natural law. This would remain the Church’s basic position until the present day; it continues, of course, to be the position of the Catholic Church.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

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* polluted**City of God*](http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02jHomo&Clergy_Hospitality_Morella.html)

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

**Statistics v gays **

A website that has ‘homosexualconspiracy’ in its title is unlikely to give an impartial overview of the evidence! [Nor is one headed ‘gaysarewonderful’!]

I did look at it. It starts with a polemic against gays so, again, there is no hope for an impartial account of the evidence is there? I looked at some of the references and they were from Catholic and anti-gay positions too. Suprise!

The situation has an exact parallel with evangelical sites which oppose evolution. They cherry pick evidence which they think favours their case from the research and quote lots of scientists who turn out to be fundamentalist Christians too. It is all a gigantic merry-go-round of people scratching each other’s backs and trying to dupe the unwary. If someone like me comes along and questions them it is as though I had sworn in church.

Now I have neither the time nor inclination to go through the anti-gay evidence and evaluate it – and for a very good reason. I do not have the knowledge and expertise to do so. Therefore my opinion would be worthless. For the same reason the people commenting so freely here ought to be silent unless they have the necessary qualifications.

I have a scientific training – but only in the physical sciences so I cannot judge evidence in a social science.
I have taught critical thinking though and know the rule – distrust biased sources of information.
I have also taught statistics and know how careful you have to be over their interpretation – so am wary about generalisations which are presented as ‘facts’ without any provisos. *

People really ought to accept their limitations. I would not dream of putting forward my views on, say, the way the weather forecast is produced. Unless people on this thread are experts they ought to be humble about the knowledge they claim. [Which is why I am an agnostic by the way!]

Laurie

*An interesting examples. You are 400 times more likely to die from a dog bite as from a snake bite – shock! Yes but we come across more dogs than snakes. Also the number of people who die from snake bites is very small indeed and 400 times a very small number is still a very small number. [Figures made up to illustrate the point]

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Abu, it is not without trepidation that I continue our discussion. It is clear to me that you have already classified me as a particular type of person and assigned me my own cozy corner in the depths of Hades for being such a type. It is clear, too, that nothing I can say to you will be received on its own terms, but will largely be construed as colored by some sort of “selfist” agenda (of which I am, I confess, ignorant–selfism sounds like a new theological term of art, or just another linguistic convenience used to better determine who is “us” and who is “them”). Or perhaps whatever I say will simply be the parroting of some new “infatuation” (you’ve used this term a number of times, and I wonder if it isn’t some suggestion that, because I’m a homosexual, I can only ever be infatuated with something).

But, against all evidence, I believe that something good can come of this conversation.

That homosexuality is a disorder is certainly psychologically a fact,

I think your statement here is less than factual. I think that, perhaps, what you meant to say is that it should be considered a psychological disorder based on your adherence to the Roman catechism. I don’t believe that most psychologists or psychiatrists would, in their professional opinion, agree with your original statement. But with the suggested amendment, whether or not they agreed would be immaterial.

How representative are you of Anglo-Catholics in picking and choosing what to accept in Sacred Scripture and routinely rejecting the commandments to chastity therein?

I’m afraid I don’t know how to answer your question. I do not claim to speak for other Anglicans. Nor will I agree with your characterization of my position. The issue here is not one of picking and choosing, which I deny doing, but that you and I have some profound hermeneutical differences which lead us to see Scripture differently, leading to our differernt understandings of what Scripture actually says. Your hermeneutic is shared by many. As is mine. You will say that mine is “selfist”. That’s fine. That term has a particularly definitive meaning for you and helps you define yourself over against others. That’s okay. But you should know that I do not share in its assumptions and I reject it insofar as I understand it.

No sensible person does, which is why many activists with the disorder get out of the quagmire of carnality and cope chastely with their condition when given the opportunity by loving, competent therapists.

Abu, are you saying that the disorder that you desire homosexuality to be is de facto synonymous with the quagmire of carnality by which you characterize it? Perhaps I’m missing something. I would hesitate to characterize my own relationship with my partner as a quagmire of anything, let alone carnality. We do have a lot of antiques. Perhaps that qualifies… But perhaps, again, I’m missing something.

