Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[davidv]

Whats the primary use of copper? or of granite? or simply of the letter A?

How is this relevant?

 

[larkin31]

Whats the primary use of copper? or of granite? or simply of the letter A?

yes

the rule is applied to genitalia more than to any other organ or appendage (or material, etc). Human culture has a history of strictly regulating its sense of purity around certain bodily functions. Very interesting, actually.

 

[larkin31]

How is this relevant?

I think the point was that “primary function” is a weak argument for strict morality codes. It is unevenly applied.

 

[davidv]

I think the point was that “primary function” is a weak argument for strict morality codes. It is unevenly applied.

Then its a good thing that its not the core argument. It is a secondary argument. And even if it is a “weak” argument, it isn’t a wrong argument.

 

[Leela]

There is obviously such a thing as a sexual health disorder, just as much as there is obviously such a thing as a mental health disorder. We have people who have sexual desires for children or animals. You might sometimes find people that are turned on sexually by inanimate objects, and yes, there are people who have same sex attractions. There is one thing in common that all these desires have, and this is the fact that they do not fulfil the fundamental nature of a person. Now when I say fundamental, I mean the unified person as “whole” in terms of their entire objective nature as one unified singular. [Celibacy] is thus defined as a disorder because it does not fulfil the natural form of human beings (male and female), and thus undermines the unity that is a person.

Any free human act that does not lead to the fulfilment of human nature as a unified whole is a sin because it oppresses and contradicts human nature as a unified whole for the sake of some selfish agenda.

You know what is ironic about all this Natural Law business coming from Catholics? Though homosexuality is the number one phenomenon where people employ Human Nature to try to lend their prejudices an air of transcultural authority, the 2nd most common issue where this notion is applied to condemn people’s lifestyles has got to be celibacy among Catholic priests! People make exactly the same sorts of arguments about what is Unnatural as you just did above to explain the Catholic priest sex scandal. (Note the edit I made in replacing the word “homosexuality” with “celibacy.”)

The problem with appeals to Natural Law, is that saying that something is unnatural is to say nothing more than that you object to it, since these sorts of arguments can be made to condemn lots of things that you may hold dear and to justify things that you think people ought not do. Aristotle used Natural Law to affirm the practice of slavery, and Natural Law has been applied all throughout history to argue for the right to subjugate women to men. It is so easily used to confirm whatever you already think and so useless for discerning what is right when what is right is actually in question that it is obvious to me that we ought to dispense with this notion of the Natural as moral and cease to be impressed by people’s arguments about what is and is not “natural.”

Best,
Leela

 

[larkin31]

Then its a good thing that its not the core argument. It is a secondary argument. And even if it is a “weak” argument, it isn’t a wrong argument.

It is the topic of this thread. It is a virtually meaningless argument, “wrong” in the way that saying that “men can’t understand women” is wrong.

 

[larkin31]

You know what is ironic about all this Natural Law business coming from Catholics? Though homosexuality is the number one phenomenon where people employ Human Nature to try to lend their prejudices an air of transcultural authority, the 2nd most common issue where this notion is applied to condemn people’s lifestyles has got to be celibacy among Catholic priests! People make exactly the same sorts of arguments about what is Unnatural as you just did above to explain the Catholic priest sex scandal. (Note the edit I made in replacing the word “homosexuality” with “celibacy.”)

The problem with appeals to Natural Law, is that saying that something is unnatural is to say nothing more than that you object to it, since these sorts of arguments can be made to condemn lots of things that you may hold dear and to justify things that you think people ought not do. Aristotle used Natural Law to affirm the practice of slavery, and Natural Law has been applied all throughout history to argue for the right to subjugate women to men. It is so easily used to confirm whatever you already think and so useless for discerning what is right when what is right is actually in question that it is obvious to me that we ought to dispense with this notion of the Natural as moral and cease to be impressed by people’s arguments about what is and is not “natural.”

Best,
Leela

bravo

 

[davidv]

You know what is ironic about all this Natural Law business coming from Catholics? Though homosexuality is the number one phenomenon where people employ Human Nature to try to lend their prejudices an air of transcultural authority, the 2nd most common issue where this notion is applied to condemn people’s lifestyles has got to be celibacy among Catholic priests! People make exactly the same sorts of arguments about what is Unnatural as you just did above to explain the Catholic priest sex scandal. (Note the edit I made in replacing the word “homosexuality” with “celibacy.”)

Do you have any evidence for these claims?

The problem with appeals to Natural Law, is that saying that something is unnatural is to say nothing more than that you object to it, since these sorts of arguments can be made to condemn lots of things that you may hold dear and to justify things that you think people ought not do. Aristotle used Natural Law to affirm the practice of slavery, and Natural Law has been applied all throughout history to argue for the right to subjugate women to men. It is so easily used to confirm whatever you already think and so useless for discerning what is right when what is right is actually in question that it is obvious to me that we ought to dispense with this notion of the Natural as moral and cease to be impressed by people’s arguments about what is and is not “natural.”

Best,
Leela

This appeal is equally unimpressive.

 

[Leela]

How I use Natural Law or not is irrelevant to its basis for moral principles.

Well, sure it is. If no one actually uses Natural Law for personal moral discernment, and everyone who appeals top Natural Law only ever does so to condemn what they already oppose for other reasons, then Natural Law moral theory is exposed for what it is. It is merely a way of trying to claim the authority of the Natural for one’s prejudices. Rather than a way of determining what is right and wrong, it is nothing but a tool of oppression.

