L
- Status
E
Earnest_Bunbury
Guest
What natural law means and how one interprets it is where the problem lies. When one rejects the idea of the subversion of a body part from its inherent use, from what its primary function is, as the rectum being used for sexual intercourse, then the higher principle regulating what falls under the term “natural” is called into question. Many good points have been rejected in this thread due to a positivist view of natural law as well as a purely self centered view of nature.
When the view of natural law is separated from a Creator of that nature and the natural law from God’s Eternal Law, human positivism is the standard. We either reinvent what “natural” means or it can be rejected as “natural” because of a stunted view of nature and natural.
This stunted view of nature and natural law is seen quite clearly in the Dred Scott vs. Sanford case where slaves (thus Blacks) were regarded as “three-fifths” of a person. This is a travesty that could have been avoided if an objective standard of natural law had been seen apart from what the positivists had desired at the time, slavery. Natural law seen from a purely man made view of what nature and what natural is and means leads to this type of travesty.
Objective standards rejected in view of what is desired and arguments being based on a stunted view of natural and nature is what is presented in most of the rejections to what is offered for consideration in this thread. Belief in a supreme law giver is paramount if one is to make law a standard that is not to be usurped for a whim or desire.
When the view of natural law is separated from a Creator of that nature and the natural law from God’s Eternal Law, human positivism is the standard. We either reinvent what “natural” means or it can be rejected as “natural” because of a stunted view of nature and natural.
This stunted view of nature and natural law is seen quite clearly in the Dred Scott vs. Sanford case where slaves (thus Blacks) were regarded as “three-fifths” of a person. This is a travesty that could have been avoided if an objective standard of natural law had been seen apart from what the positivists had desired at the time, slavery. Natural law seen from a purely man made view of what nature and what natural is and means leads to this type of travesty.
Objective standards rejected in view of what is desired and arguments being based on a stunted view of natural and nature is what is presented in most of the rejections to what is offered for consideration in this thread. Belief in a supreme law giver is paramount if one is to make law a standard that is not to be usurped for a whim or desire.
J
John21652
Guest
Laurie, you are shifting the goal posts! The topic was supposed to be Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law. Now you are saying we are discussing the justification of Natural Law morality. Actually, I thought that might have been the problem for you, because no matter how some of us here advanced Natural Law arguments to prove that homosexuality was wrong, you kept asking ‘but why is it wrong’. You were rejecting the very proofs the question was demanding. And, in the process, you were effectively rejecting Natural Law itself. Unfortunately, the thread question, Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law, suggests an a priori acceptance of Natural Law arguments so the debate can proceed and the question be answered. A little later I shall return to the ‘justification of Natural Law morality’, but that is a big topic of its own Laurie. I suggest in the meantime you take note of Earnest Bunbury’s post, above. It gives a good starting point for this aspect of this discussion.
Again, Laurie, the topic was about homosexuality, that is, active sexual practices. Now you swing the goal posts further apart again and introduce Celibacy into the argument. That begs the question Is not practicing homosexual sex wrong according to Natural Law. Or even is no sexual practicing wrong according to Natural Law. It starts to get a bit ludicrous in the context of this debate and is, in fact, another topic for discussion.
Now how do you now how I will reply?
I will say, however, gay people can’t procreate by having gay sex! I actually touched on this topic in my previous post.
I understand and am sensitive to your problem Laurie. I do not know your daughter and cannot make judgements about her. I have tried to avoid mentioning her and so have stuck to general principles, such as defining flourishing. Particularly in terms of that goat farm of yours!
On that point, a beautiful point was made by momor when he/she wrote * It’s hard to see the necessary order of things required for the entire farm operation when you are looking into the eyes of only one sweet goat.*The question was about homosexuality, Laurie, not a certain class of practicing homosexuals. You have again shifted the goal posts and now want us to focus on just one type of practicing homosexual.
Because Natural Law reasoning tells us so, Laurie! That’s the simple answer.