Your infatuation with “process theology” reduces the infinite God to a finite state, making man a creator rather than God’s creature – the lethal influence being that all change represents progress, and all progress is good – the death knell for morality.

I wouldn’t qualify my interest in understanding process theology as an infatuation. I have many bones to pick with it, insofar as I understand it. Though I’m not convinced, to be honest, that you quite understand it. But that’s a different thread. I merely stated that I agree with the process theology critique of Aquinas and Aristotle. That doesn’t mean that either Aquinas or Aristotle can be ignored. It just means that I agree that they have particular biases which I do not share.

“In a world of process theology and in a technological world of science there can be no question of permanent moral principles which transcend the practical and technical order.”

Your excerpts, especially this one, convince me that neither you nor your author quite understand what process theology is up to. I will repeat, it’s not unimpeachable.

But if the criticism is that process theology reduces morality to the discovery of what is useful in a given moment, that is, that process morality is based on a certain utilitarianism, in what way does natural law morality escape the same critique when its emphasis on biological utility suggests a similar utilitarianism?

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED)

This has been an opportunity to identify and expose the chaos which has come to be known as “process thought” or “process theology” – so reminiscent of Nietzsche’s “death of God” and the remaking of reductionist values for man and for religion, in order to sanitize sodomy here.

I worry that, having stated your conclusion here, that you are guilty of a certain degree of sophistry, or at the very least, you have engaged in this discussion simply to “prove” (if only rhetorically) a point which, to you, was a foregone conclusion.

May I make some suggestions? Have you re-read James’ epistle lately? I think it’s wonderful, and could prove helpful in innumerable ways. It’s a favorite of mine. I need to re-read it myself–I find the discussion of the Royal Law of Love against an understanding of religion as legalism to be a very freeing encounter with the real Gospel, untainted by rhetoric. The suggestion that we will be judged by the same law by which we judge others is indeed sobering.

Also, are you sure you understand Nietzsche’s critique of bourgeois religion in his famously misunderstood prouncement of the death of God? It’s certainly provocative, but I would argue its the cry of someone broken hearted and disappointed with a form of popular religion which has become little more than a prop for the status quo and not a challenge or invitation to any sort of real or rigorous moral living. In fact, it’s a lament that morality has been confused with normality. That’s my understanding, at any rate.

Wishing you peace and happiness (and hoping you don’t see some selfist agenda or an infatuation with one thing or another in my good wishes for you), I remain,

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Portrait]

Dear Laurie,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Sorry that I missed you on the Forums yesterday but I signed off before you signed on. Thanks for your detailed response which I shall now endeavour to reply to. Before I do so may I take this opportunity to apologise for assuming that you were an atheist. Although you describe yourself as having no religion, that does not necessarily make you an atheist, you could simply be an agnostic or just a plain honest seeker after truth, open to persuasion. Whatever, please pardon this indiscretion on my part old chap.

Firstly, It is a clear and precise expression of the issue that you give, but I am only sorry that my response to the problem has not, in your opinion, been equally clear and precise. Let us see if this post can prove the exception and that you will begin to understand my reasoning.

Look, if semen is used for a purpose for which it is plainly not intended that is deviant and therefore wrong. Or to put it another way, how is it right to to use reproductive fluid for a purpose for which it was not intended? Our own rational reasoning informs us that carnal copulation between a man and a woman is the natural and normal business and not anal intercourse. Now to use the anus in the same manner as the vagina is manifestly a deviant act and hence wrong because it (i.e. the anus) is not intended to be used for copulating. To coin a phrase it is a question of “improper useage”, but still wrong nonetheless. Many men, unless they had some particular polemical theory to uphold (as you plainly do), would have no serious problem with all of this and from leaping from unnatural to wrong.

