Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[Charlemagne_II]

Gary

*Charlemagne your “very” defensive and I believe theres a bit of denial. Thats through 3 of your posts? Is it because of societys attack or you need to defend something you really do feel is wrong?

Look lets be real here? Shall we? *

This is so oblique as to be indecipherable. Do you mind explaining yourself more clearly?

I’m trying to be real here, and as a fellow Catholic, you should be too. In plain English, what is your problem?

 

[larkin31]

larkin

How would one know this? What are you talking about? You would decide on gossip and rumor?

Both gay and heterosexual child molesters are regularly identified by picture and address at a certain time of every week on our local television station. Not exactly gossip and rumor.

Would you want your children going into the homes of such parents to play with their children?

If you say yes, then I know you are thinking off the wall.

Oh, you mean “criminals who have already been convicted of harming children.” Well, duh.

That is not what I asked about. We are talking about the danger of children’s friends who have gay parents but whom have never been convicted of sex crimes. And then comparing them to the children of hetero parents, who also have never been convicted of sex crimes. (You, know, like most people have not). And then the consistency of knowing whether or not the hetero parents practice immoral sex versus whether or not the gay parents do, and then whether or not one’s children should associate with the children of the other couple.

 

[tonyrey]

This all goes bad in #4, not surprisingly, where you try to deduce something rather than state facts.

There has been no documented “increase in homosexuality.” Not by anyone, ever. All we have a rough estimates, and the estimates are low and have been unchanging.

Lowering birth rates are well-known to be connected to other social issues. I will let you look them up.

1. Do you think the concept of sexual liberation is a myth?
2. Would that and the decline in religious belief have had no effect on the incidence of homosexuality?
3. Do you think homosexuals are as likely to reproduce as heterosexuals?
4. Do you agree with points 1 to 3?

My aim is to establish that homosexuality is not wrong if it has a genetic cause but it is harmful if it distorts a person’s natural orientation. Whether it is culpable depends on an individual’s knowledge and beliefs - like drug addiction. The quest for pleasure is not intrinsically evil but when it damages our health and personal relations it is immoral.

What? If you define “sexual liberation,” maybe I will know how you mean this question.

The belief that adults should be free to choose to have sexual relations simply for pleasure with a person of either sex (or both) regardless of factors like promiscuity or commitment.

1. Would sexual liberation and the decline in religious belief have had no effect on the incidence of homosexuality?

1. Do you think homosexuals are as likely to reproduce as heterosexuals?

No, they are not, statistically. But gays are not produced by gays. Heterosexuals have gay children.

The point is that homosexuals are a statistical biological minority the size of which has been increased by the sexual revolution and the decline in religious belief. Ironically the increase in teenage pregnancies indicates that there has also been an increase in teenage homosexual activity! It would be bizarre if it were confined to heterosexuals…

1. Do you agree with points 1 to 3?

Sorry, no. But please define #1 for me.
How can I define a statement?? Why do you disagree with 2 and 3?

My aim is to establish that homosexuality is not wrong if it has a genetic cause but it is harmful if it distorts a person’s natural orientation. Whether it is culpable depends on an individual’s knowledge and beliefs - like drug addiction. The quest for pleasure is not intrinsically evil but when it damages our health and personal relations it is immoral.

What does this have to do with the questions above?
The quest for pleasure includes the quest for sexual pleasure.

Of course the quest for pleasure is wrong if it is harmful in some way. That is self-evident.

So the quest for sexual pleasure is wrong if it is harmful…

 

[larkin31]

larkin31;6911077:

The belief that adults should be free to choose to have sexual relations simply for pleasure with a person of either sex (or both) regardless of factors like promiscuity or commitment.

1. Would sexual liberation and the decline in religious belief have had no effect on the incidence of homosexuality?

I see. Thanks. I have no idea how the changing sexual mores “would have” affected gay sexual behavior. This is all speculation. We do know that gays are more open now, and I consider that a very good, healthy development, both for gays and for society.

The point is that homosexuals are a statistical biological minority the size of which has been increased by the sexual revolution and the decline in religious belief.

There are no statistics supporting your claim that there are more gays in recent decades.

Ironically the increase in teenage pregnancies indicates that there has also been an increase in teenage homosexual activity!

“Activity”? Are you discussing incidence of “activity” or incidence of homosexual “orientation” in the population?

 

[larkin31]

So the quest for sexual pleasure is wrong if it is harmful…

Harmful to whom? And by “wrong,” do you mean “immoral”? I can’t tell what I am being asked here.

