Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

  • Thread starter Thread starter Portrait
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Portrait,

One quick comment and then goodbye.
You say:

Therefore God cannot countenance homosexual deviant acts because they are at variance with His own law

But what I am saying is that a good God would not make such an arbitrary and wicked law in the first place. God, if such a being exists, does not make up rules for the sake of it- he makes them for a reason. His reason would be - it is wrong if it negates human flourishing NOT it is wrong if it goes against an odd rule I have made up about ‘unnatural’!

So all that remains is for me to say thanks for an interesting and courteous discussion that has taught me a lot.

My hope for you is that you actually meet and get to know and like and appreciate some gay couples because that, not my arguments, would make you change your tune or rather your ideas about what God commands.

With every good wish,

Laurie
 
**
Polygamy, [Incest] and Flourising**Polygamy is not wrong under all circumstances. If there was a severe imbalence of the sexes then it might be OK because it would enable more flourishing. In our society it would be wrong for a man or a woman to have more that their fair share of partners! Also it is hard to see how, if a man has more than one wife, there can be equality between the man and the women. Finally, in our society, there would be the problem of jealousy.

But, you see, in all this my touchstone is ‘flourishing’ and, as in the sex-imbalence case, if polygamy promoted it, then I would favour it.

The same applies to incest, I think we can show that allowing it would be harmful to flourishing - I’ve gone into details elsewhere.

So, using flourishing as my moral touchstone, we can rule faithful gay sex in and, in our society, polygamy and incest out.
The problem with your “flourishing” argument is that it is just as subjective as the current “normal” definition of marriage. How can a consistent standard for marriage be formed and who makes the decision?
 
Facing Reality
How queer that some so-called Catholics like RobGeoAnthony feel that “anything goes”. The attacks on truth are perennial, and mere opinons hold sway.
Deo Volente is unable to assent to Sacred Scripture. Anyone who is serious in believing in the Sacred Scriptures given to us by Christ’s Church, infallibly, as the inspired Word of God, will assent to St. Paul who teaches that “Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor swindlers, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.’ (1Cor 6: 9-10). Paul repeats the condemnation of sodomites in 1 Tim 1:10, including “any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.”
  1. St Paul clearly condemns sodomites as did God in destroying Sodom and Gomorrah – only the foolish try to ignore the facts.
  2. St Paul recognises the natural moral law as part of mankind’s nature: “For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them” (Rom. 2:14-15).
  3. St Paul specifically defines this mutual degradation among the Romans as the practice of homosexuality and stresses its unnatural character: Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. (Rom. 1:26-27)
We know who Christ has placed with His authority to ensure sound doctrine – only His Church with Peter the Rock and his successors to guarantee sound doctrine. She gave us the Sacred Scriptures, authorizing which writings are definitively declared to be inspired. Anything else is but a mirage.

And D Gibson’s opinion is:
a morality condemns them (lesbian activists) because of some objective standard which it has dredged up from the middle ages – that is enough to show the morality has lost its way….morality is based on empathy. If I did not acknowledge you and care about your happiness and pain, what reason could I have to act in an ethical way towards you?
How unwitting can you get – from the Middle Ages? The Code of Hammarubi and the 42 negative confessions of the Ancient Egyptians, Cicero and following, all attest to the natural moral law. But what we have here is the blindness of mere prejudice.
Some have expressed surprise that the thinking behind deliberately separating the procreative end of sexuality through homosexual acts, condoms or other means from the unitive end does result in all sorts of further aberrations. The result of such thinking however is seen from the deranged conclusions that actually result as seen below – thinking that wallows consistently in the idea of “pleasure” or “happiness” as the main objective.

See Live Australian Debate on Consensual Animal Sex at blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
Professor Peter Singer: “It is a fact that there is sexual contact between some humans and animals. I was raising the question why we have such a taboo on this. Sometimes it involves cruelty and the infliction of power and dominance on an animal, and clearly I oppose that. There can be occasions, I don’t know how much vivid description you want. Women have said this is something that pleases them, the dog is free to do it or walk away, there’s no dominance over the dog, that seems harmless.”
[Peter Singer (Austalian philosopher) is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. He specialises in applied ethics, approaching ethical issues from a secular preference utilitarian perspective].

Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome.
Bentham and Mill were hedonists; i.e., they analyzed happiness as a balance of pleasure over pain and believed that these feelings alone are of intrinsic value and disvalue.
Today utilitarians often describe benefits and harms in terms of the satisfaction of personal preferences.

As recommended by Booklover, here is the URL and comment from none other than Fr John Trigilio of EWTN.
“EUREKA! Finally a thoroughly objective, rational, logical and factual analysis of the homosexual myth currently permeating the modern society. This book exposes the fallacies of the “politically correct” crowd both within and without the Church. Using perennially valid philosophy and divinely revealed truths, this book validates the long held suspicion that a BIG LIE has been sold to the sociologists, psychologists and dissident moral theologians who seek to legitimize and normalize aberrant, unnatural and immoral behavior.”
Rev. Fr. John Trigilio, Jr., Phd, Thd, President, Confraternity Of Catholic Clergy, Host Of EWTN’s Series Web Of Faith And Council Of Faith.
To download the book, go to this website:
tfp.org/current-campaigns/traditional-marriage-crusade/defending-a-higher-law-now-available-online.html
 
Nec5

‘Flourishing’ is partly objective - you cannot flourish unless there are rules against violence and, perhaps, partly subjective - our liking for a society where we have lots of freedom ?].

Who decides? We do - who else? Looking at human beings and drawing on psychological and sociological data + the preferences that people have - we try to see what things will allow people best to flourish together within a society. It requires an ongoing debate.

The alternative - God - should turn up the same result because a good God would want his creation to flourish.

Now I am bowing out of this conversation.

Thanks for your interest.

Laurie
 
Facing Reality
%between%
Great post Abu.

I note you have headed your post Facing Reality. It is this simple statement that should, and I mean should underpin the notion of, the study of and the acceptance of a thing we call Natural Law. Remember the ancients did not live in mega-metropolises the way the human race does today. Cities like ancient Athens, Rome, or Constantinople were mere villages by todays standards. A short walk and any citizen of the ancient world would have been in the midst of the natural world and its workings, its seasons and all its predictability. Mankind today has detached himself from this natural world and attempts at grasping the workings of the natural world are difficult for modern, urbanised humanity.Someone who understands the interconnectedness of this natural world understands, then, the unification of this natural order of things into a human construct called natural law. It is immutable.

Todays disconnect between that natural world and the urbanised populations of the world makes it a difficult construct to grasp. However, the construct is considered as being Objective. It exists outside of and despite the subjective desires and opinions of an observing humanity. Adherents to the Natural Law have constructed a human morality that reflects mankind’s place in that natural order of things. Man, being a species capable of acting volitionally, can act within, or without the natural order of things. Under a Natural Law based Morality, acts which fall outside the natural order of things are deemed to be wrong. Natural Law morality is directed at and is for the guidance of, human acts and behaviours. Behaviours outside the natural order of things are therefore wrong, as they upset the balance of the ordered world, the ordered universe.

Aquinas adopted the Natural Law as the basis of Catholic and christian morality, because he ascribes the natural order of things to the Creator. The Natural Law, Aquinas tells us, belongs to God.

Therefore, any acts or behaviours which are outside the natural order of things are offences against that natural order and so are offences against God’s design.

Homosexuality, or more specifically, homosexual sex acts, are outside the natural order of things and therefore against the design of God. They must, by inference, be offensive to God. Abu quoted Peter Singer. Singer, in his Animal Liberation, states that the Bible is myth. In one fell swoop he brushed Christianity aside and the Natural Law with it. But he didn’t just bri=ush aside Christianity. He brushed aside centuries of thought that can be traced back to the Stoics and even Aristotle. He used as his premises pure reason, but pure reason based on what? Utilitarianism! A philosophical construct based on the machinations of an old and disgruntled English Philosopher and a construct long since discredited. Unfortunately, Singer persists with a modified version and he is using pure reason that has been detached from the world in which it must operate. Hence, he can give creedence to sex between humans and animals.