As for “justification of natural law morality”, one cannot really address this issue without discussing the whole basis of morality and what underlies it. Thus far you have been unwilling to engage in debate regarding this until your question about unnatural=wrong is explained. However, if we are to make any headway the issue of the basis of natural law morality but be addressed and engaged with as that is very germane to our debate and not an issue of minor importance. Since you state that you do have moral standards, then the basis of your morality is of crucial importance also, and not some “side show” as you term it, since we must look at your basis of morality and mine also so that we can ascertain which is the more rational and convincing. Now if you are persuaded that your position is the most intellectually satisfying and sound, then you should have no fear or undue anxiety about engaging with Christians, since this will give you the opportunity to expose and explode their outmoded and irrational theories. Actually, I am quite baffled as to why you have not seized the moment as it would, were you to prove your case, make short shrift of this whole debate, for it would be futile for us Catholics to continue natural law morality. So come on my dear fellow rise to the challenge and let us move this debate forward.

On the contrary, my parity of reasoning with induced vomiting holds good because as inducing sickness to avoid weight gain is wrong and unnatural, likewise using one’s reproductive organ’s to indulge in homosexual aberrant acts is wrong and unnatural. Moreover, both cause physical harm and both can result in an untimely death. I will spare you the vivid details. You allow that induced vomiting is wrong but only because it is “wasteful”, not because it is unnatural and potentially harmful. So am I correct in assuming that you think it is perfectly natural to induce vomiting?

If the man on the London Underground or New York Subway does not now think that homosexual aberrant acts are wrong because they are contrary to nature, then it is probably because he is petrified of being branded a ‘homophobe’ and of being visted by the police and possibly prosecuted for hate crime, as has happened here in the U.K. already. However, given the present politically correct climate in which we all now live and move and have our being, it is hardly surprising that men are now reticent when it comes to declaring their opinion on this explosive topic. Why, I have found myself being cautious when talking about homosexual deviancy in public, just in case I end up in the cells being treated like some common criminal. However, this does not alter the fact that the vast majority still do believe, even if they are not prepared to say so, that homosexual conduct is wrong because it is unnatural.

There is a way of ascertaining whether the average man on the Tube is right or wrong as touching homosexual behaviour. If what he believes is in accord with natural law morality then what he believes is clealy in accord with the moral law of God, the author of natural law morality.
However, this also involves, as I have already indicated, a discussion of the whole basis of natural law, especially when there is a clash of opinions.

More to follow.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[CHRISTINE77]

:QUOTE=Portrait;6728421]Dear Laurie,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Sorry that I missed you on the Forums yesterday but I signed off before you signed on. Thanks for your detailed response which I shall now endeavour to reply to. Before I do so may I take this opportunity to apologise for assuming that you were an atheist. Although you describe yourself as having no religion, that does not necessarily make you an atheist, you could simply be an agnostic or just a plain honest seeker after truth, open to persuasion. Whatever, please pardon this indiscretion on my part old chap.

Firstly, It is a clear and precise expression of the issue that you give, but I am only sorry that my response to the problem has not, in your opinion, been equally clear and precise. Let us see if this post can prove the exception and that you will begin to understand my reasoning.

Look, if semen is used for a purpose for which it is plainly not intended that is deviant and therefore wrong. Or to put it another way, how is it right to to use reproductive fluid for a purpose for which it was not intended? Our own rational reasoning informs us that carnal copulation between a man and a woman is the natural and normal business and not anal intercourse. Now to use the anus in the same manner as the vagina is manifestly a deviant act and hence wrong because it (i.e. the anus) is not intended to be used for copulating. To coin a phrase it is a question of “improper useage”, but still wrong nonetheless. Many men, unless they had some particular polemical theory to uphold (as you plainly do), would have no serious problem with all of this and from leaping from unnatural to wrong.

As for “justification of natural law morality”, one cannot really address this issue without discussing the whole basis of morality and what underlies it. Thus far you have been unwilling to engage in debate regarding this until your question about unnatural=wrong is explained. However, if we are to make any headway the issue of the basis of natural law morality but be addressed and engaged with as that is very germane to our debate and not an issue of minor importance. Since you state that you do have moral standards, then the basis of your morality is of crucial importance also, and not some “side show” as you term it, since we must look at your basis of morality and mine also so that we can ascertain which is the more rational and convincing. Now if you are persuaded that your position is the most intellectually satisfying and sound, then you should have no fear or undue anxiety about engaging with Christians, since this will give you the opportunity to expose and explode their outmoded and irrational theories. Actually, I am quite baffled as to why you have not seized the moment as it would, were you to prove your case, make short shrift of this whole debate, for it would be futile for us Catholics to continue natural law morality. So come on my dear fellow rise to the challenge and let us move this debate forward.