Committing “harm,” generally speaking, is not a behavior to be pursued. But we all know that at times we MUST commit harms in order to do what is ethical. There are no easy answers here…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin
*
That is not what I asked about. We are talking about the danger of children’s friends who have gay parents but whom have never been convicted of sex crimes. And then comparing them to the children of hetero parents, who also have never been convicted of sex crimes. (You, know, like most people have not). And then the consistency of knowing whether or not the hetero parents practice immoral sex versus whether or not the gay parents do, and then whether or not one’s children should associate with the children of the other couple. *

Still not sure how to answer this kind of question. Do you mean: Do I use binoculars to spy on my neighbors?

No sir. But there are ways we always hear about our neighbors morals without spying on them. Gossip is not a reliable source, but sometimes it’s true. You add up the evidence as it comes in. When you get enough evidence that sends up a red flag, you act accordingly in the interests of your child. You don’t trust someone who is notorious for a loose life of drugs or sex that you would let your children into their house under any circumstances … not if you love your child.

This has nothing to do with the legal regarding of people as innocent until proven guilty. It has everything to do with taking a sane course to protect both the life and the morals of your own children. I would not want my child in the home of anyone who is promiscuous or perverse, gay or straight.

 

[larkin31]

larkin
*
That is not what I asked about. We are talking about the danger of children’s friends who have gay parents but whom have never been convicted of sex crimes. And then comparing them to the children of hetero parents, who also have never been convicted of sex crimes. (You, know, like most people have not). And then the consistency of knowing whether or not the hetero parents practice immoral sex versus whether or not the gay parents do, and then whether or not one’s children should associate with the children of the other couple. *

Still not sure how to answer this kind of question. Do you mean: Do I use binoculars to spy on my neighbors?

No sir. But there are ways we always hear about our neighbors morals without spying on them. Gossip is not a reliable source, but sometimes it’s true. You add up the evidence as it comes in. When you get enough evidence that sends up a red flag, you act accordingly in the interests of your child. You don’t trust someone who is notorious for a loose life of drugs or sex that you would let your children into their house under any circumstances … not if you love your child.

This has nothing to do with the legal regarding of people as innocent until proven guilty. It has everything to do with taking a sane course to protect both the life and the morals of your own children. I would not want my child in the home of anyone who is promiscuous or perverse, gay or straight.

My point is that you apply your standards unevenly in that you have no idea in most cases about the private morality of the sexual conduct of married couples. Heterosexual private sins among married couples are tolerated in much greater degree than even the co-habitation of two men (or women) who may just be “friends.” If you mean to suggest that you are equal and just in your application of moral censorship, I will reply that that is nearly impossible, and you should publish a book about it.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

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 think this is a mistake about natural law. On the other hand, it may not be such a mistake about certain members of this forum or of people in the world in general.

I think natural law, when dealing with homosexual acts or with contraceptive acts (both of which I have threads for now) is far less interesting or useful than natural law applied to other situations.

Natural law is at its most interesting, for me, when applied to the issue of private property, or government. This is because it’s most ambiguous in these regions, and so there’s a wide range of available opinion and study. The most difficult problems for natural law are in this regime, I think.

Natural law is at its most useful for me when applied to human pride, and the right end of the use of the human intellect, because this is where I sin most greatly, and so this is where I can grow most. Natural law has been a great boon for my moral development, and has (in part) made me a happier person, a more productive scientist, and generally an easier person to get along with.

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.

I think it bridges the is-ought gap axiomatically (as do most ethical systems, if you think about it. It’s either an axiom or a loaded definition). That is that every action and group of actions committed by any indvidual tends toward a certain end, and that a will that wills a different end than the purposed end necessarily wills something evil (something that is not the proper good).

This exposes the two great weaknesses of natural law. It possesses one weakness common to all ethical systems I have studied, in that it necessarily relies on certain principles, the rejection of which ends the conversation. For example, if someone simply disagrees with the categorical imperative, or thinks that suffering has nothing to do with what is right, we might be skeptical of his or her dismissal, but the rational argument about deontology or utilitarianism pretty-much ends there, and all we have left is an appeal to conscience.

Either you agree with the premises, in which case we can debate conclusions, or you disagree with the premises, in which case we’d be better off seeing where your ethical framework and mine (natural law) happen to coincide. If you abide by pragmatism, you should favor natural law, at least in my case (and under most circumstances), because of the benefits I’ve already mentioned.

The second problem with natural law is its inherent uncertainty. Because it is difficult to determine what the proper purpose is for many human actions, there is a necessary error, a serious potential to be wrong, for any conclusion from natural law.