I suppose that in a few years we will have enough examples of people being pleasured by dogs so that someone will come into a forum such as this and ask “Can sex between animals and humans be proved wrong under natural law”!! However, if the true roots of and the true meaning of natural Law can be re-discovered, then indeed the notion of sex between animals and humans will be considered as ‘wrong’.

The same with homosexuality and sex acts between same sex humans. It is a part of a slippery slope that denies the existance of a natural order of things and that is patently wrong. Unfortunately, the disconnect between human living and the natural order of things that has shaped most of human life on this earth must be rediscovered. Once it is, then homosexual acts will be seen for what they are - wrong according to Natural Law.
 
BK - you say.

Homosexuality can not result in procreation, and so while a committed expression of love may exist between a homosexual couple, the fullness of the meaning and purpose of intercourse is not realized.

But that is not quite correct because infertile couples and those past childbearing age are allowed to have sex to express their love. So now you have to introduce ***another criterion *which allows this but rules out gay couples expressing their love physically. It starts to get rather arbitrary and odd.
**
Polygamy, [Incest] and Flourising
Polygamy is not wrong under all circumstances. If there was a severe imbalence of the sexes then it might be OK because it would enable more flourishing. In our society it would be wrong for a man or a woman to have more that their fair share of partners! Also it is hard to see how, if a man has more than one wife, there can be equality between the man and the women. Finally, in our society, there would be the problem of jealousy.

But, you see, in all this my touchstone is ‘flourishing’ and, as in the sex-imbalence case, if polygamy promoted it, then I would favour it.

The same applies to incest, I think we can show that allowing it would be harmful to flourishing - I’ve gone into details elsewhere.

So, using flourishing as my moral touchstone, we can rule faithful gay sex in and, in our society, polygamy and incest out.

Laurie
“Flourishing” has nothing to do with God’s law, it is too subjective. Intercourse was designed by God as a means of procreation to be used within a sacramental marriage. It has the added bonus of bringing about intimacy between people, and even bring them closer to God. I am not arguing about whether or not people experience other benefits from sex, or whether it makes them happy outside of this context. I am also not arguing about whether or not it is “natural” to have sex outside these circumstances. I was clarifying Catholic teaching as defined by God’s law, the law that was determined long before the Catholic church existed. You can disagree with this definition of God’s law, but that is what Judeo-Christian morality is based on and why they hold this position is quite clear within the scriptures and church documents.

As far as fertility, the Bible has many examples of women well beyond child rearing years conceiving. It also has examples of couples who were considered infertile for many years concieving in old age. I have friends who were told they could not concieve naturally and adopted, only to concieve in their early forties completely naturally. Just because these couples have a slim chance of concieving, and may never concieve, does not mean that they won’t. As long as you are open to the possibility of conception as a result of intercourse, you are not abusing the act. This is why artificial birth control and sterilization are wrong, you are completely closing yourself off to the will of God, you are saying you are in control and you will not consider the possibility of procreation as a result of intercourse. We practice NFP, which limits the chances that we will concieve, but we are not changing our bodies and we know that we must maintain an attitude that is open to life. We leave it up to God, if we get pregnant great, if not great. Even if the chance of concieving is slim, it is still there. After all anything is possible with God, and you are not using the act solely for physical and emotional pleasure.

I have not lived a chaste life by any means, I am a sinner like everyone else. I am not trying to condemn anyone. But I was not taught about the church’s position and the teachings on such issues until later in life, and it could have informed my decisions a bit better. That was all I was trying to do, clarify church doctrine which is based on God’s law as spelled out in scripture.

