Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[ddarko]

ddarko?

I replied. I am excitedly awaiting your reply

 

[larkin31]

lol well CLEARLY, none of them were GAY families. You are very very confused individual.

Would you please stop making comments about me personally? I will report you if you continue to do so.

OH … btw… what about the claims of mine that you simply called FALSE when they are backed by research and claims by authoritative figures in the respective fields? Remember those? Forgot all about them did you You have one hell of a credibility as a teacher.

I am going to flag this as a needlessly personal remark. You seem to want a personal fight. I do not. Please refrain.

Yes you did. You kept saying my claims were “false claims”, “fear mongering”, “superficial” bla bla bla. That is being emotional and refusal to see the light of logic. Just go back to Post #1196 for a dose of your own Ignorance.

Calling your claims (over-generalizations) “false” is NOT resorting to emotionalism, nor is it acting like a teenager, which you accused me of. You are clearly becoming petty and personal, when all I have done is challenged your generalizations for reasoning or asked you to be more specific.

Now you simply seem to want a fight.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

*You are purposely ignoring it and no longer discussing the CONSEQUENCES of broadening a civil right. *

There is no civil right to broaden a disordered state.

Would you broaden the right of adult parents and adult children to marry each other?

Would you broaden the right of adult sisters and brothers to marry each other?

Perhaps you do not consider incest to be a disordered state, and you are in favor of granting such rights as long as they are between consenting adults? Yes or no?

 

[ddarko]

Would you please stop making comments about me personally? I will report you if you continue to do so.

Hey, I was just saying. You were claiming that the Biblical families were non standard. Well they were clearly not same sex couples

I am going to flag this as a needlessly personal remark. You seem to want a personal fight. I do not. Please refrain.

Well no. This is very much on topic. I showed you a place where you were wrong and you said I was simply “fear mongering”. Then you just remain silent about it and keep making even more academic claims about the psychology of teenagers.

In academia if you step out of your field to make claims about other people fields and call them as FALSE, you do get this kind of a reaction.

Calling your claims (over-generalizations) “false” is NOT resorting to emotionalism, nor is it acting like a teenager, which you accused me of. You are clearly becoming petty and personal, when all I have done is challenged your generalizations for reasoning or asked you to be more specific.

You didn’t ask me to be more specific. You just said “False claim”, “Fear mongering” when in fact, all reason points to them being true. If you just say “YOU ARE WRONG” and don’t back it up with any argument, then you are just being emotional. If you don’t like the word emotional, replace it with “an action where one refuses claims when there is all the evidence to back it up”.

Now you simply seem to want a fight.

Hey I don’t want a fight. I am just stating the state of your posts. If mr. X were to make a claim about cosmology when he has no specialization on the subject, how would you react? Or even better, how would you react if one of your students came up to you and said “you are making false claims about literature”?

God Bless

 

[colmcille1]

Hi to charlemagne, ddarko and all good and true believers!
Another excellent comrade of ours (who shall remain nameless) came to the conclusion that the poster you are trying to converse with is not worth it. I myself realized this a good while back but my patience operates on a short straw : it’s a sin I’m working on to correct.
Anyway, good men, my advice, for what it’s worth, is to treat this non-believer with the indifference that this non-believer deserves.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Anyway, good men, my advice, for what it’s worth, is to treat this non-believer with the indifference that this non-believer deserves.

What I find is that every poster helps me to sharpen my awareness of the issues.

The problem with homosexuality is that homosexuals believe they are not living in a disordered state just because there are so many of them and they want society to smile on their condition. They know now is the time to demand that we smile, because people are so politically correct they have lost all common sense.

Now you might find the same kind of argument offered by prisoners, that they are living in a natural state because there are so many of them. But you don’t hear them argue that. They might plead all kinds of excuses, including parental abuse and bad companions growing up; but you’d not likely hear them say that they were criminals because it’s natural to be criminal. Even if they felt some inner compulsion toward criminal acts, most of them realize they made some bad choices along the way; and some of them, like some homosexuals, choose to reform and start a new life.