After all, if this weren’t the case, why did St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the chief architects of natural law, give primacy of place to the citations of Scripture, Tradition, and the Liturgy, when discussing natural law?

Thank you for your measured response,

Paul

 

[Daedelus76]

However, there are countless numbers of Catholics enjoying happy and productive lives because they have built the true precepts of that gift into their everyday worlds.
May I suggest, and I mean this with all respect, that your view of the Magisterial teaching as “narrow” may only seem that way when compared to the arrogant profusion of distorted versions of human sexuality in the world today?

You have no argument, so you appeal to dogmatism. Sorry, i don’t have to buy that. I think social sciences and psychology are better for understanding human sexuality than the tomes of celibate theologians from the middle ages.

Yes, the RCC teaching is beautiful, unless you are gay or single or poor. Then it gives you a simple answer, be celibate or go to hell. Universal, insensitive rules nswers for everybody, and religiously imposed guilt awaiting those who cannot comply. And this is what Jesus Christ’s good news amounts to? Debunked medieval philosophy.

 

[edwest2]

My point is that you apply your standards unevenly in that you have no idea in most cases about the private morality of the sexual conduct of married couples. Heterosexual private sins among married couples are tolerated in much greater degree than even the co-habitation of two men (or women) who may just be “friends.” If you mean to suggest that you are equal and just in your application of moral censorship, I will reply that that is nearly impossible, and you should publish a book about it.

It took 40 years of Christians being told to shut up and mind your own business. When Christians protested against Adult Bookstores, we were told they were protected by the First Amendment and by their lawyers and millions of dollars. When Christians protested against Prostitution, we were told it was a ‘victimless crime.’

We never wanted to look into anybody’s bedroom window. Sex was private, it was between two married people and it was not to be discussed except with a doctor or counsellor. Everything was designed to be dealt with in an appropriate manner.

Now, sexuality is literally in your face. What was hidden to ensure human dignity was now exposed inappropriately.

There should be censorship of certain topics on public airwaves. I don’t need to turn on my radio and hear two guys talking about a recent sexual encounter.

God bless,
Ed

 

[larkin31]

It took 40 years of Christians being told to shut up and mind your own business. When Christians protested against Adult Bookstores, we were told they were protected by the First Amendment and by their lawyers and millions of dollars. When Christians protested against Prostitution, we were told it was a ‘victimless crime.’

We never wanted to look into anybody’s bedroom window. Sex was private, it was between two married people and it was not to be discussed except with a doctor or counsellor. Everything was designed to be dealt with in an appropriate manner.

Now, sexuality is literally in your face. What was hidden to ensure human dignity was now exposed inappropriately.

There should be censorship of certain topics on public airwaves. I don’t need to turn on my radio and hear two guys talking about a recent sexual encounter.

God bless,
Ed

Progress toward greater freedom and justice is sometimes painful. God put that tree with fruit right in Eve’s (and Adam’s) face, after all. They couldn’t and didn’t say, “I’d rather not see that.” Adult life IS having to live freely in a world that can be ugly and sinful and dangerous and sexual, and then we must learn to love it and care for it and embrace it anyway. It IS what the garden of Eden story is all about.

 

[tonyrey]

The belief that adults should be free to choose to have sexual relations simply for pleasure with a person of either sex (or both) regardless of factors like promiscuity or commitment.

You have no idea how changing sexual mores have affected sexual behaviour in general?
What about the decline in religious belief? Is that irrelevant?

This is all speculation.

It would be more to the point to refute the points I have made.

We do know that gays are more open now, and I consider that a very good, healthy development, both for gays and for society.

Is increased promiscuity and venereal disease a very good, healthy development?

The point is that homosexuals are a statistical biological minority the size of which has been increased by the sexual revolution and the decline in religious belief.

There are no statistics supporting your claim that there are more gays in recent decades.

Do you base every claim you make on statistics? The fact that you have not refuted the points I have made weakens your implication that there have not been more gays in recent decades.

Ironically the increase in teenage pregnancies indicates that there has also been an increase in teenage homosexual activity!

“Activity”? Are you discussing incidence of “activity” or incidence of homosexual “orientation” in the population?

Both. They are not unrelated…

 

[edwest2]

Progress toward greater freedom and justice is sometimes painful. God put that tree with fruit right in Eve’s (and Adam’s) face, after all. They couldn’t and didn’t say, “I’d rather not see that.” Adult life IS having to live freely in a world that can be ugly and sinful and dangerous and sexual, and then we must learn to love it and care for it and embrace it anyway. It IS what the garden of Eden story is all about.