Someone may “flourish” according to their own opinion and that of society by doing what is seen as sinful in the eyes of the Lord, but their relationship with God will not. Relationships are not one way streets, you can’t just go against what God wants for your life and then have a great spiritual life, if you are of that opinion you are deluding yourself. A person will truly learn the meaning of the word flourish, and will flourish beyond imagination when they do what God wants and deny what they want for themselves if it goes against His plan. This kind of life will bring them more peace than they could imagine living the life they pick out for themselves. I know because I have gone through this same process myself and come out the other side. It is an ongoing process, and I’m not saying I’m blissfully happy all the ime, but there is a lot more peace in my life.

BTW, I have homosexual friends and family whom consider their lives quite full and are happy with their choices. But they are not Catholic. I am not trying to tell people how to live, just trying to let Catholics know what they are supposed to be doing. You don’t change the Catholic church to fit the way you want to live, you change the way you live to fit what the church teaches. If you don’t like this, you should find another church. There are plenty of Christian churches that embrace homosexual acts as moral.
 
Nec5

‘Flourishing’ is partly objective - you cannot flourish unless there are rules against violence and, perhaps, partly subjective - our liking for a society where we have lots of freedom ?].
Incorrect. The barbarian tribes and even the empire of Genghis Khan flourished (lasted and thrived) despite making violence a centerpiece of existence. To advance, you could and indeed should kill a superior. There are countless civilizations that praised violence and murder as ample means of progress. There is nothing “objective” about it unless you bring God into the equation.

And if you allow people to decide what is “objectively” moral, the society will have no cohesion. Shifting definitions on core matters will not lead to anything flourishing, whatever that word means. This is why the Founders listed inalienable rights as sort of a universal and unbreakable standards received from an objective constant (God). Otherwise, there is no cohesion and everything is relative and unknowable.
 
Oh dear, I did not intend to reply but what you say is so simplistic that I cannot refrain.

‘Flourishing’ refers to a happy/fulfilling life for everyone. So a warrior people might flourish but this prevents the people they conquer doing so - ergo it is wrong. One aspect of morality which I did not mention is the way it has made progress by bringing more and more people into its ambit.

Greek moralists were concerned mainly with Greek aristocratic men - we now wonder if some animals ought to be included and consideration given to their ‘flourishing’ too.

Best wishes

Laurie
 
Knowledge and Reality
“Much of our practical knowledge in life and almost all of our theoretical knowledge are based on human faith. Children take almost everything on the word of their parents, while students absorb almost all they learn from their textbooks and the lectures of their teachers. We learn what is going on in our city, country and the world almost exclusively from reports in the print and electronic media, all of them informing us through human faith….While a healthy doubt is refreshing, an unhealthy one is not. In the latter case a person suspends judgment even when the evidence is conclusive and completely adequate. This is scepticism, intellectual cowardice.

“If belief is holding to the affirmation of another that begets certitude, then much of our belief is based on human faith – a trust in a person’s knowledge and honesty – children from parents, students from textbooks and teachers, seminarians from formators.” [Fr Thomas Dubay in *Faith And Certitude, Ignatius 1985, p 83-84].

Some people seem to have great difficulty, however, in separating fiction from honest accurate research, and scientific endeavour which produces facts. They seem incapable of accepting that reason separates man from animals; that man is imbued with the natural moral law by the Creator, and even try to prove the acceptability of sodomy for mankind, from animals! They even imagine that such “morality has made progress”, not comprehending the universal natural moral law established by God from the beginning.

The natural law and morality
tothesource.org/3_17_2010/3_17_2010_printer.htm
“The natural law is the law of human being alone—not other animals, not birds, not rocks, not trees, not planets. The natural law arises from our particular nature. It is natural insofar as it is rooted in our nature, and moral insofar as our nature defines what is good and evil for us.
“Well, just what are we? We are rational, moral animals—the only rational, moral animals. We are the one animal that must think even to survive, and the one animal whose actions are not governed by instincts but are judged by standards of good and evil. We don’t consider it cruel not to teach your dog to read, but we think that keeping children from getting an education deprives them of something they should have. We don’t jail rambunctious roosters for forcing themselves on beleaguered hens, but we send men to the slammer for rape.”
Dr Benjamin Wiker
 
Natural Law

Aristotle, Cicero and others meant by natural law - those rules which allow people to flourish as human beings. It follows from our nature [evolved and/or created by God]. To find out about the natural law all !] we need to do is to ask how this flourishing can be achieved for as many as possible in a society. It clearly needs a continuous discussion and updating our ideas in the light of the latest information about human beings.

So far as gay sex between faithful couples is concerned, provided they practise safe sex, it contributes, we now know, to their flourishing. So Natural Law ought to pronounce it fine.

The Catholic Church however, sadly, interprets Natural Law in an over-physical way neglecting the social aspects of human life because the former is allowed to trump the latter. Further its interpretation of what Natural Law says is fossilised in the middle ages. Now, of course, Natural Law does not change but our views on what it might be do change.But the church is saddled with this infallibilty curse so that it cannot change! And many Catholics see this as a positive feature. They gain certainty at the cost of being mistaken - alas!

[this is only a suggestion Abu, but don’t you think you might try giving your views in your own words instead of long quotes from various authors? After all the truth is not dependent on some wise guy saying it you know!]
 
Natural law conceived in a philosophy of pragmatism is then reduced to “that which works”, to “get us what we want”, thus the “human flourishing” seen as the previously proposed terminus of natural law. Natural law becomes selfishly considered.

This pragmatism redefines truth as the accord of intellect, our mind, to life, instead of the concurrence of our intellect to reality, to being. The result is a truth based on phenomena, of becoming, instead of the truth of God, Being itself: “I Am Who Am”. Reality becomes what we are “doing” instead of who we “are”.

The Church’s medieval philosophical stance in not “overly physical”, it is ontological. It can only be considered apart from being if there is no basis for being, God, He Who “Is”, hence the atheist’s rejection of objective morality in the tenants of natural law and the rejection of the Church and Her stance that the natural law is our participation in God’s Eternal Law. Life becomes about shallow pursuits because we are shallow due to a shallow, selfish conception of our nature.

If our views of the natural law can change, as has been proposed, then the axiom “Good should be done and evil avoided” has no objective meaning outside of “becoming”, as was seen in Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc, who only wanted the “becoming” of a better Germany, Russia, and Cambodia. It is “the ends justify the means”. This is a flourishing subjectively considered.

In speaking of mistakes, if homosexuality can be considered good for one, then it is good for all. If all are homosexual, then no one will be left after the last person dies. I would say that if everyone were hetero, we would not have the same problem… although that would not get rid of the other problems resulting from not following objective morality. The Church’s stance that love should, must, create and rear a child is far superior to science creating children for those selfishly following that which cannot produce life.
 
Thanks for the appreciation, John21652, and great post of yours. The discomfort and chagrin felt when truth is seen from great scholars of truth can be experienced only by those settled against truth. They are unable to escape from the hole into which they have dug themselves.
Great posts, Earnest Bunbury; BCanning – what we can offer is reason and truth.

What a shambles so much has become, and everything would be as seen from Laurie Gibson’s posts if all we had, per his lament, were opinions, views, feelings, prejudices and impressions to which many are attached rather than truth – for them there is no truth – only their assumptions. We’ve seen it in Richard Dawkins and so many others – the shoddy selfist arguments unable to apply God-given reason to arrive at truth, and regarding mankind as little more than animals.

The feeling that “The Catholic Church however, sadly, interprets Natural Law in an over-physical way neglecting the social aspects of human life” (Gibson) is marooned in his dislike of the Catholic Church through the fantasy that the Middle Ages was “fossilised”. Apart from this unhistorical idea of the Natural Moral Law, he is blissfully unaware of the great flowering of the Middle Ages arising from the fact that “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].
 

Laurie writes: So far as gay sex between faithful couples is concerned, provided they practise [sic] safe sex, it contributes, we now know, to their flourishing. So Natural Law ought to pronounce it fine.

