Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[edwest2]

Truth is of course true. That should go without saying. The point is, why should someone else believe you when you say that you possess the truth? “Because I said so” is certainly not enough to convince many of us. “Because the church says so” may be enough for you, but most of us don’t submit to the authority of your church. In fact Most Catholics don’t submit the church in that way given that the majority of American Catholics (according to polls) disagree withe their church on some significant issue.

Then there is still the question, even if you are convinced that it is true that homosexuality is immoral, is it important that we make a law preventing it? For example, even though we all agree that it is immoral to refuse to help an old lady cross the street when asked for help, few of us think there ought to be a law requiring us to help. What place is there for virtue when morality is enforced with the coercive power of government? Some morality we think ought to be coerced and some not. Where do you draw the line? What makes you think that the government ought to be involved in dictating who can and can’t love one another?

Best,
Leela

The issue is not about homosexual persons. I understand the love concept in this case. But as the New York Times has pointed out, along with another publication:

sfbaytimes.com/?sec=article&article_id=12499

Long-term or monogomous relationships don’t appear to be the issue.

The government is made out to be the enemy here. And a dictator. Who decides to restrain the criminal? Why do we define laws prohibiting certain behaviors?

There is no law prohibiting homosexuality.

Who defines virtue? A functional society operates on shared agreement among members of the people. Somebody decides something and we all, or most of us, agree to abide by it.

The issue here is not homosexuality, it is gay marriage. Something which never existed in the US. The other problem is that gay people, even if allowed to marry, are not content to simply live next door and go on with their lives. They are forcing the State to brainwash young people with books, appearances by their husband or wife and other events that promote gay sexuality. Heteros don’t put on parades for this reason and do not tell their students how great it is to be hetero.

As I’ve written before, gay people can enter into any kind of relationship they want right now. So, why did I see same-sex marriage on the ballot a few years back? Why was my consent sought out? If gay people want to commit, they can commit to each other and that’s that, right?

Prior to demanding same-sex marriage, I’m certain gay people were doing whatever they wanted.

God bless,
Ed

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The answer to the original poster’s question is still, “No.”

My following argument is presented over two posts. The following is not an argument proposing that homosexuality should be illegal. I believe that it should be legal. However I believe that there ought to be limits on its legality. In other-words it should not be promoted as an objectively moral act; even though it is a legal act. And neither should children be given to gay couples, unless under the extreme circumstance that a gay couple was the only choice for the safety and well being of a child. I also think that perhaps marriage between gay people should be a private affair, although I do not consider state marriage to be genuine marriage, as I do not believe that we live in Christian countries any more. That ended with the split of church and state.

1. The majority of pro gay and pro choice defenders, who are not Christian, are not consistent moral nihilists in practice. Most people who defend homosexuality, do so because they feel that if they didn’t they would be siding with a point of view that is immoral. It is not just presented as an ideological point view. The strength of the homosexual movement is moral in nature; not ideological. Their whole argument presupposes the existence of human persons who ought to know better or should know that such and such is wrong, and can be reasoned with in this fashion. The majority of People (atheist or not) really do think that its a “moral truth”; that to be anti gay is to be immoral. Most people who are persuaded into being pro gay, or in the case of abortion pro choice, are persuaded for reasons of moral conscience. Pro gay supporters promote their case as a moral issue because they want you to recognise the immorality of being anti gay. They might consciously reject religion, but their attitudes about “morally truth” can only be proved consistent with a belief in objective moral values. I think everybody, deep down, knows that Objective Moral Values exist. It is self evident in our experience of being a person.

2. Homosexuality appears to have a strong case because there are many aspects to the argument that is genuine. The best lies are the ones with a healthy degree of truth to them. For instance, gay people fall in love, and people feel they ought to value love. Thus it is easy to be guilt tripped, and therefore forget that its a disorder and brush it aside as if its irrelevant. This is also true of abortion. The pro-choices have one thing going for them, the rights of women and human rights in general. People feel that they ought to value human rights. Thus, if they do not reason well, it is easy for them to be confused and brainwashed in to forgetting that one is destroying a human person.

To be continued…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

3. It is evident that disorders and deformities exist, whether mental or biological.

4. Objectively speaking, a disorder or deformity is, by definition, something that impedes or damages the natural, rational, and teleological end of an organism.

5. My mother (an Atheist) once said that she just knows when somebody is mentally ill. Of course, we can sometimes be mistaken, but we are nevertheless mistaken about something that truly happens to people, I.e insanity. People really do go crazy. We instinctively, intuitively, or rationally perceive the natural, rational, and teleological ends to which organisms are in act. That is why we have concepts such as disorder, deformities, and mental illnesses, because we perceive these things in organisms that are no longer open to their natural end, an end which is evidently defined by their natural state of being. Disorders and deformities are objectively real, or at least there is no good or justified reason to doubt their reality. There is a way that things ought to be.