 

[Soulewolf]

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).

that seems kinda… circular… also can you give me a direct quote where Jesus says anything at all about homosexuality?
and i have no problem with Jesus. Its his followers that really get to me.

also ddarko, you never answered my question.

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?

 

[Abu]

Soulewolf
can you give me a direct quote where Jesus says anything at all about homosexuality? i have no problem with Jesus. Its his followers that really get to me.

How can you know anything about the Christ if you can’t look up His teaching in the references given? That’s why you don’t see your problem – you don’t know His teaching. His greatest followers were Peter and His Apostles and their successors whom He commissioned to teach you and everyone. Why rant against them?

When the Twelve are sent on mission, they are told by Christ “And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words…shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Judgment than for that city.” (Mt 10: 14-15). That’s the infinite value of the Truth and the enormity of throwing it away.

Question
What is the real sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? Why did the church stick to literary interpretation that is causing great suffering and divisions in family on issue of sexual orientation at the expense of historical interpretation?
**Answer by Fr. John Echert on May-04-2009 (EWTN): **
“The sin of these two cities was clearly homosexual activity and attempts to cast it otherwise are untenable. Not only is this perversion condemned in the Old Testament but more than once Saint Paul lists this sin among those which will exclude someone from Heaven. Sympathy for someone afflicted with this inclination must not extend to acceptance of the activity or fall short of urging someone in such a lifestyle to be freed from it.”

So, as a faithful follower of Christ, St Paul specifically defines the mutual degradation among the Romans as the practice of homosexuality and stresses its unnatural character: Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. (Rom. 1:26-27). St Paul characterizes lesbian and homosexual activity as a heinous sin in Rom 1:26-32, “shameful”, from a “debased mind”, “error” as well as “against nature”. And some perversely persist in fantasising that no guilt is involved – “men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” (Rom 1:18). “Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor boy prostitutes, nor practicing homosexuals, nor thieves, nor swindlers, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.’ (1Cor 6: 9-10).

We all need to face reality.

 

[inocente]

“Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor boy prostitutes, nor practicing homosexuals, nor thieves, nor swindlers, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.’ (1Cor 6: 9-10).

We all need to face reality.

Most modern translations are similar.

1 Cor 6:9 in the original Greek contains the word arsenokoitai. The word has stumped translators because it only appears in this one place.

Arsen is Greek for male, so Paul is definitely not talking about lesbians. That is consistent with the OT, which only bars gays. Translators who make arsenokoitai about all homosexuals are putting words into Paul’s mouth.

If Paul had been talking about gay sexual behavior, he could have used the perfectly good word paiderasste. Some think arsenokoitai is a poetic word that Paul made up to parallel Leviticus, which uses the Hebrew mishkav zakur, “lying of/with a male". Others variously think it refers to pederasts, perverts, boy prostitutes, sex slaves, pimps or masturbators, but no one knows for sure.

There is a problem with all the NT verses that are interpreted as outlawing homosexual behavior. It’s worth remembering Matt 15:19, where Jesus doesn’t mention homosexuality.

 

[Abu]

inocente
Paul is definitely not talking about lesbians

It always amazes me to see the frequent attempts to belittle and twist what Christ’s Church teaches to suit prejudices.

As a faithful follower of Christ, St Paul specifically defines the mutual degradation among the Romans as the practice of homosexuality and stresses its unnatural character: Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. (Rom. 1:26-27). St Paul characterizes lesbian and homosexual activity as a heinous sin in Rom 1:26-32, “shameful”, from a “debased mind”, “error” as well as “against nature”.
The chapter on *Women With Homosexual Orientation *gives many testimonies to the efficacy of reparative therapy and indicates that it is easier for many women to overcome their problem than men. The Truth About Homosexuality, Fr John A Harvey O.S.F.S., Ignatius, 1996].

 

[inocente]

It always amazes me to see the frequent attempts to belittle and twist what Christ’s Church teaches to suit prejudices.

Abu, I wasn’t arguing against the teaching of your Church or mine, but saying that there are differences about the meaning of 1 Cor 6:9.

