Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[MindOverMatter2]

From my point of view, secular humanism values truth over dishonesty, simple as that. Truth has its consequences, yes, as does freedom–like the story of Eden demonstrates.

No. Naturalistic Humanism values the idea that God is non-existent, and then calls it truth in-order to create the illusion that such a denial is not based upon a subjective desire, in order to appear qualitatively and morally superior to any desire for God.

 

[larkin31]

No. Naturalistic Humanism values the idea that God is non-existent, and then calls it truth in-order to create the illusion that such a denial is not based upon a subjective desire.

Huh?

That does not mean that it is not true.

You do understand that I have summarized secular humanism correctly, no?

And my point about freedom and Eden? You did not comment on that.

 

[Abu]

Leela
Calling it Natural Law or the Will of God just raises the question of how you know what God wills and sheds no light on the reasons why what you are saying is good really is good.

The denial of the natural moral law has always been based on the denial of God – the pagans who identified the natural moral law acknowledged the self-evident God, the Creator of the natural moral law – it self-evidently follows that to deviate from that law known by reason, cause and effect, is to act as such wrongly. It was known and identified from pagan times, long before Christ. Before Christ, no one could know the nature of the one God of Father, Son and Holy Spirit; this knowledge came with His Church.

It is a myth that same-sex attraction is genetically predetermined and unchangeable, so there is substantial evidence of remedial treatment for those engaging in such activity, and hope for continued development in this area.

 

[Portrait]

From my point of view, secular humanism values truth over dishonesty, simple as that. Truth has its consequences, yes, as does freedom–like the story of Eden demonstrates.

Dear larkin31,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for the above response.

On the contrary, secular humanism is thoroughly dishonest in so far as it reclactritrantly refuses to examine the irresistible evidence for the existence of God, prefering instead to remain in rebellion so as to continue in autonomous self-determination.

As regards Eden, had there been no story of the Fall of man in Sacred Scripture, we should have been compelled to invent something of the kind to account for human nature; it is the only intellectually satisfying explanation of human sufferinng and man’s inhumanity to man - it makes sense of our exceedingly disordered world.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[djeter]

I did not use that term, nor would I, for the Pope. I read his document and summarized its basis. Its basis is Biblical teachings, which he quotes repeatedly as the justification for his remarks. It is really quite simple to follow; I have misread nothing there.

Scripture, Tradition, and the teaching office of the bishops – the three sources of Church teachings and theology: “The capacity to see the laws of material being makes us incapable of seeing the ethical message contained in being, a message that tradition calls lex naturalis, natural moral law.” You can see there the reference to tradition that the Pope makes in the article.

You are correct, you did not use sola scriptura, I did because it means an appeal solely to scripture or the Bible as you earlier referred to it – which the Pope did not do. And yes, it is very simple.

Thanks again for your observations.

dj

 

[djeter]

Dear larkin31,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for the above response.

On the contrary, secular humanism is thoroughly dishonest in so far as it reclactritrantly refuses to examine the irresistible evidence for the existence of God, prefering instead to remain in rebellion so as to continue in autonomous self-determination.

As regards Eden, had there been no story of the Fall of man in Sacred Scripture, we should have been compelled to invent something of the kind to account for human nature; it is the only intellectually satisfying explanation of human sufferinng and man’s inhumanity to man - it makes sense of our exceedingly disordered world.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Hi Portrait

Always a pleasure to read your posts. Your thoughts on Original Sin are supported (IMHO) in this essay by Fr. Edward Oakes. A small teaser:

If the experience of human history from Rousseau to Stalin means anything, it must be that we are stuck, like it or not, with the doctrine—nay, the reality—of original sin. But as St. Paul knew, this need not be a morbid doctrine. For our diagnosis has come with a cure.

Even Augustine’s formulation is perfectly understandable to people today, for he, perhaps even more than St. Paul, got to the heart of the issue when he noted that although (by virtue of our nature as human beings) we are free to do what we like, we are not free (by virtue of original sin) to like what we ought to like. And this insight is the beginning of the journey toward that holiness which God has destined for His Church.

For as the Rev. N. P. Williams so wonderfully notes, “The ordinary man may feel ashamed of doing wrong: but the saint, endowed with a superior refinement of moral sensibility, and keener powers of introspection, is ashamed of being the kind of man who is liable to do wrong.”