6. Deformities, disorders, and mental illnesses restrict or destroy what we are by nature. It takes away our true and natural identities.

7. Human Sexuality, free of any disorder, is genetically/biologically male or female.

8. To be a man is only intelligible in-respect of there being such a thing as a women.

9. A Man’s nature is ordered to the natural end of mating and relating with a women, and in relation to that end there are psychological realities that consistently support that end; such as the sexual desire to be with a women.

10. Sometimes people develop conflicting desires that do not correlate with the natural end to which they are in act. These are disorders of ones true nature and identity. Men and women are not suppose to fall love with trees or have sex with animals or have sexual relationships with babies no matter how much they love them. It is true that Paedophilia is damaging and abusive, but this is not the only reason why it ought to be rejected. Paedophilia is a disorder of our natural end, our identity.

11. The objective moral good in the context of this present life, by definition, is that which fulfils the natural/rational/teleological end to which “human beings” are in act. But it is not just the fulfilment of one particular desire in spite of the metaphysical whole that is a person; rather, it is the united fulfilment of everything a person naturally is as a whole. The only way this can be overridden, is if some greater good, such as a service to God, requires or necessitates abstinence from earthly concerns.

12. Part of being a person is being either a man or a women. The natural end of being a man or a women is to be in a heterosexual relationship. More particularly, a loving relationship, falling in love, is a function or aspect of human sexuality as much as it is an expression of being a person, and is thus necessarily ordered to the creation of more human persons. This is the purpose of human love in relation to sexuality. It is not something that is separate from the fact of our having sexuality. Notice that straight people don’t generally “fall in love” with people of the same sex, at least they don’t fall in love in the same way they fall in love with the opposite sex. Falling in love is evidently an aspect of human sexuality, and is suppose to be for the purpose of raring children in a loving family environment; this to is evidently the natural teleological end of human sexuality. This is not surprising given that a proper metaphysical understanding of objective love is most fundamentally the sharing of existence

13. Homosexuality, while it can be expressed in love, is not consistently true to everything that we are as persons. It is not true to the fact that we are men or women; it is not true to the fact that we are by nature heterosexual, and it is not true to the fact they we are by nature ordered to the end of creating more people. Therefore on that basis it is not good; and more importantly it is not a true objective sexuality, no more than having sexual attractions to trees, elephants, or babies. It destroys our sexual identity, it does not fulfil it.

14. Thus, homosexuality is immoral insofar as it is not ordered to good of objective human nature.

15. Thus, natural law does provide good evidence against homosexuality, once one accepts the teleological and moral aspects of reality, which I believe is evident for all to see.

 

[Leela]

3. It is evident that disorders and deformities exist, whether mental or biological.

No doubt, what remains to be demonstrated is that they are also immoral.

4.

Objectively speaking, a disorder or deformity is, by definition, something that impedes or damages the natural, rational, and teleological end of an organism.
…[bit about your mom]…
6. Deformities, disorders, and mental illnesses restrict or destroy what we are by nature. It takes away our true and natural identities.

I once watched a story on TV about a woman with no arms. Was her natural identity lost when she lost her arms?

7.

Human Sexuality, free of any disorder, is genetically/biologically male or female.

Whether you call homosexuality disordered or unnatural still doesn’t imply that it is immoral. The woman with no arms taught herself to drive a car with her feet. Was that immoral? Should someone with such a disorder just give up on driving altogether, or is it moral for her to cope as best she can?

…

15.

Thus, natural law does provide good evidence against homosexuality, once one accepts the teleological and moral aspects of reality, which I believe is evident for all to see.

Such arguments only work on people who think that such cases made about the way things are now can tell us about the way things ought to be in the future. There are few of us left after the Enlightenment who still think that the fact that the despots have always ruled is a convincing argument for saying that they ought to continue to rule.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Whether you call homosexuality disordered or unnatural still doesn’t imply that it is immoral.

Of course, if you quote my argument out of context of everything else stated in the argument, it might appear as if that is the case.

 

[larkin31]

…If gay people want to commit, they can commit to each other and that’s that, right?

That it is enough for you means nothing at all about whether it is enough for others. That you do not pursue justice means not at all that others should not if they be so inclined.

 

[larkin31]

Of course, if you quote my argument out of context of everything else stated in the argument, it might appear as if that is the case.