Since joining this thread, it’s obvious the we all have strong feelings on this subject. What I’ve been trying to do is to look at the arguments alone. One of the issues I found is that the case from scripture is not as clear cut as I once thought.

For example, on Rom 1:26-27 Paul Rimmer made this reply “To me, after reading the commentary and analysis of these verses by experienced and orthodox Scripture scholars, it is my position that these verses condemn homosexual activity (though church fathers are divided about this, St. Athanasius and Augustine thinking that this talks about heterosexual activity, and St. John Chrysostom and Clement of Alexandria thinking it does refer to homosexual activity).”.

I’m not attacking the Church but simply trying to understand.

 

[inocente]

Oh no I think church and state separation is fine. But the laws should ideally reflect the church of the country. Otherwise its a very hypocritical state. So the church is not the ruling body, it will be the faithful.

Our laws on sexual morality should be ideally identical to that of the Christian Bible. The more research we do in to Psychology, Sexual ethics and various disciplines of philosophies confirm the Christian view to be the best possible answer. Even if you disregard the Christian view, it clearly shows that some views like the ones present right now are logically INCOMPATIBLE unless you want to go by emotions all the time.

I didn’t understand.

The natural law is what is written on our hearts, and St Paul argues that it is the same for everyone who listens to their conscience no matter what their background. He says that even the Gentiles, some of whom presumably used to worship false Roman gods like Venus, know the requirements of the law (Rom 2:14-15). All democratic states should then tend to agree on basic morality. You could even say that we might determine the natural law empirically by comparing those aspects of each jurisdiction’s laws that have remained unchanged over long periods of time.

 

[ddarko]

I didn’t understand.

The natural law is what is written on our hearts, and St Paul argues that it is the same for everyone who listens to their conscience no matter what their background. He says that even the Gentiles, some of whom presumably used to worship false Roman gods like Venus, know the requirements of the law (Rom 2:14-15). All democratic states should then tend to agree on basic morality. You could even say that we might determine the natural law empirically by comparing those aspects of each jurisdiction’s laws that have remained unchanged over long periods of time.

Yes, You are absolutely correct. That is why I said “Our laws on sexual morality should be ideally identical to that of the Christian Bible”. Modern research in to these topics seem to confirm the Christian views as well. But because of our fallen nature, the ‘‘laws written in our hearts’’ do not always materialize in the undistorted form. This is why we need religion/God’s revelation to point us in the right direction.

God Bless

 

[larkin31]

Hey, I was just saying. You were claiming that the Biblical families were non standard. Well they were clearly not same sex couples

I did not say that they were gay couples/families. I said that they were outside the norm of the traditional family, which was the basis of your criticism of gays–that they would induce us to have non-standard families. So that argument does not work, because there are plenty of holy non-standard families.

Well no. This is very much on topic. I showed you a place where you were wrong

You did no such thing. You are claiming false victory here.

and you said I was simply “fear mongering”. Then you just remain silent about it

Fearmongering merits no further reply. It is irrational and speculative. If I claim, “The end of the world is near” what can any do but say yes or no? There is no “argument” for it either way.

and keep making even more academic claims about the psychology of teenagers.

What? Where?

In academia if you step out of your field to make claims about other people fields and call them as FALSE, you do get this kind of a reaction.

What? What “field” are you referring to? Are you in a certain field? What do you do for work?

You didn’t ask me to be more specific. You just said “False claim”, “Fear mongering” when in fact, all reason points to them being true. If you just say “YOU ARE WRONG” and don’t back it up with any argument, then you are just being emotional. If you don’t like the word emotional, replace it with “an action where one refuses claims when there is all the evidence to back it up”.

This is your definition of being emotional? On what intellectual grounds to you base your sense of superiority, when you cannot even define a word properly? Either you are just imprecise, or intentionally deceitful. When you call my arguments “emotional,” but then all you can say in support of this claim is that I disagree with you but don’t always elaborate on why I do, you demonstrate either that you don’t know what you are talking about or that you are deceitful. I tend to think in this case it is a combination of the two.

And that is said without emotion.