More here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/08/07/original-sin-a-disputation-%e2%80%93-by-fr-edward-t-oakes/

dj

 

[Leela]

Yes but are these arguments correct.

These arguments are as off point as any based on Nature. No description of the way things are can tell us how things ought to be.
MindOverMatter2;6862118:

You have managed to create the illusion that if my argument can be applied to homosexuality then it should also be applied to celibacy.

No, I’m saying it CAN be applied to celibacy just as Aristotle applied Natural Law to validate slavery.

Has your argument succeeded in disproving my argument by pointing that out? No. It just means that it should also be applied to celibacy. Does it succeed in disproving the moral good of celibacy? It depends on the actual context and reasons for which people become celebrate, thus determining the moral legitimacy whether or not celibacy is correct within that particular context

. But in the end its irrelevant, since none of this, however, changes the fact that humanities objective biological nature is heterosexual which is evident in the fact that we are men and women and we experience sexual pleasure as men and women. When we engage in heterosexual relationships we are being true to our objective nature or form. We are being true to the fact of our being men and women. Manhood and Womanhood is complimentary and exist for the fulfillment of each other. Thus when we develop sexual attraction to the opposite sex, this is a fulfillment of the fact that we are men and women.

When we engage in sexual relations or develop sexual attractions to, lets say, a tree, we are now doing something or feeling something that is disordered in relation to the fact our sexual form (man & women) which is evidently ordered to the biologically actuality of a heterosexual relationship, and not a tree. The same problem arise when we develop same sex attractions. Its a disorder of what we truly are (men and women). Nobody in their right mind would consider a sexual attraction to a tree a product of a healthy sexuality or something that is true to who you are; just as much nobody would consider a sexual attraction to a baby as being true to who you are sexually. If i wish you the greatest good of what you truly are, then i ought to wish the potential fulfillment of the fact that you are either and man or a women; because that is what you are, and anything else (a sexual attraction to a tree) is a disorder of what you truly are. Thus i am not justified in promoting the idea that a sexual attraction to a tree or the same sex is normal ordered and sexually healthy; since being sexually healthy or normal, objectively speaking, is determined by a conformity to your actual nature.

I think health is a good way to think about such things since we all know when it comes to physical health, there isn’t just one way to be healthy or one particular set of activities or one particular food that is healthy.

Now one can try to confuse the issue by accusing those who see the obvious of being prejudice or bigots, but this neither disproves my argument or justifies homosexuality. Propaganda aside, it amounts to nothing more than a dogmatic self-righteous attitude that isn’t back up by any ontological grounds in human experience. Your world view is inherently nihilistic and has nothing to say on the matter of right or wrong other than to assert

that there is no right and wrong and thus all is permissible. So what moral truth can you possibly give to me without looking deceptive?

You raise a fair point. Some people who argue that homosexuality is not wrong can’t tell you why they think that ANYTHING is wrong. But I can give you an example of a moral truth. Sex without consent is wrong. Why is it wrong? For one thing, I don’t want anyone to have sex with me without my consent, so it would be hypocritical of me then to do it to someone else. Who would take me seriously if I did to others what I said that I don’t want done to me?

You see, it is possible to give reasons for our moral beliefs instead of just declaring “it’s unnatural” which says nothing more than that you think it is immoral without saying why. Thankfully, the courts ruled that laws can’t be based on the mere claim that something is immoral when they struck down sodomy laws. We need better justification for our moral intuitions than “that’s icky!”

Best,
Leela

 

[djeter]

Re Aristotle, Natural Law and Slavery:

The great Greek philosopher, Aristotle, thought that slavery was a natural thing and that human beings came in two types - slaves and non-slaves.

“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…”
Aristotle, Politics

Some people, he said, were born natural slaves and ought to be slaves under any circumstances. Other people were born to rule these slaves, could use these slaves as they pleased and could treat them as property. Natural slaves were slaves because their souls weren’t complete - they lacked certain qualities, such as the ability to think properly, and so they needed to have masters to tell them what to do.

It’s clear that Aristotle thinks that slavery was good for those who were born natural slaves, as without masters they wouldn’t have known how to run their lives. In fact Aristotle seems to have thought that slaves were ‘living tools’ rather like domestic animals, fit only for physical labor.

“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.”
Aristotle, Politics

Slaves were not totally incapable of thought, but they only needed minimal amount of rational ability; just enough to understand and carry out their duties. Similarly, slaves were not devoid of ‘virtue’, but once again, they only needed just enough to carry out their duties. But that ‘virtue’ was enough for them to be treated as human beings.

