Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[Earnest_Bunbury]

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.

What this post highlights is the unity of the natural law with God’s Eternal Law, the concept of law presupposes a lawgiver with the authority to enforce that law.

Aristotle may have recognized this natural law but had no realization of the authority of a Divine Lawgiver. His was a recognizing of knowledge and what was true in that knowing. It was Aquinas who took those principles of knowledge and applied Aristotle’s truth with the revelation of Divine Truth. The apostles saw and passed on this revelation.

Cause from effect, this is the search we are engaged in and it is the modern philosophical rejection of final causality and formal causality that stunts the moderns search for truth. It is our nature to search for the first cause of effects seen by our sense capacities and reason. When the search becomes only material as well as based in only what is useful or pleasurable, then our search turns from the eternal truth to a nature devoid of “eternal” or “other”. Transcendence cannot be correctly identified and that which is immanent, pantheistic, replaces it.

Philosophical proof is in relation to first principles, not to conclusions proven by a scientific repeatable experiment. Proof in philosophy is that which is more probable and more reasonable, something that is rejected in today’s relativistic, subjective mindset. Just like the Church, we can only propose the truth, we can not impose it. A truth must be accepted, it isn’t something that convicts someone beyond their own God given free-will.

God is the Lawgiver and as we know is also the One who searches for those lost in the wilderness. This we can accept by our reason or reject by use of that same reason based on our own will to reject or accept, to see that which is more probable or to accept the opposite. The proof of natural law over homosexuality is in the order of the design leading to the revelation of the Designer.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela
*
I’ve clearly demonstrated that Natural Law is plastic and has been used as a tool of oppression with my quotes from Aristotle.*

Did you show where Aristotle used natural law to justify homosexual sex?

 

[Leela]

Leela
*
I’ve clearly demonstrated that Natural Law is plastic and has been used as a tool of oppression with my quotes from Aristotle.*

Did you show where Aristotle used natural law to justify homosexual sex?

No. Aristotle thought that homosexuality was conventional rather than natural. But a biologist could obviously point out that homosexuality is natural and may have some evolutionary advantages. The point is that arguing whether or not an act is “natural” is a silly form of moral discernment. Are all the clowns of the world sinful if they walk on their hands?

Be honest, Charlemagne, 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? That’s what I thought, and that’s why Natural Law is nothing more than a tool of oppression.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

*Aristotle thought that homosexuality was conventional rather than natural. *

Where does he say that? Are you making up notions as you go along?

 

[momor]

No. Aristotle thought that homosexuality was conventional rather than natural. But a biologist could obviously point out that homosexuality is natural and may have some evolutionary advantages. The point is that arguing whether or not an act is “natural” is a silly form of moral discernment. Are all the clowns of the world sinful if they walk on their hands?
Be honest, Charlemagne, 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? That’s what I thought, and that’s why Natural Law is nothing more than a tool of oppression.

These kinds of flippant analogies do your argument no good. Do you really equate sex with clowns? Wait…don’t answer that.

 

[Leela]

Leela

*Aristotle thought that homosexuality was conventional rather than natural. *

Where does he say that? Are you making up notions as you go along?

No, I’m not making anything up. I don’t know you would doubt me in saying that Aristotle does NOT think homosexuality is natural.

But be honest, Charlemagne, 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? Yeah, that’s what I thought, and that’s why Natural Law is nothing more than a tool of oppression.

 

[Leela]

These kinds of flippant analogies do your argument no good. Do you really equate sex with clowns? Wait…don’t answer that.

It’s called an analogy, momor. Is it unnatural (inherently disordered or whatever) for a clown to walk on his hands or not? The the clowns of the world need to repent of this terrible offense to God’s justice?

Didn’t it ever occur to you that the injunction to live in accordance with nature is as tautological and empty of intellectual content as saying that we ought to live according to life?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

No, I’m not making anything up. I don’t know you would doubt me in saying that Aristotle does NOT think homosexuality is natural.

And you still haven’t told me where Aristotle says that! So I have to think you are being somewhat evasive for a reason … he never said it.

*Didn’t it ever occur to you that the injunction to live in accordance with nature is as tautological and empty of intellectual content as saying that we ought to live according to life? *

A clown walking on his hands is not pretending to be natural. He is flaunting nature. And in a few seconds he will be back on his feet! Nor do I think walking on one’s hands is very good for the hands over the long haul, just as taking drugs or doing homosexual acts is not very good for one’s health over the long haul (Aids), though it may be fun flaunting nature.

 

[Leela]

Leela

No, I’m not making anything up. I don’t know you would doubt me in saying that Aristotle does NOT think homosexuality is natural.

And you still haven’t told me where Aristotle says that! So I have to think you are being somewhat evasive for a reason … he never said it.

Why would you need be to give you a specific force for that? I’ve granted that he did say it, and the fact that Aristotle called homosexuality unnatural supports your position rather than mine, so why would I need to give you a source? It’s not worth the trouble. You can Google it as well as I can.

And speaking of evasion, I asked you twice now…

Be honest, Charlemagne, 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? Yeah, that’s what I thought, and that’s why Natural Law is nothing more than a tool of oppression.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*Be honest, Charlemagne, 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? Yeah, that’s what I thought, and that’s why Natural Law is nothing more than a tool of oppression. *

Natural law in the physical realm exists for our benefit. The penis was not designed for the anus! Ouch! Aids!

Likewise with respect to gravitation. When standing on top of the Empire State Building, I’m sure I used the natural law to prevent myself from even toying with the idea of taking a flying leap! Yes, I have an “existing prejudice” against suicide! Nor do I think I would ever use that prejudice as a “tool of oppression,” unless I was trying to stop somebody from committing suicide.

 

[Soulewolf]

What is Natural from a catholic standpoint? Incest? Genocide? Talking snakes? Turning water into wine? Resurrection?

just trying to get a basis of understanding here.

 

[Leela]

*Be honest, Charlemagne, 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? Yeah, that’s what I thought, and that’s why Natural Law is nothing more than a tool of oppression. *

Natural law in the physical realm exists for our benefit. The penis was not designed for the anus! Ouch! Aids!

Likewise with respect to gravitation. When standing on top of the Empire State Building, I’m sure I used the natural law to prevent myself from even toying with the idea of taking a flying leap! Yes, I have an “existing prejudice” against suicide! Nor do I think I would ever use that prejudice as a “tool of oppression,” unless I was trying to stop somebody from committing suicide.

You used Natural Law to convince yourself not to commit suicide??? Please explain your reasoning based on Natural Law that convinced ourself not to jump. I am very skeptical about the possibility of using the tool of Natural Law for any serious moral deliberation, so your answer will be helpful in my understand of Natural Law as something other than a tool to dress up one’s existing beliefs in the clothes of the eternally Natural.

 

[Soulewolf]

Natural law in the physical realm exists for our benefit. The penis was not designed for the anus! Ouch! Aids!

The foot wasnt designed for shoes. The body wasnt designed for clothes. the hands were not designed for a keyboard, mouse etc.

Natural law is a flawed moral structure and there is no utility trying to understand morality from an external standpoint.

 

[antunesaa]

But a biologist could obviously point out that homosexuality is natural and may have some evolutionary advantages.

Lol!!! Hey, are you using naturalistic arguments to justify homosexuality?! That’s precisely what you don’t want! There’s a couple of examples of supposedly advantageous homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. (Some African flamingo species comes to my mind — I might have picked that one up in some pop-science magazine.) The phenomenon is, however, rare and of uncertain usefulness. I mean: the overwhelming evidence from an evolutionary viewpoint is that male and female mate and have offspring. Sometimes also with disastrous consequences for one of the actors of the love act — the Black Widow spider has that name for a good reason.

 

[Leela]

Lol!!! Hey, are you using naturalistic arguments to justify homosexuality?! That’s precisely what you don’t want! There’s a couple of examples of supposedly advantageous homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. (Some African flamingo species comes to my mind — I might have picked that one up in some pop-science magazine.) The phenomenon is, however, rare and of uncertain usefulness. I mean: the overwhelming evidence from an evolutionary viewpoint is that male and female mate and have offspring. Sometimes also with disastrous consequences for one of the actors of the love act — the Black Widow spider has that name for a good reason.

Yes, I was giving a naturalistic argument for homosexuality. Why do you say it is what don’t want? My point was that arguments based on what is Natural are easily twisted to support whatever your prejudices may be. It can support homosexuality or condemn it. And if someone disagrees with another’s interpretation, the stock reply is just “you don’t understand Natural Law!”

Natural Law is not a tool that anyone ever uses for personal moral deliberation but only as a tool for oppression. It is a way of dressing up our current conventions in the guise of the demands of Nature. It doesn’t help us try to be better than we currently are by telling us something that we don’t already think we know. It is just a way of trying lend the prestige of the eternal to our condemnations of what other people do.

If you disagree then perhaps you can answer, 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?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

soulewolf

The foot wasnt designed for shoes. The body wasnt designed for clothes. the hands were not designed for a keyboard, mouse etc.

Can you catch Aids from shoes, clothes, or a keyboard mouse?

The human mind was designed to benefit the whole organism. How does using that mind to justify sticking a penis up the anus benefit the organism? But I can tell you several ways how buggery works** against** the organism!

 

[Leela]

How does using that mind to justify sticking a penis up the anus benefit the organism?

I would imagine that it has much the same benefit in sexual pleasure and intimacy to the man as sticking a penis into a vagina, doesn’t it? I thought that was the whole point of doing that.

By the way, do Catholics consider anal sex to be sinful in general? Oral sex? Manual manipulation? Is it just when homosexuals do it that it is sinful?

Also, why focus on particular sex acts anyway? Homosexuality is about romantic love to the same degree that heterosexuality is. Why does heterosexuality call to mind Cinderella and Prince Charming, nights in shining armor and damsels in distress, gifts of flowers and candy, while for certain people here, homosexual sex calls to mind sticking things in anuses? There is something twisted about that perspective.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

I* would imagine that it has much the same benefit in sexual pleasure and intimacy to the man as sticking a penis into a vagina, doesn’t it? I thought that was the whole point of doing that.*

Well then, if physical pleasure is your criteria for what is normal, and a man finds it romantic pleasure to stick his penis into his donkey, you would not find that perverse?

Exactly where would you draw the line. Or is there no line to draw with respect to sex? Would sado-masochistic sex be fine with you, just because it gives pleasure? Would sex between children be fine with you, just because it gives pleasure? Would sex between parents and children be fine with you, just because it gives pleasure?

 

[Leela]

Leela

I* would imagine that it has much the same benefit in sexual pleasure and intimacy to the man as sticking a penis into a vagina, doesn’t it? I thought that was the whole point of doing that.*

Well then, if physical pleasure is your criteria for what is normal, and a man finds it romantic pleasure to stick his penis into his donkey, you would not find that perverse?

A donkey couldn’t give consent to such an act, so I believe that would be abusive.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*A donkey couldn’t give consent to such an act, so I believe that would be abusive. *

If a donkey can give consent to being ridden, why can’t he give consent to sex with a man?