Laurie, you just say these things without an ounce of proof or evidence to offer. Does somehow saying “faithful couples” make it all right? Problem is that there are so FEW faithful couples and multiple partners is one one of the attributes of modern homosexuality – as confirmed by the following studies:

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,” Paper can be 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):.

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.

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;

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.

The myth that homosexual relationships in general are qualitatively the same as heterosexual relationship — a myth that is crucial to the current push for legalization of same-sex “marriage” — is simply not borne out by the evidence.

Your opinions are biased by your sinful behaviors – much like a junkie who says he’s in control of his habit – I’m afraid saying doesn’t make it so, Laurie.

dj
 
Djeter,

I have said to you before - if there was only one faithful gay couple in the whole world - then their sex would be morally OK. All the others would be morally wrong.

[If everyone in the world save one person told lies, that one person was still be acting morally, would n’t she?]

My experience is limited but I know of at least 12 gay couples who fit the bill. I really have no idea what the overall stats are - they do not affect the moral issue in the least. Moreover if gay people are more likely to X or Y or Z than straight, perhaps we need to look at the causes. Your prejudices will say it is because their life is ‘unnatural’ but that is an assumption without evidence]

Finally before when we talked about this I asked you for your qualifications to comment with such authority about these statistics. Your silence suggested you have none. Is this correct?

You see this is a difference between us. I have some statistical knowledge but none about the social sciences so I cannot comment on the strength or weakness in the evidence you provide. On the other hand, without any qualifications * you feel you can hold forth.

Best wishes

Laurie*
 
Oh dear, I did not intend to reply but what you say is so simplistic that I cannot refrain.

‘Flourishing’ refers to a happy/fulfilling life for everyone. So a warrior people might flourish but this prevents the people they conquer doing so - ergo it is wrong. One aspect of morality which I did not mention is the way it has made progress by bringing more and more people into its ambit.
It’s simplistic because it is the truth rather than the progressive false intellectualism masquerading as wisdom among the elite.

Again, who gets to decide and why them? Why is everyone having a happy/fulfilling life good? Why not the few? Or the one? And what happens when one person’s happy/fulfilling life involves the domination of another? Who decided it is wrong to impose your will? It’s all relative.

And again, you dodge the incest/polygamy issue. Who are you to deny the flourishing(happiness) of these partnerships? I thought you viewed flourishing as a prime goal? Don’t you wish them happiness as you do gay couples and heterosexual couples? Denying them acceptance is immoral according to your definition of flourishing.
 
Nec 5

Last response:

Again, who gets to decide and why them? Why is everyone having a happy/fulfilling life good? Why not the few? Or the one? And what happens when one person’s happy/fulfilling life involves the domination of another? Who decided it is wrong to impose your will? It’s all relative.

I have answered this before! We decide - who else? [Lots of old priests who think they know what God wants??] It is not a purely subjective matter - to flourish people need saftey, housing, education, some money, to be able to expect others to speak the truth. Other matters may be relative - so what? If most people choose to prefer a free society why is that a problem? [Even if there is a God and we knew what he wanted, we would still have to make a subjective choice to follow him.

Morality is about how we live together satisfactorily. People who do not care about other people will not care about morality. Fortunately people are naturally social and do empathise with others

[COLOR=“navy”]And again, you dodge the incest/polygamy issue. Who are you to deny the flourishing(happiness) of these partnerships? I thought you viewed flourishing as a prime goal? Don’t you wish them happiness as you do gay couples and heterosexual couples? Denying them acceptance is immoral according to your definition of flourishing.

You have missed my other posts where I do deal with these matters. I think there are ‘flourishing’ reasons against these practises. In exceptional circumstances where there are not I might approve.

All the best and goodbye

Laurie
 
We decide what flourishing means here and now until we meet Him that made us. Then our flourishing is so much fuel for the fire. God’s flourishing is eternal. It begins here in the seed of eternal life, Sanctifying Grace, and leads us to a higher moral standard than an equivocal notion of “flourishing”.