Aristotle doesn’t provide any sensible practical method of recognizing natural slaves, and without that it’s inevitable that some people will be made slaves who should not be. Aristotle also had a category of ‘legal slaves’; they weren’t natural slaves but through bad luck - perhaps being taken prisoner in war - they just happened to be slaves at a particular time.

Aristotle argued that if the world were just, the legal slaves would be freed, and if any natural slaves were by chance free, they should be made slaves. Note that he knew nothing of the transatlantic slave trade and the pernicious racism it engendered.

It is estimated that there are 27 million slaves in the world, more than at any point in history and more than twice as many as all African slaves who survived being taken to the Americas in the Atlantic slave trade. Human trafficking is mostly for prostituting women and children into the sex trade. It is described as “the largest slave trade in history”, is the fastest growing organized crime industry and according to predictions is set to outgrow drug trafficking. Untold numbers of these poor souls are here in the United States – several down the street from where you live, no doubt. No one cares about them

dj

 

[larkin31]

… Manhood and Womanhood is complimentary and exist for the fulfillment of each other…

You make this foundational claim with no reasoning offered.

On what grounds do you claim that men and women “exist for the fulfillment of each other”?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

These arguments are as off point as any based on Nature. No description of the way things are can tell us how things ought to be.

Simply asserting that they are off point won’t make your dream come true.

No, I’m saying it CAN be applied to celibacy just as Aristotle applied Natural Law to validate slavery.

No. You should take my argument as it stands individually instead of coupling my argument with some other argument under the heading of natural law in-order to create the illusion that my argument can’t be right because some other argument was used to support slavery. You attempt to do so only reveals a deceptive character.

I think health is a good way to think

I am not talking about what people think, I am talking about what is objectively and evidently true about human nature.

You raise a fair point. Some people who argue that homosexuality is not wrong can’t tell you why they think that ANYTHING is wrong. But I can give you an example of a moral truth. Sex without consent is wrong. Why is it wrong? For one thing, I don’t want anyone to have sex with me without my consent, so it would be hypocritical of me then to do it to someone else. Who would take me seriously if I did to others what I said that I don’t want done to me?

That doesn’t tell me why rape is wrong. Who cares if you don’t like it or if you are hypocrite? That doesn’t actually tell me anything about what is right or wrong.

You see, it is possible to give reasons for our moral beliefs instead of just declaring “it’s unnatural”

In terms of objective truth, they are merely assertions or subjective ideas and they tell me nothing about what fulfils the objective value of human nature or whether or not humans have any objective value to fulfil.

Leela:

Thankfully, the courts ruled that laws can’t be based on the mere claim that something is immoral when they struck down sodomy laws. We need better justification for our moral intuitions than “that’s icky!”

They certainly did not change the laws for morally true reasons.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You make this foundational claim with no reasoning offered.

On what grounds do you claim that men and women “exist for the fulfillment of each other”?

Have you thought about buying some new reading glasses?

 

[larkin31]

Have you thought about buying some new reading glasses?

There’s a smarmy, empty reply.

 

[Leela]

Simply asserting that they are off point won’t make your dream come true.

I said your remarks were off point as any discussion of Natural Law is because a description of how things were in the past or are right now can’t tell us how things ought to be in the future. Did you have a counter-argument? I can’t see what this has to do with my dreams.

That doesn’t tell me why rape is wrong. Who cares if you don’t like it or if you are hypocrite? That doesn’t actually tell me anything about what is right or wrong.

Can you explain why you are unconvinced by my argument that rape is wrong? I suspect that if one does not already believe that human beings ought to be treated with profound respect, then philosophical arguments of any kind will not convince. But if one does accept that premise, then the immorality of rape is self-evident.

They certainly did not change the laws for morally true reasons.

Are you saying that if someone says something is immoral, that ought to be enough to justify making it illegal? The Court disagreed.

 

[larkin31]

…Are you saying that if someone says something is immoral, that ought to be enough to justify making it illegal? The Court disagreed.

Correct, because freedom and justice both trump private morality where there is no victimization.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I said your remarks were off point as any discussion of Natural Law is because a description of how things were in the past or are right now can’t tell us how things ought to be in the future. Did you have a counter-argument? I can’t see what this has to do with my dreams.

Straw-man number 1

Are you saying that if someone says something is immoral, that ought to be enough to justify making it illegal? The Court disagreed.

