Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[larkin31]

larkin

*Why are genitals not allowed pleasurable “purpose” beyond one form of sex, but the mouth is? The ears are. The eyes are. The skin is. Etc. *

Look, if you don’t believe me, ask a physician. The penis was not designed for the rectum, and can do harm to the rectum.!

Why do you keep focusing on penises and rectums? There is much more to non-procreative sexual pleasure than this, even for homosexuals. Don’t forget the lesbians!

 

[Leela]

Leela

I* think the notion of a Human Nature to which we are obligated to conform is something that ought to be de-valued. A description of the way things are can’t tell us how things ought to be*.

This is a curious statement, but I see why you adopt it because it furthers the homosexual agenda.

The Is-Ought gap is a well established philosophical issue. It isn’t something “curious” that I made up to promote some agenda. No was has found a convincing way to get past David Hume and derive an ought from an is.

In other words, no one has been able to form an argument that goes…

(1) X is true
(2) Y is true
(3) therefore Z ought to be true.

Yet you are assuming the logic of such arguments in the application of Natural Law. Your leap from descriptions of the way things are (what is natural) to the way things ought to be (what is moral) just sounds like a non sequitor after Hume. Likewise, the notion that X was designed for this purpose, therefore to use it for some other purpose is immoral doesn’t follow. Finding a good use for something for which is was not originally designed is resourcefulness rather than immorality.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

The medical profession was designed to save lives, including the lives of babies in the womb. That is the way things are. But you are saying, “Doctors should not be told they ought not to kill babies in the womb.”

No one is saying that. The analogy is, though the medical profession may have been created to promote physical health, some medical practices have been found to be good fro promoting mental health as well. The absurd Natural Law argument would be that medicines were initially created for prolonging life so they should not be used to enrich life in other ways such as treating mental illness.

 

[Leela]

What would make me happiest is if the State would get out of the business of marriage, and leave the definition up to whatever faith community wants to define it.

Agreed.

 

[Leela]

Not much of an answer, Leela, if it was even meant to be one. More of an ejaculation.

Yeah I guess I side stepped your argument. I did so because there is no point in me trying to come up with any more counter examples when you can simply maintain your initial claim by restating it as only applying to a more and more narrow set of cases. (When you reach a contradiction make a distinction.) Eventually I think we would see that “proper us” as immorality only applies to the special cases of penises, vaginas, and rectums and this general principle is revealed as a specific prejudice against homosexual acts.

I’m not at all convinced that it follows logically to say that X was designed for Y therefore to us it for Z is immoral. Using X for Z may indeed be immoral, but talk of Nature gets us nowhere in articulating what is wrong about it because of that Is-Ought gap.

Best,
Leela

 

[edwest2]

Agreed.

Then why is the State forcing homosexual education on children in Massachusetts? Parents have the right to bring up their children as they see fit and the State should not have a say in school regarding this subject.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Leela]

Then why is the State forcing homosexual education on children in Massachusetts? Parents have the right to bring up their children as they see fit and the State should not have a say in school regarding this subject.

I think the state should encourage education against irrational prejudices. Why would you not want children to see that homosexuals can be good parents? Are you afraid that it would somehow encourage them to be gay???

 

[edwest2]

I think the state should encourage education against irrational prejudices. Why would you not want children to see that homosexuals can be good parents? Are you afraid that it would somehow encourage them to be gay???

Why should books promoting gay sexuality be given to children? Why not books about the customs of Mexico?

Force will not be tolerated, especially when the State, not the parents, decide, along with gay activists, what direction to engineer society.

This is just a social engineering experiment.

God bless,
Ed

 

[larkin31]

Then why is the State forcing homosexual education on children in Massachusetts? Parents have the right to bring up their children as they see fit and the State should not have a say in school regarding this subject.

God bless,
Ed

“Homosexual education” is not a thing in reality. It can’t be “forced” on anyone because it does not exist.

You can’t study art or music or literature without studying the work of gays. Well, you could, but then you would be simply skipping some of the best. Is, say, the poetry of WH Auden what you consider “homosexual education”? I do study this in class (a little) and I do not let students opt out. And a bunch know that he was gay (common knowledge, wikipedia, etc). No parents complain, either. But do you?

 

[larkin31]

Why should books promoting gay sexuality be given to children? Why not books about the customs of Mexico?

Force will not be tolerated, especially when the State, not the parents, decide, along with gay activists, what direction to engineer society.

This is just a social engineering experiment.

God bless,
Ed

All parenting is a “social engineering experiment.” Get off your high horse and back into reality.

Do you have school-aged children? Did you ever? Story books that include children of gay parents are used primarily to de-mystify the “otherness” of gay parenting (in the way that single-parent books did when my kids were young) to help reduce harassment and bullying (picking on the kids of “other”).

Queer is here to stay. That is all there is to it. It always HAS been here; the mask will just no longer work.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

leela

Finding a good use for something for which is was not originally designed is resourcefulness rather than immorality.

Why is a penis up a rectum a “good use” and “resourceful” when it is not only painful but can produce permanent rectal damage?

 

[larkin31]

leela

Finding a good use for something for which is was not originally designed is resourcefulness rather than immorality.