 

[JohnDamian]

I did not say that they were gay couples/families. I said that they were outside the norm of the traditional family, which was the basis of your criticism of gays–that they would induce us to have non-standard families. So that argument does not work, because there are plenty of holy non-standard families.

Absolutely correct; Catholics cannot use “traditional family” as an argument against homosexuality; as “traditional family” does not encompass families such as those of Jesus; and “traditional family” does not encompass the family and behaviour of Abraham. Thus; “tradition” is not a valid argument against homosexuality.

 

[larkin31]

Absolutely correct; Catholics cannot use “traditional family” as an argument against homosexuality; as “traditional family” does not encompass families such as those of Jesus; and “traditional family” does not encompass the family and behaviour of Abraham. Thus; “tradition” is not a valid argument against homosexuality.

indeed. Jesus even said that following him would break up some families, even turn them against each other.

The “traditional family” is not threatened in any way by the broadening of justice toward gays. If one is opposed to certain civil rights or civil privileges being expanded to them, the argument must be based on other grounds. As Hamlet said of needing stronger evidence of his father’s murder, “I’ll have grounds more relative than this”.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin
*
The “traditional family” is not threatened in any way by the broadening of justice toward gays.*

You really are obstinate in this. There is no requirement that society “broaden justice” toward a disordered and shameful state. Plato was only one of many ancients not a Christian who could see the disordered condition of homosexuality and declared it not only to be a crime against nature but also against the state.

Why not then “broaden justice,” as you so laughably put it, toward marriage between mothers and sons, fathers and daughters, sisters and brothers … equally disordered conditions to be sure?

 

[larkin31]

larkin
*
The “traditional family” is not threatened in any way by the broadening of justice toward gays.*

You really are obstinate in this.

And traditional Catholics are not? What is the point in noting this, other than calling me stubborn?

There is no requirement that society “broaden justice” toward a disordered and shameful state

In America, justice trumps moral sensibilities. The requirement is the legal requirement not to violate any laws nor the Constitutional standards of justice.

. Plato was only one of many ancients not a Christian who could see the disordered condition of homosexuality and declared it not only to be a crime against nature but also against the state.

He did not write our laws, nor did he write our Constitution. His point of view is irrelevant in this case, which is a legal one in the US.

Why not then “broaden justice,” as you so laughably put it, toward marriage between mothers and sons, fathers and daughters, sisters and brothers … equally disordered conditions to be sure?

This violates other laws against incest and abuse. Interestingly, there are Biblical examples of incest being used to promote God’s will. But I still do not argue for it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

He did not write our laws, nor did he write our Constitution. His point of view is irrelevant in this case, which is a legal one in the US.

The reason Plato was cited is that he was the first great philosopher to envision an ideal Republic. Certainly he never imagined that homosexual marriage would broaden social justice! If anything, he saw it as a deterrent to the existence of a well ordered state. Plato was not a Christian, but he could see that homosexuality was against the natural law. He did not need the Bible to tell him so, because … dontcha know … he was a bright fellow and could figure that out all by himself (Catholics call it natural law morality).

You still haven’t answered why homosexuals should have the right to marry when that same right is denied to those involved in incest.

 

[colmcille1]

Anyway, good men, my advice, for what it’s worth, is to treat this non-believer with the indifference that this non-believer deserves.

What I find is that every poster helps me to sharpen my awareness of the issues.

The problem with homosexuality is that homosexuals believe they are not living in a disordered state just because there are so many of them and they want society to smile on their condition. They know now is the time to demand that we smile, because people are so politically correct they have lost all common sense.

Charlemagne II,
I also believe that they play the victim role to such am embarrassing degree; so that when it is pointed out to them as such, they react as spoilt kids who instinctively rebel against any authority. As has been pointed out on this thread, teens brains operate on an emotive level.
(I think some poster here ought to check out Tennessee Williams’ ‘Small Craft Warnings’ and study the monologue of the gay character therein. Said playwright spoke in an interview how he “worked the waterfront” in New Orleans. Would this kind of information be discussed in class? I doubt it.)
And I applaud your debating stamina. You are a braver man than I!
God Bless,
Colmcille1.