On the contrary, my parity of reasoning with induced vomiting holds good because as inducing sickness to avoid weight gain is wrong and unnatural, likewise using one’s reproductive organ’s to indulge in homosexual aberrant acts is wrong and unnatural. Moreover, both cause physical harm and both can result in an untimely death. I will spare you the vivid details. You allow that induced vomiting is wrong but only because it is “wasteful”, not because it is unnatural and potentially harmful. So am I correct in assuming that you think it is perfectly natural to induce vomiting?

If the man on the London Underground or New York Subway does not now think that homosexual aberrant acts are wrong because they are contrary to nature, then it is probably because he is petrified of being branded a ‘homophobe’ and of being visted by the police and possibly prosecuted for hate crime, as has happened here in the U.K. already. However, given the present politically correct climate in which we all now live and move and have our being, it is hardly surprising that men are now reticent when it comes to declaring their opinion on this explosive topic. Why, I have found myself being cautious when talking about homosexual deviancy in public, just in case I end up in the cells being treated like some common criminal. However, this does not alter the fact that the vast majority still do believe, even if they are not prepared to say so, that homosexual conduct is wrong because it is unnatural.

There is a way of ascertaining whether the average man on the Tube is right or wrong as touching homosexual behaviour. If what he believes is in accord with natural law morality then what he believes is clealy in accord with the moral law of God, the author of natural law morality.
However, this also involves, as I have already indicated, a discussion of the whole basis of natural law, especially when there is a clash of opinions.

More to follow.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:clapping::clapping::clapping You win!

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hi Portrait,

Thanks we are making progress of a sort. Please read and respond with new thoughts.

Look, if semen is used for a purpose for which it is plainly not intended that is deviant and therefore wrong.
But my dear Portrait it is the ‘therefore’ that you are supposed to be justifying. Just stating it does not do that. You see ‘not intended’ => ‘deviant => ‘unnatural’ => ??? ‘wrong’. It is this last step you need to substantiate.

Or to put it another way, how is it right to use reproductive fluid for a purpose for which it was not intended?
Wait a minute – it is you who are supposed to be showing it is wrong.

Our own rational reasoning informs us that carnal copulation between a man and a woman is the natural and normal business and not anal intercourse. Now to use the anus in the same manner as the vagina is manifestly a deviant act and hence wrong because it (i.e. the anus) is not intended to be used for copulating. To coin a phrase it is a question of “improper useage”, but still wrong nonetheless.
Yes I agree,’ unnatural’., ‘deviant’, ‘an improper use’, but why does this make it wrong? Again you simply reassert the unnaturalness of gay sex which I do not challenge.

As for “justification of natural law morality”, one cannot really address this issue without discussing the whole basis of morality and what underlies it. Thus far you have been unwilling to engage in debate regarding this until your question about unnatural=wrong is explained. However, if we are to make any headway the issue of the basis of natural law morality but be addressed and engaged with as that is very germane to our debate and not an issue of minor importance.
But the basis of Natural Law Morality is the claim that an unnatural act is also wrong. This is what we are discussing. Alternatives to Natural Law Morality are not to the point.

. You allow that induced vomiting is wrong but only because it is “wasteful”, not because it is unnatural and potentially harmful. So am I correct in assuming that you think it is perfectly natural to induce vomiting?
No it is unnatural but I do not think that that is the reason why it is wrong. If you say that it is wrong because it is unnatural – you know the question that I would ask you!

If the man on the London Underground or New York Subway does not now think that homosexual aberrant acts are wrong because they are contrary to nature, then it is probably because he is petrified of being branded a ‘homophobe’ and of being visted by the police and possibly prosecuted for hate crime, as has happened here in the U.K. already. .l. However, this does not alter the fact that the vast majority still do believe, even if they are not prepared to say so, that homosexual conduct is wrong because it is unnatural.
This may or may not be the reason for what he thinks. But you miss my main point. This man would have been a racist until recently. His views cannot be used to tell us what is right and wrong.