Why is a penis up a rectum a “good use” and “resourceful” when it is not only painful but can produce permanent rectal damage?

why so much focus on anal sex? Let me repeat: THERE IS MUCH MORE TO NON-PROCREATIVE SEXUAL PLEASURE THAN ANAL SEX. And yet the RCC views it ALL as sinful. But don’t stake your position on your displeasure with anal sex (even if only in idea). Our personal pleasures and displeasures are not the point, are they? Or ARE THEY?

 

[colmcille1]

I think the state should encourage education against irrational prejudices. Why would you not want children to see that homosexuals can be good parents? Are you afraid that it would somehow encourage them to be gay???

That is EXACTLY the whole point of the gay agenda. They cannot win the “born gay” argument so they then choose the educational sphere in order to teach the kids how to be gay. I’m really surprised I had to point this out to you. Where have you been for the past thirty years? It is because of the constant drumming of their message that moreand more true Catholics are standing up to them.
Also, your argument about the “resourcefulness” use of the male sex organ is bordering on absurdly fanatical. What if a heterosexual man approached his wife with this “resourceful” spiel in order to pressurise her into a sex avt she was deeply uncomfortable with? What sort of skewed thinking have we formed here?

 

[larkin31]

That is EXACTLY the whole point of the gay agenda. They cannot win the “born gay” argument so they then choose the educational sphere in order to teach the kids how to be gay.

The books for school children don’t do this. You are wrong.

I’m really surprised I had to point this out to you. Where have you been for the past thirty years?

I have been a school teacher since 1984. Where have you been? I am married to a second grade teacher (since 1990).

oh wait, was this directed to another poster?? Oh well, here is my answer too…

 

[colmcille1]

All parenting is a “social engineering experiment.” Get off your high horse and back into reality.

Do you have school-aged children? Did you ever? Story books that include children of gay parents are used primarily to de-mystify the “otherness” of gay parenting (in the way that single-parent books did when my kids were young) to help reduce harassment and bullying (picking on the kids of “other”).

Queer is here to stay. That is all there is to it. It always HAS been here; the mask will just no longer work.

No, sir, you are gravely mistaken when you glibly state that all parenting is social engineering.
Catholic parents do not force feed their children the stuff that some schools do.
Study after study has shown that a child best prospers within a family unit that includes his father and mother.
We must always have the interest of the child foremost in our hearts and minds. They are not appendages to a “gay lifestyle”>

 

[colmcille1]

The books for school children don’t do this. You are wrong.

I have been a school teacher since 1984. Where have you been? I am married to a second grade teacher (since 1990).

oh wait, was this directed to another poster?? Oh well, here is my answer too…

The technique employed by the gay agenda is the drip drip effect. Get the message out there whatever the apparent surface innocence. If you are saying I am wrong, then you had better be on extraordinarily solid ground because you are saying all true Catholics are wrong also.

 

[tonyrey]

A non-Christian may be prepared to concede that homosexual deviant acts are ‘unnatural’ in the sense that some things plainly have inherent functions (termed teleologies by philosophers). Thus to use one’s reproductive organs for purposes other than that for which they were intended (i.e. procreation) is manfestly unnatural.

However, whilst they might allow that homosexual genital acts are aberrant and unnatural, they would say that that does not necessarily make them wrong. They want to know how one leaps from unnatural to wrong. Thus, by way of example they will say that the bridge of the nose was not intended to hold glasses (an unnatural use), nevertheless, it is clearly not a ‘wrong’ thing to do. Again hair on the head is natures way of preventing heat loss, so to shave one’s head is unnatural and frustrates the function of hair. However, nobody would seriously argue that a No. 0 haircut was ‘wrong’. Likewise, they would contend that homosexual deviant acts may well be unnatural, or contrary to inherent functions, but that does not thereby render them wrong and improper.

The percentage of homosexuals in Western society far exceeds the percentage of genetic homosexuals. This fact implies that many are living unnaturally with detrimental effects on their physical and psychological health. It is certainly morally wrong to make themselves a burden on society by ignoring the consequences of their behaviour but the difficulty is to know to what extent they are culpable. Ignorance of the law is no defence but ignorance of one’s true sexual orientation probably is!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If you need a definition of them, I will be glad to cut and paste something from the experts.

I know what justice is; I am a Catholic which means that i believe in objective moral values. I am asking you what you mean by justice. It sounds like something you made up.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

*Queer is here to stay. That is all there is to it. It always HAS been here; the mask will just no longer work. *

You don’t know history. That’s what gays were bragging in Berlin in the 1920s.

Hitler had other plans, and he executed them without opposition. A thing that can happen in one country can happen in any country, though you may at present be smug enough to think it can’t.

You appear to be of a rather tender age. Queer was as repulsive to Plato as it was to Paul. Yes, homosexuality is universal. So is incest. So is rape. It’s all here to stay. That doesn’t mean unnatural sex is right, or that all straight people have to deny the utter repulsion they have for unnatural sex and must be forbidden (and judged bigots) for keeping their children as far away from the gay scene as possible.

 

[edwest2]

“Homosexual education” is not a thing in reality. It can’t be “forced” on anyone because it does not exist.

You can’t study art or music or literature without studying the work of gays. Well, you could, but then you would be simply skipping some of the best. Is, say, the poetry of WH Auden what you consider “homosexual education”? I do study this in class (a little) and I do not let students opt out. And a bunch know that he was gay (common knowledge, wikipedia, etc). No parents complain, either. But do you?

This is what I’m talking about:

massresistance.org/docs/info/kbase/horror_stories.html

God bless,
Ed