I think that there are some big problems there but saying that they are unnatural gets us nowhere. What is a strange leap for me is the idea that “improper use” is equated with immorality.
If all my glasses are in the dishwasher and I use a coffee mug for my orange juice we would just say that I am making the best of the situation or being resourceful. No one would say that my use of a coffee mug for something that it was not designed for was immoral.
This is just another
straw-man:yawn:. The word “mug” has no
objective meaning. We invented the meaning and applied it to an object; but the object itself does not have to have that meaning. Sexuality has
objective meaning. We have not invented it.** We have encountered it**. We have no choice but to accept it for what is; and to choose otherwise is to be in denial of what sexuality is. Sexuality is primarily an objective
biological expression. We have sexual desires because of our genetic biological expression, without which sexuality would be meaningless and unintelligible. In human beings, sexuality biologically expresses itself as
male and
female. The biological expression of human nature, minus some kind of disorder, is evidently heterosexual in nature and functions to that specific end. When people develop sexual desires for the same sex, this is a disorder of what we are biologically and thus sexually. I ought to value who you are, and I ought to wish you free from any disorder that undermines who you are. Being male or female is the natural end of who you are. If I wish somebody the greatest moral good, this includes everything they are, which includes the fact that they are male or female. Thus I ought to wish them the fulfilment of the fact of their being
male or
female. Heterosexuality fulfils the natural end of there being
male and
female.
Homosexuality does not.
Homosexuality is accepted because of the idea that it represents somebodies true sexual identity, merely because somebody experiences an attraction. But attraction is not what defines objective sexual identity. Homosexuality is no more a true sexual identity any more than having a sexual attraction to animals or children is a true sexual identity. No rational person would say that its somebodies sexual identity to have sex with trees on the basis that he or she has an attraction to trees. Its a disordered attraction that has developed over time. This attraction does not fall in line with the proper end to which his or her biological expression is in act; a sexual relationship between a male and a female.
No, I’m saying that, like you, white supremacists think that they have good arguments. I don’t think that their beliefs or yours are true.
People cannot sufficiently defend homosexuality, thus they have now resorted to emotional blackmail. By comparing the plight of homosexual persons with the horrors of racism and slavery, they achieve their agenda by trying to make the question of homosexuality a forbidden question; in the sense that one is not allowed to question homosexuality (let alone debate it) under pain of being a prejudice bigot. However; calling somebody a bigot is irrational if it has no objective moral truth to it. It amounts to nothing more than emotional blackmail. It is not a reasonable refutation of my argument and is very little more than childish name calling.
But in any case, your argument is a false argument. You are saying that because white supremacists believe they are correct that therefore Catholics are necessarily incorrect in their moral inferences and are thus necessarily bigots and supremacists that should not be taken seriously. Thus we should only believe what atheists believe to be moral. Its a false comparison since it does not show us that any of the arguments against homosexuality is false. But lets face it, this is how homosexuality survives as a public mode of expression, by making false comparisons between racism and the suppression of homosexuality. By doing so, they create the illusions that homosexuals are an oppressed people. It is just a device to scare people in to thinking that they are being prejudiced by falsely coupling them with white supremacists without justification. The fact is nobody has any good reason to be racists once one understands the proper grounds of objective moral truth; and the idea that because people make mistakes when reasoning out the right and wrongs of things, that we should therefore reject moral inferences and accept homosexuality, is quite simply ridiculous.
In reality you use natural law all the time. When one believes that human nature ought to be valued, you are saying that the proper end of human nature is as such that it ought to be valued. We have good reason to doubt the legitimacy of homosexual acts because it is a disorder of the intrinsic purpose made evident in the fact of our being male and female, just as much as having a sexual attraction to an animal is a disorder of the fact that we are human. If our being male and female and human is intrinsically valuable, we ought not to stoop so low as to act in a manner that undermines the value of what we are.