Now go to Earnest Bunbury’s post. He says Belief in a supreme law giver is paramount if one is to make law a standard that is not to be usurped for a whim or desire. That means we must accept Aquinas’s view on Natural Law and the manner in which the Church adopts the Natural Law. However, in discussing Natural Law, we can also move God out of the debate and insert the Big Bang, or Mother Nature, or whatever else takes your fancy. I wrote about this in an earlier post, but you bypassed it. The point is, as Earnest Bunbury tells us, is that the Natural Law is based on an objective standard. That is the crucial point to remember. Positivism removes that objectivism and we are left with relativity and Law as defined by man according to his whims and desires. Mother Nature, God, or whatever else you use, provides us with an objective base from which to build our morality. It is something outside of and seperate to mankind, although he must find his place in it. That is what many of us here have been trying to point out to you, Laurie. Now go back again to momor’s post. It tells us that objectivity is thrown aside by positivism and subjectivism. The love for one goat and being blind to what is wrong with that goat, will cause you to lose your goat farm.
Laurie, lots of convincing Natural Law answers have been given. You just don’t accept them because you are questioning the validity of Natural Law itself. You are also being blindsided by what momor points out.
D
djeter
Guest
I think you are making my point. If you do not understand sin, then it becomes a non-argument for you. For me if you say something is a sin and can show me proof of that in a Church document or the Catechism, I immediately cease and desist or prepare myself for some deadly consequences. For you sin means nothing, so it’s another point on the curvature of your whimsical circular reasoning.
The basic sin and primary object of God’s wrath has been singled out by St. Paul as asebein, that is impiety or ungodliness. And he immediately explains what this impiety exactly consists of, saying that it is the refusal to glorify and thank God.
In other words, the refusal to acknowledge God as God and not rendering him the respect that is his. It consists, we could say, in “ignoring” God, not however in the sense of “not knowing he exists”, but, in the sense of “behaving as if he didn’t exist.” In the Old Testament Moses shouts to the people, “Know that the Lord your God is God!” (cf. Deuteronomy 7:9) and a psalmist takes up the same cry: “Know that the Lord is God! It is he that made us, and we are his” (Psalms 100:3).
Sin is basically the denial of this “acknowledgement”; it is the attempt, on the part of the creature to cancel out on his own initiative and almost with arrogance, the infinite difference that exists between himself and God. Thus sin infects the very root of things; it is “a stifling of the truth,” an attempt to keep truth the prisoner of injustice. It is something much more sinister and terrible than can be imagined or expressed. If the world knew what sin really is, it would die of terror.
This refusal took shape in idolatry in which the creature is worshipped rather than the Creator (cf. Romans 1:25). In idolatry man doesn’t “accept” God but rather “makes” a god; it is he who decides about God and not God about him. The roles are reversed; man becomes the potter and God the clay which man moulds to his pleasure (cf. Romans 9:20 ff.).
Your God, Laurie, sees the goodness in Homosexualism, its healthiness, happiness and gayness. Problem is, the only people worshipping at that Church is you and your friends. No one has ever made the case, Theologically, Scripturally or otherwise that homosexuality is good. Same same adultery, masturbation, fornication, and contraception. So don’t feel like anyone is picking on you. It’s just the way things are.
Hence, quite simply, you’re wrong. Making any progress yet? Or are these just more of “my assertions?”
Fr. Cantalamessa, whom I’ve quoted from The Mystery of Impiety, here:
payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/02/11/all-have-sinned-the-mystery-of-impiety-by-fr-raniero-cantalamessa/
Warmest regards,
dj
D
djeter
Guest
Love bade me welcome, but my soul drew back,
Guilty of dust and sin.
But quick-eyed Love, observing me grow slack
From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning
If I lacked anything.
“A guest,” I answered, “worthy to be here.”
Love said, “You shall be he.”
“I, the unkind, ungrateful? Ah my dear,
I cannot look on thee.”