Morality is about virtue, objective standards. If based on what we decide devoid of our Creator, a majority can decide to make killing all homosexuals right and virtuous. True virtue based on the object of the action minus the relative situational ethics Mr. (?) Gibson proports, saves all from the emotional hatred of genocide, like in Rwanda, Nazi Germany, or Stalin’s Russia. That which is in vogue now can quickly become out of favor leaving those on the outside at the mercy of that very same relativism.

Without God, power is all that keeps those that hate from the object of their animosity. The Church’s doctrine of love for all made in God’s image puts us Catholics and like minded fellow Christians in the position of taking insults, and worse, from those who, in their sin, hate being told what they instinctively know in their soul, that they are separated from God by their own actions. We will continue until the end to propose the truth, and that end may come from relativists who decide to get rid of those telling them what they don’t want to know, as they have nothing other than flourishing as their moral standard.
 
Djeter,

I have said to you before - if there was only one faithful gay couple in the whole world - then their sex would be morally OK. All the others would be morally wrong.

[If everyone in the world save one person told lies, that one person was still be acting morally, would n’t she?]

My experience is limited but I know of at least 12 gay couples who fit the bill. I really have no idea what the overall stats are - they do not affect the moral issue in the least. Moreover if gay people are more likely to X or Y or Z than straight, perhaps we need to look at the causes. Your prejudices will say it is because their life is ‘unnatural’ but that is an assumption without evidence]

Finally before when we talked about this I asked you for your qualifications to comment with such authority about these statistics. Your silence suggested you have none. Is this correct?

You see this is a difference between us. I have some statistical knowledge but none about the social sciences so I cannot comment on the strength or weakness in the evidence you provide. On the other hand, without any qualifications * you feel you can hold forth.

Best wishes

Laurie*

Laurie

You do not have to be a statistician to quote a study. Neither do you have to be one to refute it. Simply FIND one.

The idea that one faithful couple creates a moral imperative thereby refuting a raft of evidence to the contrary is truly bizarre. Perhaps you have some other example by which I can grasp what you are advocating here. Does one fuschia pink sky override all the blue ones? I’m not saying that there are no faithful gay couples, simply that that they are a minority and irrelevant to the topic at hand. Some people cut their hands and they don’t bleed but for the purposes of natural law (when you cut your hand, it bleeds) they don’t really count, do they?

Best wishes to you too.

dj
 
DJ

Absolutely last reply!

You do not have to be a statistician to quote a study. Neither do you have to be one to refute it.

Correct, but you do need to be one to understand and interpret it and to evaluate it in the light of other studies. You DJ have no qualifications to do any of these things. And I strongly suspect that you have cherry-picked the studies that say what you already believe.

The idea that one faithful couple creates a moral imperative thereby refuting a raft of evidence to the contrary is truly bizarre.

No sir, this is not what I said and it is your reasoning that is faulty. Let me take you through it.

I said that for reasons X, Y and Z, sex between faithful gay couples was morally acceptable.
You reply with a raft of statistics supposedly showing that many gay people are not faithful, do not commit to their partnerships in a serious way…
But what has your reply got to do with my point? I am referring to those gay couple who are in faithful partnerships. To say that there are not many of them is quite irrelevant. [even if it is true]

All the best
 
what has your reply got to do with my point? I am referring to those gay couple who are in faithful partnerships. To say that there are not many of them is quite irrelevant.
It is your right to define a group such as “gay couples who are in faithful partnerships” as well as mine to point out what you are positing is an exception to the rule or statistically NOT significant, much like three legged dogs or white men who can play professional basketball…

And as for cherry-picking the studies, I’m relying on you to refute them (It’s called debate, Laurie).

Understand, interpret and evaluate? Please stop obfuscating. Give three or four examples of studies that affirm Gays are as faithful to each other as Straights are. Shouldn’t be hard to find a study that backs up your fervent anecdotal evidence.

What’s the problem? I question your anecdotes and I’m part of the anti-gay homophobic Catholic Church you refer to? Ooooh me so bad.

All the best

dj
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top