The Eden story was about obedience. By being disobedient the Devil got a foothold in our world. I’m not going to embrace the darkness. I will turn toward the light of God.

To my brothers and sisters in Christ - be obedient to the Teaching Authority of the Church. Be resolute. And if you should fall, get back up and get forgiveness.

God bless,
Ed

 

[tonyrey]

So the quest for sexual pleasure is wrong if it is harmful.

Harmful to individuals and society. By “wrong” in this context I mean that which is harmful to
individuals and society.

Committing “harm,” generally speaking, is not a behavior to be pursued. But we all know that at times we MUST commit harms in order to do what is ethical. There are no easy answers here…

When is harmful homosexual activity necessary to do what is ethical?

 

[larkin31]

You have no idea how changing sexual mores have affected sexual behaviour in general?
What about the decline in religious belief? Is that irrelevant?

Look, if you know this, then just tell us.

Is increased promiscuity and venereal disease a very good, healthy development?

I presume that this is a rhetorical question for some purpose. Why don’t you just cut to the chase and make your point.

Do you base every claim you make on statistics? The fact that you have not refuted the points I have made weakens your implication that there have not been more gays in recent decades.

I take this to mean that you do not know if there are more or not, either. You asked a numbers question. You need to give a numbers answer.

Both. They are not unrelated…

This is sloppy thinking. Make your claims clear, and I will reply.

 

[tonyrey]

You have no idea how changing sexual mores have affected sexual behaviour in general?
What about the decline in religious belief? Is that irrelevant?

You obviously do not want to commit yourself in any way whatsoever. Anyone can play at that game…

Is increased promiscuity and venereal disease a very good, healthy development?

I presume that this is a rhetorical question for some purpose. Why don’t you just cut to the chase and make your point.

I have made my points but you question them without refuting them.

Do you base every claim you make on statistics? The fact that you have not refuted the points I have made weakens your implication that there have not been more gays in recent decades.

I take this to mean that you do not know if there are more or not, either. You asked a numbers question. You need to give a numbers answer.

You need to give at least **one **answer, let alone a numbers answer!

Both. They are not unrelated…

This is sloppy thinking. Make your claims clear, and I will reply.

It is clearly a waste of time trying to reason with a person who does nothing but resort to evasions. I can understand why you have become an agnostic. You question everything except your own opinion! It remains to be seen how you fare with others on this forum…

 

[larkin31]

You obviously do not want to commit yourself in any way whatsoever. Anyone can play at that game…

I have made my points but you question them without refuting them.
You need to give at least **one **answer, let alone a numbers answer!

It is clearly a waste of time trying to reason with a person who does nothing but resort to evasions. It remains to be seen how you fare with others on this forum…

My answer on numbers is: “I don’t know.” I have never read an estimate of gay population as a percent of total population that has ranged much above or below 3-5%. And none of these estimates have ever looked back through time, that I am aware of.

If you “know” something different, lay it out here. Then we will all know something more specific. If you are simply asking me to support your speculation, then ask someone else to. I don’t engage in that.

But, if you are simply asking, "Do more unmarried persons now have sex than 50 years ago? I would say, “Yes, but I have no idea precisely how many more.”

If you want to claim that because more people have sex now, that THEREFORE there must be more homosexuals in the world," well that is false reasoning because for the same reason there would have to be MORE heterosexuals also, and we can’t really have more of both. Increased sexual activity does not produce more persons of any sexual orientation.

Orientation is not practice and are not causally related. That I am aware of.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Much of this is already done by states. This is our federal system. There are also some checks on the range of state laws (they can’t do just ANYTHING…).

Yes, and I think they already do too much. The word “marriage” shouldn’t be defined by the state at all. The government should just exit the business entirely. For example, I think the legislation should determine that in cases like “In re Marriage Cases”, the state cannot attempt the marriage of one man and one woman, or two men, or two women, or any other combination.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Do you think the concept of sexual liberation is a myth?
2. Would that and the decline in religious belief have had no effect on the incidence of homosexuality?
3. Do you think homosexuals are as likely to reproduce as heterosexuals?
4. Do you agree with points 1 to 3?

Thank you for your kind words. It’s refreshing to know there are reasonable people on this forum.

 

[larkin31]

… When is harmful homosexual activity necessary to do what is ethical?

What?

No one said it was. I don’t even understand why you are writing this.

What are you calling “harmful homosexual activity”? Harmful heterosexual activity is not likely to be ethical, either.