There is a way of ascertaining whether the average man on the Tube is right or wrong as touching homosexual behaviour. If what he believes is in accord with natural law morality then what he believes is clealy in accord with the moral law of God, the author of natural law morality.
Sorry you have forgotten that we are leaving God out of this.

Back to you.

Laurie

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Hi Portrait,

Thanks we are making progress of a sort. Please read and respond with new thoughts.

Look, if semen is used for a purpose for which it is plainly not intended that is deviant and therefore wrong.
But my dear Portrait it is the ‘therefore’ that you are supposed to be justifying. Just stating it does not do that. You see ‘not intended’ => ‘deviant => ‘unnatural’ => ??? ‘wrong’. It is this last step you need to substantiate.

Or to put it another way, how is it right to use reproductive fluid for a purpose for which it was not intended?
Wait a minute – it is you who are supposed to be showing it is wrong.

Our own rational reasoning informs us that carnal copulation between a man and a woman is the natural and normal business and not anal intercourse. Now to use the anus in the same manner as the vagina is manifestly a deviant act and hence wrong because it (i.e. the anus) is not intended to be used for copulating. To coin a phrase it is a question of “improper useage”, but still wrong nonetheless.
Yes I agree,’ unnatural’., ‘deviant’, ‘an improper use’, but why does this make it wrong? Again you simply reassert the unnaturalness of gay sex which I do not challenge.

As for “justification of natural law morality”, one cannot really address this issue without discussing the whole basis of morality and what underlies it. Thus far you have been unwilling to engage in debate regarding this until your question about unnatural=wrong is explained. However, if we are to make any headway the issue of the basis of natural law morality but be addressed and engaged with as that is very germane to our debate and not an issue of minor importance.
But the basis of Natural Law Morality is the claim that an unnatural act is also wrong. This is what we are discussing. Alternatives to Natural Law Morality are not to the point.

. You allow that induced vomiting is wrong but only because it is “wasteful”, not because it is unnatural and potentially harmful. So am I correct in assuming that you think it is perfectly natural to induce vomiting?
No it is unnatural but I do not think that that is the reason why it is wrong. If you say that it is wrong because it is unnatural – you know the question that I would ask you!

If the man on the London Underground or New York Subway does not now think that homosexual aberrant acts are wrong because they are contrary to nature, then it is probably because he is petrified of being branded a ‘homophobe’ and of being visted by the police and possibly prosecuted for hate crime, as has happened here in the U.K. already. .l. However, this does not alter the fact that the vast majority still do believe, even if they are not prepared to say so, that homosexual conduct is wrong because it is unnatural.
This may or may not be the reason for what he thinks. But you miss my main point. This man would have been a racist until recently. His views cannot be used to tell us what is right and wrong.

There is a way of ascertaining whether the average man on the Tube is right or wrong as touching homosexual behaviour. If what he believes is in accord with natural law morality then what he believes is clealy in accord with the moral law of God, the author of natural law morality.
Sorry you have forgotten that we are leaving God out of this.

Back to you.

Laurie

What do you consider to be wrong?

 

[Portrait]

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

Dear Laurie,

continuation of my reply to your post.

How can we decide which of our consciences is correct and truthful?, To answer that question satisfactorily we would need to revisit the whole subject of conscience and establish form whence it comes - is it of mere human origin or is it the voice of God in the soul of man?. As in the case of of the related topic, the basis of natural law morality, we should not refuse a thorough examination of this issue and dismiss it as another mere “side show”.

Your views do matter sir, and since you claim to have moral standards it is important for us to know what is your criterion of truth and what benchmark you use to appraise various behaviours; we quite rightly wish to to know if these are sound and rational and chiefly what ‘authority’ they have over other men, if any. If you are confident that your beliefs are correct and valid you should have no concerns about egaging in debate with Christians, even if just to expose their falsehoods and fallacies.