There was nothing out of context done here. She treated several of your points. She is cutting to the chase. I, for one, appreciate the succinctness.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

There was nothing out of context done here. She treated several of your points. She is cutting to the chase. I, for one, appreciate the succinctness.

Assertions such as this only makes evident your unwillingness to face the argument as it is truly presented.

*From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.”*

 

[larkin31]

Assertions such as this only makes evident your unwillingness to face the argument as it is truly presented.

*From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.”*

Look at your #15.

What is it that one must “accept”? (you sneak this in last, but in your argument it must actually be assumed first). We don’t fall for that trick, and she rightly questioned your stated assumption.

Keep trying, trickster.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Look at your #15.

What is it that one must “accept”? (you sneak this in last, but in your argument it must actually be assumed first). We don’t fall for that trick, and she rightly questioned your stated assumption.

Keep trying, trickster.

There is no trick. Read my argument properly and get back to me when you do. Honest people, who are honest with themselves, will see that my argument follows consistently, when given the contextual nature of the first premise.

 

[davidv]

Because it is uncharitable to demand those sacrifices from non-Catholic homosexuals who sincerely believe they are entitled to express their love.

It is uncharitable to teach and support a falsehood. What someone thinks they are entitled to is not a factor in determining morality.

Do you believe it is right to attempt to impose your beliefs and values by force on those who do not share them?

Yes I have a right to protect my family and friends from evil. If this means fighting for laws that do so, then I must.

Laws won’t keep anyone from sinning even if it prevents them from carrying it out.

What force do you think I would be using?

 

[bingbang]

Can anyone find any secular ethicists that are against homosexuality? I would like to read secular arguments against homosexuality, if there even are any.

 

[tonyrey]

Because it is uncharitable to demand those sacrifices from non-Catholic homosexuals who sincerely believe they are entitled to express their love.

I’m afraid you are. We should fight tooth and nail - by peaceful means(!) - for what we believe is good, right and just. We have a moral obligation to explain why it is wrong to give children the impression that they are free to choose their sexual orientation and to commit acts considered to be wrong by the Church. But we have to abide by the laws of the secular society in which we live even though we strongly oppose them. This is one of the drawbacks of living in a democratic society in which the majority are quite often mistaken - although I’m sure you wouldn’t prefer to be in a totalitarian state.

God Bless,

Tony

 

[larkin31]

It is uncharitable to teach and support a falsehood. What someone thinks they are entitled to is not a factor in determining morality.

Yes I have a right to protect my family and friends from evil. If this means fighting for laws that do so, then I must.

Laws won’t keep anyone from sinning even if it prevents them from carrying it out.

What force do you think I would be using?

The Church considers only the act of homosexuality wrong, NOT the “tendency”

 

[Soulewolf]

I’m afraid you are. We should fight tooth and nail - by peaceful means(!) - for what we believe is good, right and just. We have a moral obligation to explain why it is wrong to give children the impression that they are free to choose their sexual orientation and to commit acts considered to be wrong by the Church. But we have to abide by the laws of the secular society in which we live even though we strongly oppose them. This is one of the drawbacks of living in a democratic society in which the majority are quite often mistaken - although I’m sure you wouldn’t prefer to be in a totalitarian state.

God Bless,

Tony

i dont understand. If the basis of your church is to have a relationship with Jesus Christ and the Divine for the purpose of finding fulfillment and Divine Love in this life, and this can be achieved even if one participates in homosexuality (as is evident in fulfilled homosexual christians), let alone completely different belief systems, why does it even matter?

IMHO Beliefs such as “homosexuality is wrong” can be damaging in the psychological sphere to the point where its effects can directly oppose the intent (fulfillment and Divine Love) that are the base points of the religion, and can lead to promotion of physical self harm and even suicide because of self hatred.

I guess basically, i dont see how any act whatsoever that is acted upon with Divine Love as its base intention, can be morally wrong in any way.

 

[ddarko]

i dont understand. If the basis of your church is to have a relationship with Jesus Christ and the Divine for the purpose of finding fulfillment and Divine Love in this life, and this can be achieved even if one participates in homosexuality (as is evident in fulfilled homosexual christians), let alone completely different belief systems, why does it even matter?

IMHO Beliefs such as “homosexuality is wrong” can be damaging in the psychological sphere to the point where its effects can directly oppose the intent (fulfillment and Divine Love) that are the base points of the religion, and can lead to promotion of physical self harm and even suicide because of self hatred.

I guess basically, i dont see how any act whatsoever that is acted upon with Divine Love as its base intention, can be morally wrong in any way.

I think the confusion here is in your use of the word “Love”. You use it in the same sense that homosexual activist and many modern teens love to use it. The problem with this definition is that it boils down to utilitarianism. Now ethically and philosophically even, utilitarianism is NOT love. Now from a religious point of view, love is defined in the same non-utilitarian perspective.

So the problem with Homosexual “Love” is that its not LOVE to begin with. Its just two people trying to satisfy their natural urges. The relationship between a husband and wife should mirror the relationship of Christ with the church. Anything that distorts it is a SIN. Thus, homosexuality is rejected as sinful.

God Bless

 

[bingbang]

I think the confusion here is in your use of the word “Love”. You use it in the same sense that homosexual activist and many modern teens love to use it. The problem with this definition is that it boils down to utilitarianism. Now ethically and philosophically even, utilitarianism is NOT love. Now from a religious point of view, love is defined in the same non-utilitarian perspective.

So the problem with Homosexual “Love” is that its not LOVE to begin with. Its just two people trying to satisfy their natural urges. The relationship between a husband and wife should mirror the relationship of Christ with the church. Anything that distorts it is a SIN. Thus, homosexuality is rejected as sinful.

God Bless

You didn’t explain how homosexual love isn’t real love. You just stated it as if it were fact. So why can two men not love each other like a husband and wife? Why do you dismiss homosexual love as “two people trying to satisfy their natural urges.” Can’t the same thing be said about heterosexual love?

 

[larkin31]

… Why do you dismiss homosexual love as “two people trying to satisfy their natural urges.” Can’t the same thing be said about heterosexual love?

Hopefully for me tonight!

 

[ddarko]

You didn’t explain how homosexual love isn’t real love. You just stated it as if it were fact. So why can two men not love each other like a husband and wife? Why do you dismiss homosexual love as “two people trying to satisfy their natural urges.” Can’t the same thing be said about heterosexual love?

Oh sorry. I was under the impression that you just wanted to know the reason why RC considers homosexuality a sin when it seems like LOVE. My apologies for not providing more information.

For this post I will only defend the church view of love and leave the defence of ethical and philosophical views of love for you to read. The book I will recommend is “Love & Responsibility” by Wojtyla.

Now for the church position.

In RC, love is not a whimsical emotion. It is not giving in to an urge. It is a conscious free choice made by a person to give one self to the other. Since it is a free choice, one can choose to not do something wrong. Love after-all has to do what is right. Now in the case of RC, love has to mirror the trinity. The father loves the son and vice versa and the holy spirit proceeds, the love of God. Similarly, the spousal love between man and a woman must be open to life proceeding from it. In the case of homosexuality, this is impossible. But simply put, homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. So a person must freely choose not to commit this sin. The claim that “I have to do it because he/she is who I love” is forgetting that you are supposed to make a FREE CHOICE. Love is not the emotion. Love is the choice you make.

But yea, as you can see, Homosexuality is not love. It is simply an attraction and giving in to an attraction. The problem with modern society to identify this lies in the fact that most heterosexual couples are used to using “love” in the same sense. i.e. “I have this deep feelings for you, its love so whatever we do is right because its love”. They fail to see that Love is the choice, not the emotion.

Does it clarify matters somewhat? Please let me know and I will be happy to provide more clarification

God Bless

 

[Soulewolf]

I think the confusion here is in your use of the word “Love”. You use it in the same sense that homosexual activist and many modern teens love to use it. The problem with this definition is that it boils down to utilitarianism. Now ethically and philosophically even, utilitarianism is NOT love. Now from a religious point of view, love is defined in the same non-utilitarian perspective.

So the problem with Homosexual “Love” is that its not LOVE to begin with. Its just two people trying to satisfy their natural urges. The relationship between a husband and wife should mirror the relationship of Christ with the church. Anything that distorts it is a SIN. Thus, homosexuality is rejected as sinful.

God Bless

no i’m not talking about romantic love. i’m talking about the kind of love that God is. Divine love. let me rephrase.

"I guess basically, i dont see how any act whatsoever that is acted upon with God (Love [capital L]) in your heart, can be morally wrong in any way. "

Besides you played the straw man and only responded to the last sentence when i put forth two other, far more interesting arguments.

“IMHO Beliefs such as “homosexuality is wrong” can be damaging in the psychological sphere to the point where its effects can directly oppose the intent (fulfillment and Divine Love) that are the base points of the religion, and can lead to promotion of physical self harm and even suicide because of self hatred.”

“i dont understand. If the basis of your church is to have a relationship with Jesus Christ and the Divine for the purpose of finding fulfillment and Divine Love in this life, and this can be achieved even if one participates in homosexuality (as is evident in fulfilled homosexual christians), let alone completely different belief systems, why does it even matter?”