Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

  • Thread starter Thread starter Portrait
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Exactly, davidv, and the civil law is not able to legislate on sexual morality in private, unless it involves rape or other inflicted abuse – the natural moral law covers all morality for all.
 
davidv said:
It already is if done in public.
Click to expand...
Is that all that natural moral law regulates: public sexuality?

I want to know if you folks think, as Abu actually stated, that laws should follow natural moral law, and if so, how much of natural moral law.

We can start with masturbation (in private).

Then discuss sodomy and law.

Then oral sex with ejaculation and law.

Then copulation with external ejaculation and law.

Just to see if he really means what he says…
 
From the natural moral law, all homosexual activity is wrong – the disorder is factual, and the individual is free to seek help. Reparative therapy is readily available, and proven.

The natural moral law applies to all, regardless of race, colour or creed. Legislation should conform to the natural moral law which is universal, and be directed to the common good which does not require trying to control sexual morality in private by civil law, unless it involves rape or other inflicted abuse.
 
antroji said:
Originally Posted by tonyrey
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
Code: 
I agree with most of this, Tonyrey, but I'm sorry, I have never in all my acquaintances ever met a homosexual or lesbian person who consciously made a choice to be that way as distinct from act that way. I have met some who are in denial of their orientation, and I have met many who acted out heterosexual scenarios and were sorry and eventually had to be honest with themselves and others. So I don't understand the insistence on anyone's part that it is a choice, so far as attraction is concerned. And so I also don't see that it is a concern of "allowing" our children to think they can "choose" to be homosexual any more than I, or anyone, can change their heterosexual orientation by a decision. 

I am also surprised that no comments have been made on here about the notion that there certainly must be a gradation of orientations, not to mention those small numbers born hermaphroditic. But I guess it is easier for us all to deal with issues that we think are clearly black and white in this Universe which is mostly anything but that.
Click to expand...
Let’s simplify the question. In this country the main focus is on sexual liberation. Many people are interested only in enjoying themselves without even stopping to consider their sexual orientation! The problem lies much deeper than homosexual activity because in our spiritual desert hedonism has largely ousted moral values…
 
larkin31 said:
Is that all that natural moral law regulates: public sexuality?
Click to expand...
No. Why do you think so?
I want to know if you folks think, as Abu actually stated, that laws should follow natural moral law, and if so, how much of natural moral law.

We can start with masturbation (in private).

Then discuss sodomy and law.

Then oral sex with ejaculation and law.

Then copulation with external ejaculation and law.

Just to see if he really means what he says…
Click to expand...
The moral law contains the sign posts that when followed lead to a fulfilled, joyful life.
All the items listed are moral evils. If those who practice remain unrepentent, they will be unfulfilled and will have no joy.
 
Abu said:
From the natural moral law, all homosexual activity is wrong – the disorder is factual, and the individual is free to seek help. Reparative therapy is readily available, and proven.

The natural moral law applies to all, regardless of race, colour or creed. Legislation should conform to the natural moral law which is universal, and be directed to the common good which does not require trying to control sexual morality in private by civil law, unless it involves rape or other inflicted abuse.
Click to expand...
let me recap:

Laws should regulate sexual morality according to the precepts of Natural Law in public but not in private, except for cases of rape or abuse.

I find that a logically inconsistent position.
 
larkin31 said:
let me recap:

Laws should regulate sexual morality according to the precepts of Natural Law in public but not in private, except for cases of rape or abuse.

I find that a logically inconsistent position.
Click to expand...
It seems you are beating up on a strawman. The precepts of Natural Law are universal as they are derived from the true nature of man. The dicotomy of public or private is false. Natural Law applies to both.

Edit: This is not to say that governmental laws cannot make this distinction. It is evident that in some case it is true (indecent exposure) and other cases it is not (murder).
 
ddarko said:
aah you see the problem here is that you believe that the “relationship” can be of any nature. For one to have a true relationship with Christ, his actions must be compatible with Christ’s teachings or in other words God’s teachings. So it does not make sense to say it would be easier for me to have a relationship with Christ if he didn’t want me to do this.

By your logic, one can argue that nothing should be wrong. Then it would be MUCH MUCH easier to have a relationship with Christ. But obviously that is meaningless. A relationship is about understanding what the other person demands of you. Otherwise its just you believing that you have one.
Click to expand...
well what is more good? coming to understand that you are wrong through a personal relationship with christ? or by society telling you that you are evil and deserve to die?
Um do you mean homosexuals who are not sexually active? Because if they are sexually active then they do not manifest the teachings of Christ or God 🙂 Thus they are Sinning.
Click to expand...
Its as simple as that really.
Click to expand...
God Bless 🙂
Click to expand...
Jesus himself never once said that homosexuality was sinful. i believe the decision to include that was that of the Council of Nicaea.
 
Soulewolf said:
well what is more good? coming to understand that you are wrong through a personal relationship with christ? or by society telling you that you are evil and deserve to die?

Jesus himself never once said that homosexuality was sinful. i believe the decision to include that was that of the Council of Nicaea.
Click to expand...
How do you know He didn’t? Where you there?
 
Soulewolf said:
how do you know he did? were you there?
Click to expand...
So you don’t know. Its just a begging the question speculation.

The Church, the Body of Christ, who was there, received the Deposit of Faith, preserves it and teaches it.
 
davidv said:
So you don’t know. Its just a begging the question speculation.

The Church, the Body of Christ, who was there, received the Deposit of Faith, preserves it and teaches it.
Click to expand...
i disagree. from texts we have (assuming their historical accuracy) there is more evidence pointing to the idea that he did not, then that he did.
 
larkin31 said:
Are you claiming that the RCC ascribes to either God or to Jesus teachings that are/were never recorded in the inspired texts?
Click to expand...
It not me just claiming it. It is documented.
But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
John 21:25
Click to expand...
 
davidv said:
It not me just claiming it. It is documented.
Click to expand...
No one denies that he “did” other things or said other things. You have evaded the question.

I am asking again: do you specifically ascribe statements or teachings to either God or Jesus that are not referenced in the Bible?
 
larkin31 said:
No one denies that he “did” other things or said other things. You have evaded the question.

I am asking again: do you specifically ascribe statements or teachings to either God or Jesus that are not referenced in the Bible?
Click to expand...
These

CCC said:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that
teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top