Do you have irrefragible proof that most people in the Western world now consider homosexual genital acts to be perfectly fine, or is this just wishful thinking on your part? As I have already indicated, many men are just too apprehensive nowadays, given the social climate, to declare their viewpoint on such an explosive topic. After all opposition to homosexual behaviour is bracketed with racism, sexism, ageism and just about everything else that is deemed politically incorrect in our crazy mixed up world. Thus it is hardly surprising that folk are reluctant to divulge what they really feel in their innermost being. However, I suspect that the vast majority still do think that homosexual genital acts are wrong because they are unnatural and as a consequence find such acts repulsive in the extreme, but of course it is no longer fashionable to say this publicly about variant alternative life styles.

Homosexual deviant acts can on more be regarded as God’s will for a man than can, for example, deformity or mental deficiency,. The homosexual is an anomaly whose sexual disorientation bears its own tragic witness to the disordering of mankind by sin. Moreover, whilst Catholics are sympathetic with the homosexual’s affliction, they cannot alter the fact that his hideous vices, though congruent with his condition, are objectively unnatural and wrong and cannot reasonably be regarded otherwise.

Laurie, I really do hope that these last two posts have been more helpful than the previous ones; I really have laboured to express myself more clearly and convincingly, but I fear I failed yet again. In any event don’t worry, I will keep on trying. However, please consider discussing with me the two issues I mentioned so that we can move forward in our discussion, rather than going around in endless circles and each of us repeatedly restating our case. Having said that I will continue to talk about whatever you want to talk about and for however long, well within reason of course.

If I don’t post tonight again, I will post tomorrow afternoon my dear friend. Goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes as always,

Portrait

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Dear Laurie,

continuation of my reply to your post.

How can we decide which of our consciences is correct and truthful?, To answer that question satisfactorily we would need to revisit the whole subject of conscience and establish form whence it comes - is it of mere human origin or is it the voice of God in the soul of man?. As in the case of of the related topic, the basis of natural law morality, we should not refuse a thorough examination of this issue and dismiss it as another mere “side show”.

Your views do matter sir, and since you claim to have moral standards it is important for us to know what is your criterion of truth and what benchmark you use to appraise various behaviours; we quite rightly wish to to know if these are sound and rational and chiefly what ‘authority’ they have over other men, if any. If you are confident that your beliefs are correct and valid you should have no concerns about egaging in debate with Christians, even if just to expose their falsehoods and fallacies.

Do you have irrefragible proof that most people in the Western world now consider homosexual genital acts to be perfectly fine, or is this just wishful thinking on your part? As I have already indicated, many men are just too apprehensive nowadays, given the social climate, to declare their viewpoint on such an explosive topic. After all opposition to homosexual behaviour is bracketed with racism, sexism, ageism and just about everything else that is deemed politically incorrect in our crazy mixed up world. Thus it is hardly surprising that folk are reluctant to divulge what they really feel in their innermost being. However, I suspect that the vast majority still do think that homosexual genital acts are wrong because they are unnatural and as a consequence find such acts repulsive in the extreme, but of course it is no longer fashionable to say this publicly about variant alternative life styles.

Homosexual deviant acts can on more be regarded as God’s will for a man than can, for example, deformity or mental deficiency,. The homosexual is an anomaly whose sexual disorientation bears its own tragic witness to the disordering of mankind by sin. Moreover, whilst Catholics are sympathetic with the homosexual’s affliction, they cannot alter the fact that his hideous vices, though congruent with his condition, are objectively unnatural and wrong and cannot reasonably be regarded otherwise.

Laurie, I really do hope that these last two posts have been more helpful than the previous ones; I really have laboured to express myself more clearly and convincingly, but I fear I failed yet again. In any event don’t worry, I will keep on trying. However, please consider discussing with me the two issues I mentioned so that we can move forward in our discussion, rather than going around in endless circles and each of us repeatedly restating our case. Having said that I will continue to talk about whatever you want to talk about and for however long, well within reason of course.

If I don’t post tonight again, I will post tomorrow afternoon my dear friend. Goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes as always,

Portrait

I think your arguments are brilliant. You absolutely know your stuff!!:clapping: