Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[Laurie_Gibson]

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 conscience tells you that if something is unnatural it is also wrong. Mine says the reverse. Personally I do not take what anyone’s conscience says as correct PERIOD. Unless they can give reasons to support what their conscience says. I could give you lots of reasons why I think faithful gay sex is fine but that would not be relevant because we are discussing your views not mine.

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.

It is about you trying to give me reasons why if an act is unnatural it is also wrong – and so far you have not done so. Instead you keep trying to change the subject.

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.
I have not said that most people accept gays. It seems that most western people do but perhaps they are all scared. What is clear is that we cannot say if there is a majority view on the matter. For a third time I remark – it does not matter a fig what most people think because until recently most people were racists. Quite irrelevant to the issue.

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.

Well Portrait I really wish you would make progress. Here is where we are.

I accept the gay sex is unnatural but want to know why it is also wrong. It is unnecessary for you to describe this in more detail.
You do not need to mention that Natural Law Morality condemns it. This morality assumes that unnatural acts are wrong and this is what you are supposed to be showing.
Nor do you need to try and get me to put forward my views. Your job is not to convince me specifically because the claim is that Natural Law Morality can be made to any honest person willing to reason carefully. I am willing to do that.
Conscience will not help because it needs to be validated due to different consciences disagreeing.
The man on the omnibus – we don’t really know what he thinks or why – in any case he has never been an expert on morality.

Where do we go from here?

Laurie

 

[Portrait]

Dear Laurie,

Hello again and thankyou for the above.

It is the fact that the reproductive fluid is being improperly used and that anal intercourse is deviant and against the order of nature, that renders homosexual conduct wrong. For me and other Catholics this violation of natural law is sufficient *per se *to to make it wrong; that is all the justification that we require if we are just discussing natural law. However, you have great difficulty accepting this and feel that these reasons are not reasons at all but mere explanations of natural law restated. However, for us their deviancy and abnormality and their consequent violation of natural law, are the very reasons that make them wrong and improper.

If by asking a question I can demonstrate or clarify my argument, thus making it more compelling, hopefully, is not that a perfectly reasonable and legitamate method of debating - a little like asking a rehtorical question? So if it helps to foster more clarity and greater understanding between us does it really hurt to answer it? So may I put the question to you again my dear fellow, how is is right to use reproductive fluid for a purpose for which it was obviously not intended?

If you concur that homosexual genital acts are deviant, unnatural and an improper use of the reproductive organs then I cannot comprehend why you do not also think them wrong also. Look, many homosexuals and champions of their cause actually argue at great length to prove that their conduct is perfectly natural and decidely not against nature. You, on the other hand, come quite close to the Catholic standpoint but stop short of calling homosexual deviancy morally wrong! I really do pray that God will enable you to take this further step, it is not so huge as you might think.

No, moralities must be put in the crucible to find out what sort of stuff they are made of and whether or not they stand up to scrutiny - your morality and mine. In any event the basis of natural morality is not only that an unnatural act is wrong but why it is wrong. Your continued refusal to discuss this issue is odd to say the very least; if you are firmly convinced that your own beliefs are correct and valid then what have you to fear in discussing them? For the record, I have no fear whatsoever in discussing my basis of morality

It is wrong to forcibly sick up one’s meal because that is an unnatural and potentially harmful thing to do. Likewise, it is wrong to improperly use one’s reproductive organ for sodomy because that is an unnatural and potentially harmful thing to do also. To me this is as clear as the noonday sun old chap, but perhaps I am overlooking something.

Racism is not on a par with homosexual aberrant acts. There is nothing immoral or unnatural in belong to another race. Homosexual conduct is both immoral and unnatural and those who engaage in it are responsible for their actions inasmuch as they are endowed with freewill. An ethnic minority has no choice over the colour of their skin. Racial prejudice exists for all manner of reasons but we can safely affirm that a man’s ethical intuition does not inform him that being black is wrong and unnatural, whilst it does for me, and many others also, when it comes to homosexual genital acts. Sorry but there is a wide difference here old chap.

Wether we omit any reference to God or not, we still have to decide who’s opinions are correct and who’s are erroneous. What yardstick do we employ to do this and how can we do it and be certain that we are right in our decission? Moreover, what is it that makes one man’s opinion more authoritative than another man’s,? These are questions that demand a verdict.

That’s it for today. Goodnight Laurie.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

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

Dear CHRISTINE77,

Thankyou for your kind comments, but I only wish my arguments were brilliant enough to convince our dear friend Mr. Gibson.

Welcome to the thread and keep on posting dear sister.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Dear CHRISTINE77,

Thankyou for your kind comments, but I only wish my arguments were brilliant enough to convince our dear friend Mr. Gibson.

Welcome to the thread and keep on posting dear sister.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

I really Laurie is a bit in denial because his daughter is in a homosexual relationship that has lasted many years and she seems happy.

My sister seems happy too, but I don’t think seeming happy is not the reason we were put on earth. Sex is not really an expression of love for another person, it’s more about dependancy, lust and power and just a bad habit if it is not used in the way God intended. I know this from my own experience with “free sex” when I was younger and not a practicing Catholic. I thought I was happy but really I was desperately seeking love under the guise of having sex.

Love is from the heart and love is all the richer if we pay attention to God’s laws.

 

[Portrait]

Dear Laurie,

Cordial greetings and a very good day to you. Thankyou for your posting.

Regarding the issue of conscience, what you say does not resolve the problem of deciding which conscience is right since it all boils down, if I have understood you aright, to who can present the most powerful, persuasive and reasoned argument. As if this *ipso facto *must somehow make everything a man says correct and incontrovertible!; this simply does not have the ring of truth about it. Thus a learned homosexual who was a skilled debater could, on this theory, expose and explode the good and valid arguments of a less intelligent Catholic man and make his beliefs appear untenable and ridiculously simplistic, but that does not necessarily mean that they are so. It merely means that the learned homosexual has superior debating skills, it does not make his opinions correct and unanswerable.

If we are not careful we will find ourselves carried along a subjective path to an ultimate quagmire of competing opinions that just results in a dead end of moral relativism where every man thinks and does that which is right in his own eyes. Our post-modern world glories in this state of affairs because it is a world of no moral absolutes and no non-negotiable truths; it gives man unfettered freedom to do as he pleases so long as he does not hurt anyone and everyone is seemingly happy.

Sadly, however, a man’s conscience can be radically defective and this can, no matter how learned he may be, lead him to make erroneous judgements respecting moral issues. Sometimes this is down to sheer ignorance as when a man does not take time to discover what is true and good, or when his conscience has been blinded and blunted by habitual wrongdoing and thinking. Sometimes it can be a consequence of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience. Sometimes societal mores and personal circumstances (as, I think, in your case). Obviously where there is a clash of consciences over some moral issue one must have recourse to some higher authority to decide which of the two is correct, otherwise we are back to one man’s opinion being as equally good as another’s and the only virtue,
tolerrance. This is surely most unsatisfactory and a formula for moral anarchy.

Laurie, if our debate is not to be a rather one-sided and stilited affair, we must have a free and frank exchange of both viewpoints, not merely mine. This is actually being fair to you. It is not a question of changing the subject but rather of allowing it to progress by having a fair discussion of the relevant issues, for example, what is your criterion of truth and what authority is this supposed to have over other men, if any. So please help me my dear man so that I can help you. If you are convinced of the rightness of your opinions then what have you to fear from discussing them?

Sorry but you did state in post 177 , that “most people in the liberal West accept gay sex as ok” and I never mentioned anything about the West being accepting of homosexuals, I simply asked in response to that comment of yours in post 177 what irrefragible proof you had that people in the West consider homosexual deviant acts to be perfectly fine. However, the fact remains that the vast majority of mankind have always and do embrace the view that homosexual deviant acts and liaisons are a violation and confusion of nature and this indicates, an embyronic sense at least, of the natural moral law inerradicably stamped upon man’s consciousness. Now the fact that the vast majority do think this way, be they Christian or non-Christian, is a very strong indication indeed that that opinion is the right one. Thus, what the general consensus is is a factor of no small importance thus, for example, the fact that the vast majority of mankind think that sexual desire directed towards children is both unnatural and wrong is a strong indication that that opinion is the correct one; man’s ethical intuitive sense tells him that this is so and that is the natural moral law in action.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[djeter]

**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]

Laurie

Catholics are not “anti-gay,” and your assertion is offensive if not downright stupid.

One can appreciate your hesitancy at crediting sources that come from “anti-gay” websites or your lack of education or ability to judge such statistics. But all you need to do is come up with a “gay” website that attacks any of these statistics and gives evidence not to believe.

The problem is, as StevieD indicated, while gay activists (homosexualists) blame others (homophobes) for the cause of their elevated incidences of depression, cancer, suicide, whatever, they rarely deny the evidence but seek to educate their members about the risks involved in pursuing their aberrant sexual orientation. GMHC (Gay Men’s Health Crisis) has never changed their name since the early 80’s while expanding to all manners of activities concerning LGBT concerns. Every LGBT website I’ve checked has a page dealing with health issues. What does that tell you?

And then there are activists like yourself who claim that even to mention the risks is to engage in homophobic behavior and demand that those who do so retract any such statements. You label an entire religion as “anti-gay” because it condemns the very risky acts that result in these terrible diseases and psychological disorders. You quibble about “wrong.” What could be more wrong than to pursue these kind of life demeaning behaviors?

This is a link to a WSJ article I summarized on new developments that run against the corrosive trend in psychiatric counseling labelled “gay affirming” therapy. Even the APA has come around on this after being bludgeoned by people like you who won’t allow our gay brothers and sisters in Christ to follow their hearts and to free themselves from the dehumanizing idea that one’s core identity is determined by one’s sexual desires – the grim determinism which motivates those (like you) who promulgate the “gay affirming” agendas in our society.

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/08/18/faith-and-sexual-identity/

Read it, Laurie. And take your little shtick elsewhere. The more you write the more we see the disordered thinking that motivates you. I’d like to see you stand up before a group of Catholic gays who are fighting against the very behaviours and inclinations you are singing praises of and try and convince them.

dj

 

[Abu]

Deo Volente
I have some profound hermeneutical differences which lead us to see Scripture differently, leading to our differernt understandings of what Scripture actually says
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?

The wrong interpretation of the New Testament given to us by Christ’s Church is part of the selfist opposition to truth, as Christ gave us His Church and She authoritatively determined what writings form the Sacred Scriptures. Since it is unnatural it is a disorder, and those lesbians and homosexuals who appreciate that the activity is wrong, aspire to remain chaste.

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?

What a mirage – “biological utility” – to characterise the moral law which asserts true love and the procreation commanded by God: the unitive purpose without wilfully impeding the procreative purpose. Further, while infatuated with your process “theology” you blissfully ignore the teaching of Christ’s Church which definitively proclaims that homosexual/lesbian activity is gravely evil.

(James Epistle):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. I have some profound hermeneutical differences which lead us to see Scripture differently, leading to our different understandings of what Scripture actually says

Your confusion arises from your selfist idea of choosing how you will interpret Sacred Scripture. The real Gospel is found in Christ: In his Sermon on the Mount our Lord said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not to abolish them, but to fulfill them.” Indeed, he continued, “Of this much I assure you: until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter of the law, not the smallest part of a letter, shall be done away with until it all comes true. That is why whoever breaks the least significant of these commands and teaches others to do so shall be called least in the kingdom of God. Whoever fulfills and teaches these commands shall be called great in the kingdom of God” (Matt 5.17-19). Now, you try to oppose John’s Epistle to Christ. A further example of trying to taint the message which His Church teaches of love and the obedience to His law written on our hearts (St Paul).

The “freeing encounter” which you conjecture is your spin on the licence which is the very antipathy of real freedom. Only the truth shall set you free (Jn 8:32). BTW, St Paul taught that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1Tim 3:15).

For the views of a lesbian, chaste, faithful Catholic see:
nytimes.com/2010/06/05/us/05beliefs.html?scp=1&sq=Mark Oppenheimer&st=cse

 

[Abu]

L Gibson
you have forgotten that we are leaving God out of this

A false assumption – “we” are doing nothing of the kind, since God is the author of mankind, and the natural moral law with which we are all created by Him. That you persist in trying to eliminate God merely confirms the selfism which even the pagans shunned when they accepted the fact that there were higher beings to whom they owed obedience in following the natural moral law which they identified as prescribing right from wrong actions.

….I looked at some of the references and they were from Catholic and anti-gay positions too

For one who has “scientific training in the physical sciences” you labour under many prejudices against reason and factual research.
“The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate his handiwork. Because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover these principles.

“These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.” The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 22-23].

Studies show that homosexuals experience considerably higher levels of mental illness and substance abuse than heterosexuals. A detailed review of the research has shown that “no other group of comparable size in society experiences such intense and widespread pathology.”36
Note:
36. James E. Phelan, Neil Whitehead, Philip M. Sutton, “What Research Shows: NARTH’s Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality,” *Journal of Human Sexuality *Vol. 1, p. 93 (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, 2009).

For 10 myths about homosexuality, download in pdf at:
downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf

 

[Hubriss]

Nature and the idea of Natural Law does not provide a good basis for morality. Rape is natural. It is a good reproductive strategy because it creates more chances for new life to arise and for the participants to pass on their genes. Yet, most people would say that rape is wrong according to their own moral sensibilities.

 

[Portrait]

Nature and the idea of Natural Law does not provide a good basis for morality. Rape is natural. It is a good reproductive strategy because it creates more chances for new life to arise and for the participants to pass on their genes. Yet, most people would say that rape is wrong according to their own moral sensibilities.

Dear Hubriss,

Cordial greetings and welcome to the thread.

The natural law actually does provide an excellent foundation for morality, especially when the Judaeo-Christian principles which underlie it are bourne in mind.

1/ The laws of morality should be seen as our Creators instructions for the right running of ourselves, with at least the authority of the instructions that Ford or BMW give for the right running of their cars.

2/ The laws of morality really are laws and their operation is not contingent on man’s approval, they work whether we like them or not; thus the laws of justice or purity or worship are as real as say the law of gravity. Every sin damages or diminishes us (including homosexual vice or rape); men are less human and much the worse for having commited it.

3/ However inconvenient or irksome we may feel a given instruction is, it is mere common sense to be grateful to God for telling us (as indeed we are grateful to Ford or BMW for the instructions they give us when we buy one of their cars).

4/ Moral laws then are inextricably linked with health. Virtue is not simply the absence of sin, it is the right direction of energy; the moral law informs us what the right direction is. Being bound up with health, they are essential for man’s happiness. Without them men can only follow inclination which results in them getting, spiritually speaking, exceedingly flabby. For the soul’s muscles, like the body’s, grow by effort and there is hardly effort in following one’s inclination.

Finally, rape is decidedly unnatural and cannot be in any wise justified on the grounds of it being a “good reproductive strategy”, for it is “…forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It *causes grave damage *that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2356, emphasis mine). Incontrovertibly, any act in which force is used and which occasions grave damage to another and makes the perpetrator of such an act less than human, can hardly be deemed natural.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Big_Dummy]

I am thinking that since nature has been effected by tha fall, it is likley that the animal kingdom has been effected and does not give a true picture of natual law.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hi Portrait,

A quick reply to your last posts – to be followed by a longer post summarising where we are and, possibly moving onwards!

. For me and other Catholics this violation of natural law is sufficient per se to to make it wrong; that is all the justification that we require if we are just discussing natural law.
We both agree gay sex is contrary to Natural Law but it is the basis of this law that it in question.
However, for us their deviancy and abnormality and their consequent violation of natural law, are the very reasons that make them wrong and improper.
If you concur that homosexual genital acts are deviant, unnatural and an improper use of the reproductive organs then I cannot comprehend why you do not also think them wrong also.
This is the crux of our discussion and of your incomprehension. You ‘cannot comprehend’ why I do not think that an unnatural act is wrong. Well I don’t and I thought that you were supposed to be explaining to me why I should?

Look, many homosexuals and champions of their cause actually argue at great length to prove that their conduct is perfectly natural and decidely not against nature.
It IS natural for them but it is not natural in the sense that you use the term, i.e. reproduction is not possible.

No, moralities must be put in the crucible to find out what sort of stuff they are made of and whether or not they stand up to scrutiny - your morality and mine. In any event the basis of natural morality is not only that an unnatural act is wrong but why it is wrong.
But you have never told me this ‘why’. All you have done is reaffirm at length that it is unnatural.

It is wrong to forcibly sick up one’s meal because that is an unnatural and potentially harmful thing to do.
I agree with ‘harmful’ but not with ‘unnatural’ and would add ‘wasteful’ as a reason why it is wrong.

Racism is not on a par with homosexual aberrant acts.
Absolutely correct! But you were using the man on the omnibus as an arbiter of right and wrong. I simply point out that on racism he was, until recently, 100% in error – therefore I see no reason to heed his views on other moral issues.

Laurie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Portrait,

I am going to sum up where I think we are and, if you agree with what I say below, we can move on.

We are debating the following question;
IF AN ACTION IS UNNATURAL [AS DEFINED BY NATURAL LAW MORALITY] WHY IS IT ALSO WRONG AS THAT MORALITY STATES?

Now I think your view is as follows.

If an action is unnatural in the sense that it frustrates the natural purpose of the act, [gay sex for example] then it just seems obvious to you that it is wrong. No further proof is needed; the wrongness just flows from the unnaturalness. In addition, [or it this just a different way of putting it?] your conscience tells you that unnatural acts are wrong. Natural Law morality says the same things and so does your church.

A convincing case for you, but what about me?

Well I do not have the feeling you have about an unnatural act being wrong. So it does not seem obvious to me- which is why I have asked the question. Similarly my conscience does not see any wrong either. Until the question is answered I cannot accept Natural Law morality and being sceptical about the knowledge claims of your church I cannot be swayed by it either.

So what did you say to persuade me?

You illustrated in detail the ‘unnaturalness’ of gay sex in the hope that its wrongness will somehow become evident to me. You asked me to look deeper into my conscience to see if it really doesn’t condemn gay sex. You can claim that most people agree with you. You gave other examples of unnatural acts which you hoped I would agree were wrong. [Bestiality was your favourite]

Sadly for you, your illustrations have not produced the result you hoped for, my conscience still seems to say the same thing, and I do not think morality is decided by majority vote. The other unnatural actions you produced I agreed were wrong but NOT because they were unnatural.

Therefore we are at an impasse and I do not think we can go further unless you have something new to say.

If you agree I would be happy to move on and tell you why my morality approves gay sex between a faithful gay couple.

Best wishes

Laurie

 

[djeter]

Finally, rape is decidedly unnatural and cannot be in any wise justified on the grounds of it being a “good reproductive strategy”, for it is “…forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2356, emphasis mine). Incontrovertibly, any act in which force is used and which occasions grave damage to another and makes the perpetrator of such an act less than human, can hardly be deemed natural.
Portrait

I admire your patience.

dj

 

[djeter]

If you agree I would be happy to move on and tell you why my morality approves gay sex between a faithful gay couple.

I really don’t think any Catholic cares about your “morality” but it might be interesting to hear you substantiate the case for “faithful gay couples.”

Homosexual men and women are far less likely to be in any kind of committed relationship than heterosexuals are. A 2006 study by researchers at UCLA concluded:
We found that lesbians, and particularly gay men, are less likely to be in a relationship compared to heterosexual women and men. Perhaps the most outstanding finding is also the most simple – that over half of gay men (51%) were not in a relationship. Compared to only 21% of heterosexual females and 15% of heterosexual males, this figure is quite striking.
Charles Strohm, et al., “Couple Relationships among Lesbians, Gay Men, and Heterosexuals in California: A Social Demographic Perspective,” Accessed at: allacademic.com/meta/p104912_index.html

Secondly, even homosexuals (especially men) who are in a partnered relationship are much less likely to be sexually faithful to that partner.

• A Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a “steady partner” had an average of eight sexual partners per year. Maria Xiridou, et al, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003): 1031.
• A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous. According to study author Barry Adam, “Gay culture allows men to explore different . . . forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals.”

Ryan Lee, “Gay Couples Likely to Try Non-monogamy, Study Shows,” Washington Blade (August 22, 2003): 18.

A 2005 study in the journal Sex Roles found that “40.3% of homosexual men in civil unions and 49.3% of homosexual men not in civil unions had ‘discussed and decided it is ok under some circumstances’ to have sex outside of the relationship. By comparison, only 3.5% of heterosexual married men and their wives agreed that sex outside of the relationship was acceptable.”
Sondra E. Solomon, Esther D. Rothblum, and Kimberly F. Balsam, “*Money, Housework, Sex, and Conflict: Same-Sex Couples in Civil Unions, Those Not in Civil Unions, and Heterosexual Married Siblings,” *Sex Roles 52 (May 2005): 569.

**Finally, research shows that homosexual relationships tend to be of shorter duration and much less likely to last a lifetime than heterosexual ones (especially heterosexual marriages). **A 2005 journal article cites one large-scale longitudinal study comparing the dissolution rates of heterosexual married couples, heterosexual cohabiting couples, homosexual couples, and lesbian couples:

On the basis of the responses to the follow-up survey, the percentage of dissolved couples was 4% (heterosexual married couples), 14% (heterosexual cohabiting couples), 13% (homosexual couples) and 18% (lesbian couples).
Lawrence Kurdek, “Are Gay and Lesbian Cohabiting Couples Really Different from Heterosexual Married Couples?” Journal of Marriage and Family 66 (November 2004): 893.

In other words, the dissolution rate of homosexual couples during the period of this study was more than three times that of heterosexual married couples, and the dissolution rate of lesbian couples was more than four-fold that of heterosexual married couples.
Lawrence Kurdek, IBID 896.

Since men are generally more likely to engage in acts of violence than women, it is not surprising that there would be differences in rates of domestic violence based on the gender of partners in a relationship. One might expect, for instance, that women with a female partner would be less likely to be abused than women with a male partner. However, one early study (1986) showed that women with female partners were nearly as likely to be abused (25%) as those with male partners (27%).
P. A. Brand and A. H. Kidd, “Frequency of physical aggression in heterosexual and female homosexual dyads,” Psychological Reports 59, pp. 1307-1313; cited in James E. Phelan, Neil Whitehead, Philip M. Sutton, “*What Research Shows: NARTH’s Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality,” *Journal of Human Sexuality Vol. 1, p. 85 (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, 2009).

Meanwhile, a 2002 study showed that the five-year prevalence of battering among urban homosexual men (22%) was nearly double the rate among heterosexual women living with men (11.6%) – despite the fact that one might expect men’s greater size and strength to be a deterrent against a would-be batterer. A 2006 study – one of the few with a direct homosexual/heterosexual comparison for both men and women – found that of persons entering substance abuse programs, 4.4% of homosexuals had been abused by a partner in the last month, as opposed to 2.9% of the heterosexuals. The lifetime prevalence rates for domestic violence were 55% for the homosexuals and 36% for heterosexuals.
Bryan N. Cochran and Ana Mari Cauce, *“Characteristics of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals entering substance abuse treatment,” *Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment Vol. 30, Issue 2 (March 2006), pp. 135-146.

While you may posit a “faithful gay couple” for the sake of your morality, you will have to scramble to find any evidence in the social literature to back up anything beyond your anecdotal asides.

dj

 

[djeter]

Or are you going to ignore the above as you did my WSJ article referenced in post #204?

No answer = no defense

dj

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Djeter,

I really only have time to talk with Portrait about the topic of this thread and, if he wants, about my views. So I will have to back off replying to your rather aggressive posts.

I will make a brief comment only. Even if all the studies you quote are correct:

1] It needs to be shown that the negative results are due to being gay and not to other factors.
2] Even if there was only one faithful gay couple in the world who expressed their love via safe sex then that couple, in my view are acting morally. As for the rest I would be happy to join you in saying they were immoral.

So you see your figures are [1] irrelevant and [2] as explained, not being an expert in the field of social science, I am not competent to express an opinion. Are you? Perhaps you will state your, no doubt, excellent qualifications in this area?

Regards

Laurie

 

[Portrait]

Hi Portrait,

A quick reply to your last posts – to be followed by a longer post summarising where we are and, possibly moving onwards!

. For me and other Catholics this violation of natural law is sufficient per se to to make it wrong; that is all the justification that we require if we are just discussing natural law.
We both agree gay sex is contrary to Natural Law but it is the basis of this law that it in question.
However, for us their deviancy and abnormality and their consequent violation of natural law, are the very reasons that make them wrong and improper.
If you concur that homosexual genital acts are deviant, unnatural and an improper use of the reproductive organs then I cannot comprehend why you do not also think them wrong also.
This is the crux of our discussion and of your incomprehension. You ‘cannot comprehend’ why I do not think that an unnatural act is wrong. Well I don’t and I thought that you were supposed to be explaining to me why I should?

Look, many homosexuals and champions of their cause actually argue at great length to prove that their conduct is perfectly natural and decidely not against nature.
It IS natural for them but it is not natural in the sense that you use the term, i.e. reproduction is not possible.

No, moralities must be put in the crucible to find out what sort of stuff they are made of and whether or not they stand up to scrutiny - your morality and mine. In any event the basis of natural morality is not only that an unnatural act is wrong but why it is wrong.
But you have never told me this ‘why’. All you have done is reaffirm at length that it is unnatural.

It is wrong to forcibly sick up one’s meal because that is an unnatural and potentially harmful thing to do.
I agree with ‘harmful’ but not with ‘unnatural’ and would add ‘wasteful’ as a reason why it is wrong.

Racism is not on a par with homosexual aberrant acts.
Absolutely correct! But you were using the man on the omnibus as an arbiter of right and wrong. I simply point out that on racism he was, until recently, 100% in error – therefore I see no reason to heed his views on other moral issues.

Laurie

Dear Laurie,

Cordial greetings and welcome back. Thankyou for your latest replies.

It is because it is the basis of natural law that is at issue between us that I wish to have a thorough and open discussion of the matter, including your basis of morality.

Practically all of my communications with you have been an effort directed towards helping you understand why I believe homosexual deviant acts are wrong because they are unnatural. Alas, all of my attempts thus far have fallen on stony ground and you remain unconvinced. Whilst I am truly sorry about that it is not for want of trying.

The fact that all homosexual liaisons are manifestly closed to the possibility of children is a good enough reason per se to demonstrate that they are wrong and unnatural, contrary to nature and the natural order of things. To the average man this would be sufficient to semaphore that something was seriously amiss respecting such unions, regardless of what homosexual activists may say about the ‘naturalness’ of their aberrant conduct.

Explaining the ‘why’ would involve an examination of the genesis of natural law and though I have attempted to undertake this you have refused to engage in any meaningful discussion with me on the topic. As I have said in numerous posts, I am more than willing to discuss what I believe are the origins of natural law, but I feel that you will not want to hear my explanation old chap.

Laurie, if some action is harmful to a man then how can that action be natural and right? Homosexual conduct is acknowldeged by both sides of the debate to be seriously hazardous to health, therefore homosexual deviant acts cannot be natural and right; clearly then they must be wrong, * res sipsa loquitor * - the facts speak for themselves.

Racialism is not a moral issue but a matter of prejudice based on the supposed superiority of a particular race. However, whatever the chap on the London Underground may have said said back in the life and times of Enoch Powell, it would not be his ethical intuition that told him that the white man was superior to the black man; but his ethical intuition would have told him that sodomy, bestiality and sexual desire directed towards children was wrong because it was immoral and and contrary to nature. Sorry but no amount of homosexual activist sophistry can circumvent the force of this argument; men, unless they have radically defective consciences, do instinctively feel that these things are wrong and unnatural and indeed, bless God, always have done and always will do.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

The fact that all homosexual liaisons are manifestly closed to the possibility of children is a good enough reason per se to demonstrate that they are wrong and unnatural, contrary to nature and the natural order of things.
But not to me. My relations with my wife are closed to children.

Explaining the ‘why’ would involve an examination of the genesis of natural law and though I have attempted to undertake this you have refused to engage in any meaningful discussion with me on the topic.
But the point was originally that you were supposed to be justifying Natural Law to an honest non-believer.