Love took my hand, and smiling made reply,
“Who made the eyes, but I?”
“Truth, lord, but I have marred them: let my shame
Go where it doth deserve.”
“And know you not,” says Love, “who bore the blame?”
“My dear, then I will serve.”
“You must sit down;’ says Love, “and taste my meat.”
So I did sit and eat.
Guilty of dust and sin.
But quick-eyed Love, observing me grow slack
From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning
If I lacked anything.
“A guest,” I answered, “worthy to be here.”
Love said, “You shall be he.”
“I, the unkind, ungrateful? Ah my dear,
I cannot look on thee.”
Love took my hand, and smiling made reply,
“Who made the eyes, but I?”
“Truth, lord, but I have marred them: let my shame
Go where it doth deserve.”
“And know you not,” says Love, “who bore the blame?”
“My dear, then I will serve.”
“You must sit down;’ says Love, “and taste my meat.”
So I did sit and eat.
Hi Laurie:
The above is a poem by George Herbert which draws on several scriptural references to make a powerful point. I invite you to read Anthony Esolen’s interpretation here:
payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/06/29/reasonable-damnation-unreasonable-love-herbert%e2%80%99s-the-temple/
Hope you enjoy it. If you follow the links to Simone Weil, it gets better. She turned the poem into a prayer and recited it everyday.
dj
M
momor
Guest
An idea that is most appropriate to consider here is “Love the sinner but hate the sin”.
So clear and consise and deceptively simple. Yet the actual and pure practice of it will bring us the closest to God on earth that we can come.
So clear and consise and deceptively simple. Yet the actual and pure practice of it will bring us the closest to God on earth that we can come.
L
Laurie_Gibson
Guest
Reply to John,
Regarding the topic of this tread - you are correct.
Gay sex is ‘unnatural’ as defined by most of those that advocate Natural Law Morality and so, according to that morality it is wrong. End of story.
But not quite, because if you read the original post Portrait says that this reasoning goes from the statement ‘gay sex is unnatural’ to ‘so it is wrong’. And it is the ‘so’ which we are really discussing. Also [just to make it harder for you!] could this ‘so’ be justified in such a way that an honest non-believer would accept it.
Hope that clears up the matter.
Might I suggest that, if you wish, you summarise your justification of the pesky ‘so’ above.
Regards
Laurie
Regarding the topic of this tread - you are correct.
Gay sex is ‘unnatural’ as defined by most of those that advocate Natural Law Morality and so, according to that morality it is wrong. End of story.
But not quite, because if you read the original post Portrait says that this reasoning goes from the statement ‘gay sex is unnatural’ to ‘so it is wrong’. And it is the ‘so’ which we are really discussing. Also [just to make it harder for you!] could this ‘so’ be justified in such a way that an honest non-believer would accept it.
Hope that clears up the matter.
Might I suggest that, if you wish, you summarise your justification of the pesky ‘so’ above.
Regards
Laurie
L
Laurie_Gibson
Guest
Hello D/J,
Could I suggest you glance at the previous post to see what is being discussed. Of course you might think that there is no way to convince the most honest non-believer in the world - fair enough - nothing more to be said.
You say
Your God, Laurie, sees the goodness in Homosexualism, its healthiness, happiness and gayness. Problem is, the only people worshipping at that Church is you and your friends. No one has ever made the case, Theologically, Scripturally or otherwise that homosexuality is good. Same same adultery, masturbation, fornication, and contraception. So don’t feel like anyone is picking on you. It’s just the way things are.
Actually there are plenty of Christians who think that God accepts faithful gay sex. You may not agree with them, they may be mistaken but these people exist - whole churches of them! So what you say above is incorrect. Might I humbly suggest to you that you look at what these Christians say and, instead of dismissing them as wicked, or part of some vast conspiracy to corrupt the USA, you engage with their arguments open-mindedly. Of course they may be mistaken - but then so might you!
Regards
Laurie
Could I suggest you glance at the previous post to see what is being discussed. Of course you might think that there is no way to convince the most honest non-believer in the world - fair enough - nothing more to be said.
You say
Your God, Laurie, sees the goodness in Homosexualism, its healthiness, happiness and gayness. Problem is, the only people worshipping at that Church is you and your friends. No one has ever made the case, Theologically, Scripturally or otherwise that homosexuality is good. Same same adultery, masturbation, fornication, and contraception. So don’t feel like anyone is picking on you. It’s just the way things are.
Actually there are plenty of Christians who think that God accepts faithful gay sex. You may not agree with them, they may be mistaken but these people exist - whole churches of them! So what you say above is incorrect. Might I humbly suggest to you that you look at what these Christians say and, instead of dismissing them as wicked, or part of some vast conspiracy to corrupt the USA, you engage with their arguments open-mindedly. Of course they may be mistaken - but then so might you!
Regards
Laurie
B
Booklover
Guest
From: DEFENDING A HIGHER LAW Pages 80 and 81
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF HOMOSEXUAL LOVE
“Homosexual love” is impossible because it seeks to transform the love of friendship between people of the same sex into conjugal love. Since conjugal love requires psychological and physical complementarity, it can only exist between opposite sexes.
“Homosexual love” is only a sentimental attraction of a sexual nature or a psychological dependency due to a lack of emotional or sentimental self control. It is, therefore, a neurotic sentimentality. (12)
DESTRUCTION OF FRIENDSHIP AND SOCIAL LIFE
Indeed, “homosexual love” is neither conjugal love nor can it stay on the level of love of friendship without erotic connotations. Hence, homosexuality undermines the family and social life.
The family is the foundation of society, and marriage is the condition that gives rise to the family. Homosexuality undermines marriage by seeking to usurp its rights. Conjugal relations are only possible between a man and a woman.
(12)Dutch psychologist Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D. a specialist on homosexuality writes: "The term neurotic describes such relationships well. It suggests the ego-centeredness of the relationship; the attention-seeking instead of loving …Neurotic, in short, suggests all kinds of dramas and childish conflicts as well as the basic disinterestedness in the partner, notwithstanding the shallow pretensions of “love”. Nowhere is there more self deception in the homosexual than in his representation of himself as a lover. One partner is important to the other only insofar as he satisfies the other’s needs. Real, unselfish love for a desired partner would, in fact, end up by destroying homosexual “love”! (Gerard J.M.van den Aardweg, The Battle for Normality. [San Francisco: Ignatius Press ,1997, pp. 62-63]
Vickie
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF HOMOSEXUAL LOVE
“Homosexual love” is impossible because it seeks to transform the love of friendship between people of the same sex into conjugal love. Since conjugal love requires psychological and physical complementarity, it can only exist between opposite sexes.
“Homosexual love” is only a sentimental attraction of a sexual nature or a psychological dependency due to a lack of emotional or sentimental self control. It is, therefore, a neurotic sentimentality. (12)
DESTRUCTION OF FRIENDSHIP AND SOCIAL LIFE
Indeed, “homosexual love” is neither conjugal love nor can it stay on the level of love of friendship without erotic connotations. Hence, homosexuality undermines the family and social life.
The family is the foundation of society, and marriage is the condition that gives rise to the family. Homosexuality undermines marriage by seeking to usurp its rights. Conjugal relations are only possible between a man and a woman.
(12)Dutch psychologist Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D. a specialist on homosexuality writes: "The term neurotic describes such relationships well. It suggests the ego-centeredness of the relationship; the attention-seeking instead of loving …Neurotic, in short, suggests all kinds of dramas and childish conflicts as well as the basic disinterestedness in the partner, notwithstanding the shallow pretensions of “love”. Nowhere is there more self deception in the homosexual than in his representation of himself as a lover. One partner is important to the other only insofar as he satisfies the other’s needs. Real, unselfish love for a desired partner would, in fact, end up by destroying homosexual “love”! (Gerard J.M.van den Aardweg, The Battle for Normality. [San Francisco: Ignatius Press ,1997, pp. 62-63]
Vickie
D
DysonSphere
Guest
How do you know that this is even generally true?
Is this even true? If so, how can it be? Most homosexuals I know respect heterosexual unions.
Ignatius Press wouldn’t seem to be a very unbiased source in which to present actual psychological findings. Might this simply be one psychologist’s opinion, and thus should be treated as such?
B
Booklover
Guest
Laurie, either “gay sex” is moral or not. “Faithful gay sex” does not make it legitimate any more than divorce makes marriage illegitimate.
Vickie
L
Laurie_Gibson
Guest
Booklover
‘either “gay sex” is moral or not’ is a false dicotomy. Who says these are the two alternatives? If I said re sexual intercourse, ‘either it is moral or not’ you would disagree and say that it was moral in the context of marriage but not outiside it. I think gay sex is OK if it expresses faithful love within a relationship and immoral if it does not.
‘either “gay sex” is moral or not’ is a false dicotomy. Who says these are the two alternatives? If I said re sexual intercourse, ‘either it is moral or not’ you would disagree and say that it was moral in the context of marriage but not outiside it. I think gay sex is OK if it expresses faithful love within a relationship and immoral if it does not.
B
Booklover
Guest
B
Booklover
Guest
DysonSphere;6793573 [/QUOTE said:
Homosexuals want the legalization of “same-sex” marriage and the rights that belong only to heterosexual couples. They want the “right” to adopt children. Every child needs a mother and a father, not two daddies or two mommies. Yes, they are usurping the rights of true marriage and destroying the family with their spurious “claims”.
Vickie
D
djeter
Guest
You keep avoiding the topic of Sin.
Yes of course there are churches that accept homosexuality but not the Catholic Church and this is a Catholic forum where you are attempting to make your point.
So, do you believe in Sin? Sin is the very definition of wrong. And you keep avoiding it.
dj
B
Booklover
Guest
B
Booklover
Guest
Hi, Laurie! No, I don’t think it’s a false dichotomy.What you’re advocating is something like stating that alcoholism is wrong if the alcoholic drinks and drives or gets violent when drunk, but it’s okay if he gets drunk as a lord and just sleeps it off.
Vickie
B
Booklover
Guest
Yes, sex is only moral within the context of marriage. All single people are called to chastity.
Vickie
B
Booklover
Guest
Hi Laurie! These articles may be helpful to you. They discuss natural and divine law.
catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFCERTN.HTM
Cheers!
Vickie
catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFCERTN.HTM
Cheers!
Vickie
L
Laurie_Gibson
Guest
D/J
‘Sin’ is a religious concept and is, I think, defined as disobeying God’s commands.
On another thread you sustain an attack on me and my motivations without any evidence beyond your own imagination. You end with the disagreeable and incorrect assertion that I have no conscience! Would you please substantiate this slander or withdraw it? Your fellow Catholics here are very polite and never resort to unpleasant attacks like this. It is a pleasure to talk to them. I hope it will be so with you.
And when you are about it would you be kind enough to explain why if something is unnatural it is therefore wrong - plus using reasoning which would persuade a non-believer.
Thanks
Laurie
‘Sin’ is a religious concept and is, I think, defined as disobeying God’s commands.
On another thread you sustain an attack on me and my motivations without any evidence beyond your own imagination. You end with the disagreeable and incorrect assertion that I have no conscience! Would you please substantiate this slander or withdraw it? Your fellow Catholics here are very polite and never resort to unpleasant attacks like this. It is a pleasure to talk to them. I hope it will be so with you.
And when you are about it would you be kind enough to explain why if something is unnatural it is therefore wrong - plus using reasoning which would persuade a non-believer.
Thanks
Laurie
- Status