Everytime I attempt to determine that morality of some act, by definition I am using Natural Law.

Really? You have actually used Natural Law to help you decide what you ought to do in some situation? Since you claim you do so in EVERY situation, perhaps you can give one example?

 

[larkin31]

Our species has never required that every individual be fertile, nor that every “couple” reproduce, and certainly not that every couple reproduce every time they have sex. That is empirical truth. Sex and reproduction are not and have never been INDIVIDUAL requirements…

no response to this?

 

[davidv]

Well, sure it is. If no one actually uses Natural Law for personal moral discernment,

So you claim, yet I have seen no evidence of it.

and everyone who appeals top Natural Law only ever does so to condemn what they already oppose for other reasons, then Natural Law moral theory is exposed for what it is. It is merely a way of trying to claim the authority of the Natural for one’s prejudices. Rather than a way of determining what is right and wrong, it is nothing but a tool of oppression.

Got any proof?

Really? You have actually used Natural Law to help you decide what you ought to do in some situation? Since you claim you do so in EVERY situation, perhaps you can give one example?

Please reread the statement you quoted.

 

[larkin31]

You can find out why it is wrong here. You are free to disgree with it, but do not say you don’t know why.

This document boils down to, “because my God says so.” I respect this as a matter of faith, but it is unconvincing to anyone outside of that particular faith. As such, it is a limited argument.

 

[larkin31]

How I use Natural Law or not is irrelevant to its basis for moral principles…

It is relevant to the thread topic, which I think is the point here: “Can homosexuality be proved wrong from Natural Law?”

nope–not yet by anyone on this thread, anyway.

 

[Soulewolf]

Natural-law argument for the existence of God was especially popular in the eighteenth century as a result of the influence of Sir Isaac Newton. Observers concluded that things are the way they are because God intended them to be that way, though He operated outside of the natural law, Himself, as the law giver.** As Bertrand Russell pointed out much later, many of the things we consider to be laws of nature, in fact, are human conventions. **

Indeed, Albert Einstein has shown that Newton’s law of universal gravitation was such a convention, and though elegant and useful, one that did not describe the universe precisely. Most true laws are rather trivial, such as mathematical laws, laws of probability, and so forth, and much less impressive than those that were envisioned by Newton and his followers. Russell wrote:

“If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others – the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it – if there was a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary. You really have a law outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, because he is not the ultimate law-giver. In short, this whole argument from natural law no longer has anything like the strength that it used to have.”
-wikipedia

that should pretty much wrap it up >_>

 

[larkin31]

Natural-law argument for the existence of God was especially popular in the eighteenth century as a result of the influence of Sir Isaac Newton. Observers concluded that things are the way they are because God intended them to be that way, though He operated outside of the natural law, Himself, as the law giver.** As Bertrand Russell pointed out much later, many of the things we consider to be laws of nature, in fact, are human conventions. **…

I have said the same here several times: that what we call “Natural Law” really is no “law” in “nature” and is really just a mask for “My god said so in the writings of the early believers in my god.”

 

[Soulewolf]

I have said the same here several times: that what we call “Natural Law” really is no “law” in “nature” and is really just a mask for “My god said so in the writings of the early believers in my god.”

the actual quote itself makes for a better argument though.

 

[davidv]

This document boils down to, “because my God says so.” I respect this as a matter of faith, but it is unconvincing to anyone outside of that particular faith. As such, it is a limited argument.

If you think this then I don’t think you understood the document.

This is commonly called a strawman.

 

[Soulewolf]

If you think this then I don’t think you understood the document.

This is commonly called a strawman.

no hes right. Your entire argument is based on the assumption that the Christian god exists. Without that premise the whole thing falls apart.

 

[larkin31]

If you think this then I don’t think you understood the document.

This is commonly called a strawman.

I understood the document very well. I appreciated the opportunity to read it.

 

[Leela]

Do you have any evidence for these claims?
.

Hi davidv,

Any evidence that forced celibacy in the priesthood is “unnatural” or that people frequently argue that it is and blame forced celibacy for the Catholic priest sex scandal? I wasn’t arguing the former. Nor would I, since arguments about what is “natural” tell us nothing about what we ought to do. Whether or not forced celibacy (and yes I know that it is a vow and not in your view “forced”, but it is enforced by the Church in that a priest cannot change his mind without being removed from the priesthood) can lead to frustration and the sort of sexual disorders that could explain the sex abuse scandal, certainly many many priests have no problem with celibacy.

My point was in no way to argue that celibacy is unnatural. My point is simply that such arguments get made all the time. In other words, the notion of Natural Law gets used to condemn the “unnatural” practice of celibacy among priests. If you were not aware of the frequently made arguments that there is something very “unnatural” about what Catholics require of their priests which caused the sex abuse scandal, then I daresay you don’t get out much.

Here’s an article by former Catholic priest and still practicing Catholic James Carroll on the subject:

boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/05/16/celibacy_and_the_catholic_priest/?page=1

“In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll in 2005 just prior to Benedict’s naming, 63% of Catholics said the new pope should allow priests to marry.”

rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/may_2009/40_of_catholics_say_priests_should_be_allowed_to_marry_39_disagree

Given that vast numbers of even Catholics think priests ought to be able to marry, you should not be so shocked to learn that people frequently argue that celibacy is “unnatural.”

Best,
Leela