Laurie, if some action is harmful to a man then how can that action be natural and right? Homosexual conduct is acknowledged by both sides of the debate to be seriously hazardous to health,
It does not have to be provided you are careful so all you prove is that gays ought not to have risky sex.

But I think – see my last post – you are not able to go further. Move on?

 

[Portrait]

Portrait,

I am going to sum up where I think we are and, if you agree with what I say below, we can move on.

We are debating the following question;
IF AN ACTION IS UNNATURAL [AS DEFINED BY NATURAL LAW MORALITY] WHY IS IT ALSO WRONG AS THAT MORALITY STATES?

Now I think your view is as follows.

If an action is unnatural in the sense that it frustrates the natural purpose of the act, [gay sex for example] then it just seems obvious to you that it is wrong. No further proof is needed; the wrongness just flows from the unnaturalness. In addition, [or it this just a different way of putting it?] your conscience tells you that unnatural acts are wrong. Natural Law morality says the same things and so does your church.

A convincing case for you, but what about me?

Well I do not have the feeling you have about an unnatural act being wrong. So it does not seem obvious to me- which is why I have asked the question. Similarly my conscience does not see any wrong either. Until the question is answered I cannot accept Natural Law morality and being sceptical about the knowledge claims of your church I cannot be swayed by it either.

So what did you say to persuade me?

You illustrated in detail the ‘unnaturalness’ of gay sex in the hope that its wrongness will somehow become evident to me. You asked me to look deeper into my conscience to see if it really doesn’t condemn gay sex. You can claim that most people agree with you. You gave other examples of unnatural acts which you hoped I would agree were wrong. [Bestiality was your favourite]

Sadly for you, your illustrations have not produced the result you hoped for, my conscience still seems to say the same thing, and I do not think morality is decided by majority vote. The other unnatural actions you produced I agreed were wrong but NOT because they were unnatural.

Therefore we are at an impasse and I do not think we can go further unless you have something new to say.

If you agree I would be happy to move on and tell you why my morality approves gay sex between a faithful gay couple.

Best wishes

Laurie

Dear Laurie,

Thankyou again for the above response.

Yes indeed, it is you that matters my dear chap since you are the one that the apologist must convince and win over, hopefully. Throughout our discussion in this and the previous threads I have been only too aware of my failure; could I have put my arguments more powerfully and persuasively?; could I have expressed myself more clearly and precisely?; has my manner of writing sounded clinical and curt?; has Christian charity been violated in any way? etc etc. All I can say is that as a recent convert to the Holy Catholic Church, I have laboured to do my utmost to show that homosexual deviant acts are contrary to the natural law, without being unduly harsh.

As I have remarked previously, I think it would repay you to thoroughly investigate the claims of the Catholic Church from unbiased sources, especially giving attention to the Primacy of Rome. Since Catholic Answers is an apologetics web site, and an orthodox one at that, you will find much helpful material to aid your study and research. If you want to discuss literature or fields of study you can always send me a PM and I will help you in any way I can old chap. Before you dismiss the Catholic Church and its teaching on faith and morals, you need to intensively study its claims first so that you know what it really is that you are dismissing and not mere uniformed prejudice.

We probably have reached a position from which progress is impossible, well at least when it comes to me trying to convince you that homosexual deviant acts are wrong because they are unnatural. However, it is my conviction that one of the chief reasons why you have not been persuaded is because you have good reasons for not wnating to be. Laurie, you have a daughter whom you love very dearly, who is has been in a lesbian liaison for some 20 years, now this makes it exceedingly difficult for you to have a change of heart. For if you were to become convinced that homosexual conduct was wrong and improper this could prove problematic as regards your domestic situation. I think every Catholic on this thread would truly sympathise with you in this regard for your position is not an envious one. This I believe is probably influencing you a great deal more than you would be prepared to acknowledge.

Be that as it may, let us move on now and yes do start by telling me why your morality approves of homosexual liasons and genital acts.

I am taking a breather now until Monday afternoon, so have a splendid weekend my dear fellow whatever you are doing.

May I take this opportunity to thank all my Catholic brethren on this thread for their excellent and learned contributions to the debate; it has been a pleasure reading them and I have learned so much. Thankyou and please keep posting.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat: