L
Leela
Guest
I think I get it now. “Normal” or “natural” means whatever you approve of.
- Status
M
momor
Guest
Actually, no. But I think you just described your position very well.
L
Leela
Guest
My position is that it is abnormal and unnatural that when confronted with the notion that two people of the same gender could have the same sort of love for one another as two differently gendered people have, certain people’s minds immediately jump to images of anuses. I think that is indicative of some sort of sickness.
M
momor
Guest
If you have a logical argument to make, please do so. If all you have are insults, please spare us.
L
Leela
Guest
I do have another point to make. The notion of Natural Law has always been a tool of oppression and nothing more–a way of saying that our current practices of discrimination and subjugation are eternally mandated. It was used to say say that it is only natural for some people to live their lives as slaves. It was used to say that it is only natural for woman to be subjugated to men, and it was used to say that it is only natural that certain races are inferior to others. Given the history of Natural Law, it is no surprise to me that it is being used here to rationalize bigotry toward homosexuals.
M
momor
Guest
Would you like to pick one of those arguments and back it up with some evidence that Natural Law Morality was used to argue the position?
A
Abu
Guest
When you take the trouble to get the facts, you may be able to start thinking using reason on the reality of the natural moral law, for example on slavery:
Post #314: Natural Law is “a law that is in principle accessible to human reason and not dependent on (though entirely compatible with and, indeed, illumined by) divine revelation.” (The Clash of Orthodoxies, Professor Robert P George (Princeton), 2001, p 169).
For instance the Code of Hammarubi and The 42 negative confessions of the Ancient Egyptians.
Roman jurists had already developed the maxim that any doubts in cases of freedom or slavery, should be resolved in favor of liberty.—William E. H. Lecky (1838-1903), The *Substance of History of European Morals *(from Augustus to Charlemagne), 2 vols, ed. Clement Wood (New York: Vanguard Press, 1926), I, p 295.
For example, Roman jurist Domitius Ulpianus (c. 160 A.D. - 228 A.D.) had said, “by the law of nature all men are equal.”—Digest, L, 17.32; and “natural law regards all men as equal”—On Sabinus, Book XLIII.
L
Leela
Guest
Sure, momor.
Natural Law goes back to Aristotle who defended the practice of slavery as “natural” rather than “conventional” in Book I, Chapters iii through vii of the Politics. and in Book VII of the Nicomachean Ethics. Some people, he said, are naturally slaves and others are naturally masters.
Aristotle wrote: “But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature? There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.”
…
Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another’s and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature. Whereas the lower animals cannot even apprehend a principle; they obey their instincts. And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame animals is not very different; for both with their bodies minister to the needs of life. Nature would like to distinguish between the bodies of freemen and slaves, making the one strong for servile labor, the other upright, and although useless for such services, useful for political life in the arts both of war and peace. But the opposite often happens–that some have the souls and others have the bodies of freemen. And doubtless if men differed from one another in the mere forms of their bodies as much as the statues of the Gods do from men, all would acknowledge that the inferior class should be slaves of the superior. And if this is true of the body, how much more just that a similar distinction should exist in the soul? but the beauty of the body is seen, whereas the beauty of the soul is not seen. It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right."
See? Slavery is entirely Natural for Aristotle. It seems to be so easy to justify one’s current practices and prejudices, whatever they may be, by dressing them up in the fancy clothes of Natural Law. At least the plasticity of the concept of Natural Law can be of some benefit since the very same concept was later used to defend human rights as “natural.” It is of course now argued by Natural Law moralists that slavery is against natural law. The problem with the whole notion though is that Natural Law just seems to be able to be applied to justify anything you want, including, as we saw, slavery! It is not a method for finding out new information about the good but for trying to lend one’s prejudices and past practices the prestige of the eternal.
Best,
Leela
S
Soulewolf
Guest
well this seems pretty simple.
From a christian standpoint… what is natural? Virgin pregnancies? Physical ascension into heaven? talking snakes? Resurrection after death? How about incest?
Getting even more into it, only humanity it seems is conscious of its own existence. no where else inside of nature do animals think or act like humans do. that must mean that human thought is unnatural.
This whole topic of Natural law / morality is so convoluted i do not believe any utility can come from even discussing the topic, especially from a religious standpoint.
From a christian standpoint… what is natural? Virgin pregnancies? Physical ascension into heaven? talking snakes? Resurrection after death? How about incest?
Getting even more into it, only humanity it seems is conscious of its own existence. no where else inside of nature do animals think or act like humans do. that must mean that human thought is unnatural.
This whole topic of Natural law / morality is so convoluted i do not believe any utility can come from even discussing the topic, especially from a religious standpoint.
A
Abu
Guest
What rejection of the Natural Moral Law on homosexuality produces
Who are now slavishly following fashion? Universities of course!
Professor Kenneth Howell was fired from his teaching position at the University of Illinois. Professor Yeruham Leavitt was fired by Ben Gurion University – both for teaching truth – on the wrongness of homosexual sexual activity and the drive to rope children into homosexual pairing.
**Is Academic Freedom Merely Academic?
By Dr. Jeff Mirus, July 12, 2010 **
catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=668
“While it is not surprising that the homosexual thought control movement which is steamrolling the world should be particularly evident amid the intellectual bankruptcy of the modern university, the reasoning (or lack thereof) is telling.
“……the modern university is built on relativism, and relativism is that philosophy of life which alone allows intellectual fashion to become orthodoxy. And what is intellectual fashion? It is the ever-shifting epitome of a culture which demands relativism to protect passion.
“In both cases, the alleged reason for the firings is that faculty may not express opinions that violate inclusivity by offending some students.
“Academic freedom is not merely academic. Wrongly understood, it ruins lives.”
**Deacon Keith Fournier, Catholic Online **(www.catholic.org) 7/12/2010
catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=37318
“Professor Howell is a faithful Catholic, in fact a convert from the Presbyterian Church and ministry…”
Who are now slavishly following fashion? Universities of course!
Professor Kenneth Howell was fired from his teaching position at the University of Illinois. Professor Yeruham Leavitt was fired by Ben Gurion University – both for teaching truth – on the wrongness of homosexual sexual activity and the drive to rope children into homosexual pairing.
**Is Academic Freedom Merely Academic?
By Dr. Jeff Mirus, July 12, 2010 **
catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=668
“While it is not surprising that the homosexual thought control movement which is steamrolling the world should be particularly evident amid the intellectual bankruptcy of the modern university, the reasoning (or lack thereof) is telling.
“……the modern university is built on relativism, and relativism is that philosophy of life which alone allows intellectual fashion to become orthodoxy. And what is intellectual fashion? It is the ever-shifting epitome of a culture which demands relativism to protect passion.
“In both cases, the alleged reason for the firings is that faculty may not express opinions that violate inclusivity by offending some students.
“Academic freedom is not merely academic. Wrongly understood, it ruins lives.”
**Deacon Keith Fournier, Catholic Online **(www.catholic.org) 7/12/2010
catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=37318
“Professor Howell is a faithful Catholic, in fact a convert from the Presbyterian Church and ministry…”
A
Abu
Guest
Evidence of the chaos from the failure to employ reason on marriage between a man and a woman – the blindness of prejudice.
catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=669
A Culture in Denial Cannot Be Healed
By Dr. Jeff Mirus, July 13, 2010
“….a blindness born of a fear that if we find a reason to downgrade any person’s sexual urges it will lead ultimately to the elimination of even our own sexual indulgence and irresponsibility. A sexually libertine society can preserve itself (temporarily) only by refusing to recognize the obvious connections between sex and reproduction, marriage and childbirth, family life and social stability.
“….simply because the several states have the Constitutional power to regulate marriage, including the civil responsibilities and benefits which apply to those who enter into marriage, it does not at all follow that a state has a right to define marriage, any more than it has the right to determine what constitutes a star, a horse or a human being.” [My underlining].
“You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.” (Mt 13:14-15)
catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=669
A Culture in Denial Cannot Be Healed
By Dr. Jeff Mirus, July 13, 2010
“….a blindness born of a fear that if we find a reason to downgrade any person’s sexual urges it will lead ultimately to the elimination of even our own sexual indulgence and irresponsibility. A sexually libertine society can preserve itself (temporarily) only by refusing to recognize the obvious connections between sex and reproduction, marriage and childbirth, family life and social stability.
“….simply because the several states have the Constitutional power to regulate marriage, including the civil responsibilities and benefits which apply to those who enter into marriage, it does not at all follow that a state has a right to define marriage, any more than it has the right to determine what constitutes a star, a horse or a human being.” [My underlining].
“You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.” (Mt 13:14-15)
L
larkin31
Guest
There is no insult in this statement. Many of the most strident anti-gay marriage responses here have focused on male-male sexuality.
L
larkin31
Guest
Yes, whatever matches the strictures of their religious texts. The natural world has no “Natural Law” in it except in the most general of terms (in other words, with many significant exceptions), and is used, as you note, as often as not to reinforce stereotypes or, worse, to tyrannize thought.
J
John21652
Guest
Well Leela, you are going up a blind alley quoting Aristotole. In his* Rhetoric* he cites happiness as the goal of humanity. and this is used by people like you as the foundation of utilitarianism! There are many who do not even regard Arositotle as the ‘Father of Natural Law’. In fact, the Stoics dabbled in it and ormulated it to a far greater degree. Aristotle noticed that two cities could have totally different, even conflicting laws. He argued that there could be some objective, universal law underpinning those laws which could reconcile the differences between the two cities’ laws. From this we have Positivist versus Natural Law theories. The Stoics firmly believed that there was indeed a Natural Law and that man through the use of reason could understand events taking place around him and so separate from his way of living harmful and destructive emotions and acts. According to the Stoics, mankind uses his rationality to understand his place in a wider community and to act accordingly. The Stoic defined virtue as the conformance of the will to the rational order of the world. The validity of Natural Law morality is derived from human and physical nature. And it is on this basis that homosexual activity is considered as wrong.
It might interest you to know that the Stoics considered, long before Christianity, that all men were ceated equal.
The Natural Law was never a “tool of oppression”, as you rediculously assert. Nor does it have the plasticity you assert. The Natural Law theory of morality underpinned John Lock’s philosophy and underpins the US Declaration of Independence. As a matter of fact, when someone tries to argue as you have, it is obvious they are using a Marxist set of tools to deconstruct the western tradition. So, instead of trying to shoot down Natural Law by finding fault with Aristotle, try shooting down the influences of our entire western Christian Judeo practices, thoughts and morality. You are already travelling on that path.
A
Abu
Guest
Since the mouth is designed to ingest food, chew with, to speak and to sing, and to blow (as for musical instruments to accompany singing) to make music, and to give praise to God, you should be able to see the Creator’s design here, if you try very hard.
If you use it to spit on someone and to curse them with hatred or to bite them, if you try very hard you might be able to reason that such an action would be against the Creator’s design. You might even be able to reason that speech should be used to offer truth originating through reason as well as through faith, rather than falsehood. But to do this, you would have to understand the evidence for the natural moral law. Then there is the evidence for the existence of God, and the evidence for the fact that Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be God and proved it by His Resurrection testified to by numerous eye-witnesses, and who left us His Church that we should not be orphans.
But you don’t have to be even a Christian to appreciate the fact of the natural moral law as even pagans can.
L
larkin31
Guest
I just wanted to know if you would acknowledge a purpose of a bodily function beyond sustenance and reproduction. I see that you do. I argue the same for genitalia and human sexuality. There is no moral reason to limit the use of sexual organs ONLY to their specific reproductive functions. Human culture has, however, through various permutations of “purity laws” and restrictions, tried to control the deeper urges and more psycho-physical functions of the genitalia and other orifices. This attempt at control is wise on several levels, but “natural moral law” does not exist in any way outside the writings of humans and is a projection outward from our minds onto a a natural world that does not conform to it. And nor do our bodies.
As I said, I consider it more debasing to the complexity and beauty and intimate sharing of human sexuality to restrict it ONLY to the animal function of reproduction. It makes us no different from cats and dogs.
L
Leela
Guest
There is no more important philosopher to Catholicism than Aristotle unless it is Aquinas who relied extremely heavily on Aristotle. But your objection is entirely beside the point. The fact is that the notion of Natural Law can be applied, as Aristotle did, to justify whatever your current prejudices may be.
An interesting aside, Aristotle opposed the practice of taking as slaves as the spoils of war as a might makes right fallacy, but Aquinas defended this practice arguing that since God decided who would win the battle, victory in battle amounts to a divine decision. To be captured in battle and enslaved is a divine punishment for sin!
I’ve clearly demonstrated that Natural Law is plastic and has been used as a tool of oppression with my quotes from Aristotle.
Oh, no! Now I am in danger of becoming a filthy commie if I doubt the utility of natural law in moral deliberation?
Let’s all try to be honest with ourselves about how Natural Law actually functions. Have you really ever used the notion of Natural Law to do any personal serious moral deliberation about what you yourself ought to do, or have you only ever used the notion to confirm one of your existing prejudices?
M
Mimi
Guest
Very interesting thread. I have only gotten a few pages into it.
I just wanted to jump in here because I have not (so far) seen mentioned that the Catholic position on marital union (and what sex means in a marital relationship) is that it is
In a same-sex relationship, the sex may be unitive, but cannot be procreative. THus is goes against God’s natural law. If the act (heterosexual, but unmarried relationship) is procreative, but not unitive, then that is also morally wrong. If a child results from that union, s/he is morally blameless, but if s/he does not grow up with a mother AND a father, s/he is at a disadvantage, even if the father (or mother) is not The Best.
This is also why contraception is wrong. It takes away the procreative aspect of the marital act.
I’m sure others can think of many other examples of unions where the Unitive & Procreative are not both present, and therefore, why the Catholic Church cannot condone or bless those unions.
Peace,
Mimi
I just wanted to jump in here because I have not (so far) seen mentioned that the Catholic position on marital union (and what sex means in a marital relationship) is that it is
- Unitive
as well as - Procreative
In a same-sex relationship, the sex may be unitive, but cannot be procreative. THus is goes against God’s natural law. If the act (heterosexual, but unmarried relationship) is procreative, but not unitive, then that is also morally wrong. If a child results from that union, s/he is morally blameless, but if s/he does not grow up with a mother AND a father, s/he is at a disadvantage, even if the father (or mother) is not The Best.
This is also why contraception is wrong. It takes away the procreative aspect of the marital act.
I’m sure others can think of many other examples of unions where the Unitive & Procreative are not both present, and therefore, why the Catholic Church cannot condone or bless those unions.
Peace,
Mimi
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
In Book One of Laws, Plato writes about how opposite-sex sex acts cause pleasure by nature, while same-sex sexuality is “unnatural”.
Plato was not invoking Moses. He was invoking common sense.
Plato was not invoking Moses. He was invoking common sense.
- Status