Straw-man number 2

 

[MindOverMatter2]

There’s a smarmy, empty reply.

I thought it was quite tasty

 

[larkin31]

Straw-man number 1

Straw-man number 2

Leela, it looks like MOM2 is done discussing the topic and would rather trade in one-line barbs.

 

[Abu]

Facing Reality

New Courage apostolate in Oakland a sign of change, newspaper says
(catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=20338)

OAKLAND, CALIF., July 22 (CNA) - A new chapter of the Courage apostolate has opened in Oakland to minister to Catholics and others who have same-sex attractions.

 

[John21652]

I thought it was quite tasty

MoM, it seems you are fighting a battle on your lonesome against those who are busy trying to convince themselves that their moral relativism is somehow grounded in objective truth. It isn’t. Moral relativism is, by definition, grounded in subjectivism. Natural Law Philosophy is grounded in the objective reality of the world we live in and includes are relationship with that world. The catylyst for the formation of the Natural Law and its attendant morality is human reason. Human Reason orders the world in which we live. That’s how the human brain works. That ordering of the world is how we humans make sense of the environment in which we live. Therefore, when I read a comment such as that made by Leela, “*I said your remarks were off point as any discussion of Natural Law is because a description of how things were in the past or are right now can’t tell us how things ought to be in the future,” *the obvious conclusion is that Leela either does not understand Natural Law at all, or is dismissive of it as a cogent philosophical form of enquiry. Natural Law is grounded in empirical observations of the world as it operates, as it has always operated and the obvious conclusions to be drawn are drawn from how things were in the past and should be in the future.

Interestingly, Natural Law moral theory can only exist because mankind and his nature are included into the mix of observable phenomena and behaviours of the natural world. Mankind is part of the natural world, but he is also part of a human social milieu. He has responsibilities towards making his social interactions with other human beings workable and predictable. A moral code is therefore developed that will make this huiman society a cogent, predictable whole. The morality is based in part on the way humans have acted and behaved in the past and therfore should behave in the future. If this were not the case, then predictability would not be a feature of human societies and chaos would replace certainty. A coherant moral code is required for certainty in human societies. It so happens that in our world, in what we call the western world, we have inherited the Judeo-Christian philosophical tradition. In large part, it is based on Natural Law. To deny, denigrate, or otherwise to ignore the Natural Law morality and to replace it with a subjectivism grounded in nothing but human desires is to disorder human society and to introduce into it a level of chaos. In the process, millenia of human experiences are denigrated and torn down by an intellecdtual arrogance which is frightening in its stupidity. The lessons of history are forgotten and the inherited traditions whioch bound our societies together are trashed. All in the name of “I want…”.

 

[Leela]

MoM, it seems you are fighting a battle on your lonesome against those who are busy trying to convince themselves that their moral relativism is somehow grounded in objective truth. It isn’t. Moral relativism is, by definition, grounded in subjectivism. Natural Law Philosophy is grounded in the objective reality of the world we live in and includes are relationship with that world. The catylyst for the formation of the Natural Law and its attendant morality is human reason. Human Reason orders the world in which we live. That’s how the human brain works. That ordering of the world is how we humans make sense of the environment in which we live. Therefore, when I read a comment such as that made by Leela, “*I said your remarks were off point as any discussion of Natural Law is because a description of how things were in the past or are right now can’t tell us how things ought to be in the future,” *the obvious conclusion is that Leela either does not understand Natural Law at all, or is dismissive of it as a cogent philosophical form of enquiry. Natural Law is grounded in empirical observations of the world as it operates, as it has always operated and the obvious conclusions to be drawn are drawn from how things were in the past and should be in the future.

I’m sorry, John, but to me (and I think most people) saying “X is true now, therefore X ought to be true in the future” is a non sequitor. It is the the sort of argument that post-Enlightenment people who rejected the notion “we ruled over you in the past, therefore we ought to rule over you in the future” no longer find convincing.

By the way, since science is the tool we now use to tell us about nature, does that mean to you that science will now tell us how we ought to behave? This is the argument that I find dubious, but Sam Harris will present in his upcoming book. I think he is going to have a tough time making a case given that most of us can’t see how Ises can lead us to Oughts. But if there is anything to be made of Natural Law ( and I don’t think there is), I agree with Harris that it is scientists rather than theologians who will be best able to wield it since they are most capable of telling us what nature is like.