Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[Soulewolf]

The evidence is the direct lack of Jesus Christ in the New Testament discussing homosexuality in any way shape or form.

I also agree with Larkin and would like to see his questions answered as well.

 

[davidv]

these are based on OT teachings

so they don’t answer my question

Really? I saw only 1 of 5 references from the OT cited by the CCC in these articles. Specifically they are:
141 Cf. Gen 191-29; Rom 124-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10.
142 CDF, Persona humana 8.

I think you are grasping at straws and that you you don’t have a rational basis for your opinion.

Were OT teachings on sexual morality wrong? How would you know?

 

[Soulewolf]

Really? I saw only 1 of 5 references from the OT cited by the CCC in these articles. Specifically they are:
141 Cf. Gen 191-29; Rom 124-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10.
142 CDF, Persona humana 8.

I think you are grasping at straws and that you you don’t have a rational basis for your opinion.

Were OT teachings on sexual morality wrong? How would you know?

I am not talking about the old testament, Corinthians, Romans, Leviticus etc. I am referencing what Jesus Christ himself has been documented to have said.

 

[larkin31]

Really? I saw only 1 of 5 references from the OT cited by the CCC in these articles. Specifically they are:
141 Cf. Gen 191-29; Rom 124-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10.
142 CDF, Persona humana 8.

I think you are grasping at straws and that you you don’t have a rational basis for your opinion.

Were OT teachings on sexual morality wrong? How would you know?

nevermind

you’ve lost my point

 

[davidv]

nevermind

you’ve lost my point

Then please restate your point. I believe I responded directly to your request.

I believe your point is that you don’t see the exact commandment against homosexual sex. My response indicates the fallacious nature of insisting that a limited set of all of Christ’s teachings address every possible circumstance.

Your are committing the logical fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

 

[Soulewolf]

Your are committing the logical fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

i dont see how this is relevant when it comes to scriptural writings. Either Jesus was documented discussing homosexuality, or he wasn’t. If he wasn’t i believe that it is safe to conclude that one can have a relationship with Jesus Christ, and still participate in a romantic homosexual relationship. (eg: Fulfilled Homosexual Christians)

 

[Abu]

larkin31
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.

False. Those who think and reason logically see that the civil law should not legislate for private morality. The natural moral law applies to all, regardless of race, colour or creed. The civil law 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.

 

[larkin31]

The civil law 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.

Really?

“The common good” is not promoted by private sexual morality conforming to natural law? I have never heard a Catholic make this claim.

 

[Abu]

Soulewolf
Jesus himself never once said that homosexuality was sinful. Either Jesus was documented discussing homosexuality, or he wasn’t. If he wasn’t i believe that it is safe to conclude that one can have a relationship with Jesus Christ, and still participate in a romantic homosexual relationship. (eg: Fulfilled Homosexual Christians)

No one, neither Jesus nor anyone here says that the disorder of homosexuality is sinful – that has been stated ad infinitum.
We find the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by God for homosexual activity, and the reference by the Christ to the fact that one of the chief immoralities is an indifference to truth – Christ says it is worse even than the sexual perversion. Those who reject His teaching through His representatives are worse than the perverted Sodom and Gomorrah. (Mt 10:14-15).
So Soulewolf should listen to God who is the Christ through His Church who gave us the Sacred Scriptures. Christ wrote nothing, but commanded His followers to listen to His Church, which gives us His truth. So, as davidv has already shown you: “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).

 

[Abu]

larkin31
“The common good” is not promoted by private sexual morality conforming to natural law? I have never heard a Catholic make this claim.

Neither have I. Your spin is false, again.
The *Catechism of the Catholic Church *defines law in general – a definition of law that will apply to any type of law, whether it be civil law, Church law, or some other law – as “a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good” (CCC 1951). The domain of the civil law refers to the public square – the domain of civil law legislation for the common good. The end or goal of the political community and its authority is the temporal common good or the earthly happiness for which its citizens strive as human beings.
The natural moral law applies to all, regardless of race, colour or creed, in private and in public.

 

[larkin31]

Neither have I. Your spin is false, again.
The *Catechism of the Catholic Church *defines law in general – a definition of law that will apply to any type of law, whether it be civil law, Church law, or some other law – as “a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good” (CCC 1951). The domain of the civil law refers to the public square – the domain of civil law legislation for the common good. The end or goal of the political community and its authority is the temporal common good or the earthly happiness for which its citizens strive as human beings.
The natural moral law applies to all, regardless of race, colour or creed, in private and in public.

now you’re changing your tune mid-paragraph. Civil law governs both public and private behavior, by the way.

And you claim that Natural Moral Law should underpin all, but then you pull it back from private sexual morality in terms of underpinning civil law.

Well which is it?

 

[ddarko]

now you’re changing your tune mid-paragraph. Civil law governs both public and private behavior, by the way.

And you claim that Natural Moral Law should underpin all, but then you pull it back from private sexual morality in terms of underpinning civil law.

Well which is it?

I think ideally, all LAWS should reflect religious teachings. We should be 100% in sync with God’s will for us. Unfortunately its not that easy anymore. So, we need to establish as many laws as possible that are consistent with God’s will.

In the case of homosexuality, we must see that its effects are spiritual as well as physical. The family unit is destroyed and the culture goes more and more in to chaos. Homosexuality is of course not the root of this problem. The root lies in incorrect sexual attitudes of today’s men and women which in turn has given rise to a belief that homosexual attraction is LOVE. But never the less, in order to re-correct this error, one must first protect the society from sliding further and further down first. But you would be absolutely right in asserting that this alone is not enough. One has to attack the root of the problem. People need to start teaching there kids the true meaning of sexuality and not the **** they get from high-school education about safe-sex. Parents need to get more involved. In combination, one would actually be able to fix the state of society.

So in conclusion, laws have to be set to safe-guard society from going to a point of no return with respect to morality. This way, even if someone does not understand the reasons fully, he/she will still follow the rules and limit the physical and spiritual damage it might cause. At the same time, one must educate the society as to what is the correct practice i.e. attack the root of the problem. When those two come together, gradually society will mirror God’s will. The completion of this is obviously impossible in our earthly life but the whole point is to keep trying

God Bless

 

[larkin31]

I think ideally, all LAWS should reflect religious teachings. We should be 100% in sync with God’s will for us. Unfortunately its not that easy anymore. So, we need to establish as many laws as possible that are consistent with God’s will.

Do you mean the Christian God’s teachings, or would you submit to the laws of another religion?

In the case of homosexuality, we must see that its effects are spiritual as well as physical. The family unit is destroyed and the culture goes more and more in to chaos.

There is a gay in my family. It is not destroyed at all. I don’t know what you mean by this.

Homosexuality is of course not the root of this problem. The root lies in incorrect sexual attitudes of today’s men and women which in turn has given rise to a belief that homosexual attraction is LOVE. But never the less, in order to re-correct this error, one must first protect the society from sliding further and further down first. But you would be absolutely right in asserting that this alone is not enough. One has to attack the root of the problem. People need to start teaching there kids the true meaning of sexuality and not the **** they get from high-school education about safe-sex.

I teach in a high school. Just what ****** do you mean?

Parents need to get more involved. In combination, one would actually be able to fix the state of society.

Really? But we have already learned that teaching abstinence alone fails (the kids had sex at HIGHER rates, actually). The best results have been shown to come from a combination of abstinence AND sex-ed teachings.

So in conclusion, laws have to be set to safe-guard society from going to a point of no return with respect to morality. This way, even if someone does not understand the reasons fully, he/she will still follow the rules and limit the physical and spiritual damage it might cause. At the same time, one must educate the society as to what is the correct practice i.e. attack the root of the problem.

“Educate the society” how? Doesn’t the RCC already do this for all of its members? Who else could you possibly target for this “instruction,” and how would you do it?

 

[Abu]

I guess larkin will never get it that civil law does not legislate for the bedroom (private morality).

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.

Civil law is needed to coordinate and direct the many and varied activities of the members of a particular political community to their common good. This goal cannot be achieved without “the recognition and defense of fundamental rights, and the promotion of peace and of public morality. The real purpose of civil law is to guarantee an ordered social coexistence in true justice” (Pope John Paul II, encyclical The Gospel of Life, Evangelium Vitae, 71 [1995])

 

[larkin31]

I guess larkin will never get it that civil law does not legislate for the bedroom (private morality).

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.

Civil law is needed to coordinate and direct the many and varied activities of the members of a particular political community to their common good. This goal cannot be achieved without “the recognition and defense of fundamental rights, and the promotion of peace and of public morality. The real purpose of civil law is to guarantee an ordered social coexistence in true justice” (Pope John Paul II, encyclical The Gospel of Life, Evangelium Vitae, 71 [1995])

You said that civil law should be governed by moral law. I simply asked asked, “How much of civil law, even in the bedroom?” You answered, “No, not there.” I said, “Well, that seems inconsistent–to state that moral law should govern civil law in some places but not in others.” You replied that “Civil law does not govern private acts.” I replied, “That’s not true.” ANd now you simply say, “You don’t understand.”

Let me ask again: “WHY do you NOT advocate for moral law underpining civil law even in matters of the private domain?” I am asking WHY NOT. (I am aware that they don’t).

 

[larkin31]

I guess larkin will never get it that civil law does not legislate for the bedroom (private morality).

Yes, it does. There are sexual acts that you legally cannot perform anywhere, including your bedroom, or you will be subject to criminal or civil penalties.

This is common knowledge.

 

[davidv]

i dont see how this is relevant when it comes to scriptural writings. Either Jesus was documented discussing homosexuality, or he wasn’t. If he wasn’t i believe that it is safe to conclude that one can have a relationship with Jesus Christ, and still participate in a romantic homosexual relationship. (eg: Fulfilled Homosexual Christians)

The Scriptures testify against you on this. See my prior quote of John’s gospel.

What you believe and what is true are not the same. And given Paul’s condemnation of the abomination of homosexual sex, your position appears to be wishful thinking.

Therefore your assumption isn’t a very safe one.

 

[Soulewolf]

The Scriptures testify against you on this. See my prior quote of John’s gospel.

What you believe and what is true are not the same. And given Paul’s condemnation of the abomination of homosexual sex, your position appears to be wishful thinking.

Therefore your assumption isn’t a very safe one.

I would not say St. Paul is Jesus.

 

[Abu]

Soulewolfe has a problem with the Christ apparently: “It is His Church with His authority that gave us the books of the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God in which we find the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for homosexual activity and the reference by the Christ to just that One of the chief immoralities is an indifference to truth – Christ says it is worse than the sexual perversion. Those who reject His teaching through His representatives are worse than the perverted Sodom and Gomorrah. (Mt 10:14-15).” (Post #1184).

 

[ddarko]

Do you mean the Christian God’s teachings, or would you submit to the laws of another religion?

In my case Christianity of course. If I am in a Buddhist country, I will respect the Buddhist beliefs which I did in my former country. What I am saying is that there should be no room for Atheist states.

There is a gay in my family. It is not destroyed at all. I don’t know what you mean by this.

Ok maybe you misunderstood. To be a GAY is 100% ok. Its what one does that they are responsible for. So being a practicing GAY is NOT ok. So if your family memeber is a practicing gay, he might not affect your family (but it already seems to have affected your view on sexuality) but it will influence many other families psychologically, and physically. It will also cause psychological harm to those who know your brother in that they will think being a practicing Gay must be OK.

I teach in a high school. Just what ****** do you mean?

Well I don’t know which high-shool and who you exactly are to tell you if I think you are a bad teacher or not. But, if you match the description of teachers I mentioned, then I condemn you as a teacher. I think you are leading generations of students astray.

Really? But we have already learned that teaching abstinence alone fails (the kids had sex at HIGHER rates, actually). The best results have been shown to come from a combination of abstinence AND sex-ed teachings.

Ha? I don’t think so. What are you citing here? Abstinence is 100% effective. Safe sex is not. I would have thought that’s obvious to you.

Secondly, all psychological research in to ‘sex before marriage’, ‘living together before marriage’ have shown that they are in-fact detrimental for any long term relationship. So you are telling me that you want to teach students to live their lives a certain way that would jeopardize their long term relationships?

“Educate the society” how? Doesn’t the RCC already do this for all of its members? Who else could you possibly target for this “instruction,” and how would you do it?

Well, the RCC does do it. In my former country it does a very very good job. But unfortunately in the West, people seem to think the church is just a place they visit every Sunday. Any instruction on human sexuality by the church is treated as archaic due to the obsession with the sexual revolution of the 60’s. This has to be changed at a young age. The parents cannot be obviously changed that easily. But we can educate the young. Society today is obviously not functioning properly. You have a divorce rate that is reaching ever higher. The birth rates of western societies are dropping to the point of having a risk of facing a complete social and economical melt down. The only reason the West is still surviving is due to the influx of immigrants which was also the reason this problem went unnoticed for sometime now. All you have to do to see the problem is look at demographics that account for immigration. Anyways, to keep this short, we know we have a problem, we have to fix it. We have to start with our kids first.

God Bless