Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[larkin31]

i thought my answer was pretty clear on this in my post. We live in a democracy. if the people say it should be, it should be. So yes. yes i would say it should be legalized if that is the kind of society that the people want to live in.

You were very clear. This guy intentionally plays dumb and mischaracterizes his opponents’ arguments. I have given him chances all day to read my posts and speak to my points. I am done now with him, and putting him on ignore.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

This guy intentionally plays dumb and mischaracterizes his opponents’ arguments. I have given him chances all day to read my posts and speak to my points. I am done now with him, and putting him on ignore.

More rant.

 

[Soulewolf]

no response to my answer?

 

[inocente]

I will now ask the question to all viewers of this thread who defend the right to homosexual marriage:

If that institution is defended as a legal right by the courts, what reason will there be to deny the same legal right to people involved in close incestuous relationships: father-son, mother-daughter, mother-son,father-daughter, sister-brother?

Every perverse relationship will have as much right to declare itself valid as any other perverse relationship.

We probably all find an incestuous relationship badly wrong, two non-scriptural reasons being that it is usually abusive and most people find it icky. But you judge a homosexual relationship as perverse while many others don’t.

We could look at an example of legal homosexual marriage. Take Spain, traditionally one of the most fiercely Catholic countries in Europe. Two thirds of the people supported this change in the law five years back. Civilization hasn’t collapsed, life goes on.

*Aware that some people and institutions * profoundly disagree with this legal change, I wish to say that like other reforms to the marriage code that preceded this one, this law will not generate bad results, that its only consequence will be to avoid senseless suffering of human beings. A society that avoids senseless suffering of its citizens is a better society.

In any case, I wish to express my deep respect to those people and institutions, and I also want to ask for the same respect for all of those who approve of this law. To the homosexuals that have personally tolerated the abuse and insults for many years, I ask that you add to the courage you have demonstrated in your struggle for civil rights, an example of generosity and joy with respect to all the beliefs.

Presidente José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero*

And that kind of says it all. Until we have a definitive proof one way or the other we’ll keep arguing while the world moves on.

(No witty comments about Spain or other jurisdictions please, as the moderator may not be keen on that kind of thing.)*

 

[colmcille1]

We probably all find an incestuous relationship badly wrong, two non-scriptural reasons being that it is usually abusive and most people find it icky. But you judge a homosexual relationship as perverse while many others don’t.

We could look at an example of legal homosexual marriage. Take Spain, traditionally one of the most fiercely Catholic countries in Europe. Two thirds of the people supported this change in the law five years back. Civilization hasn’t collapsed, life goes on.

*Aware that some people and institutions * profoundly disagree with this legal change, I wish to say that like other reforms to the marriage code that preceded this one, this law will not generate bad results, that its only consequence will be to avoid senseless suffering of human beings. A society that avoids senseless suffering of its citizens is a better society.

In any case, I wish to express my deep respect to those people and institutions, and I also want to ask for the same respect for all of those who approve of this law. To the homosexuals that have personally tolerated the abuse and insults for many years, I ask that you add to the courage you have demonstrated in your struggle for civil rights, an example of generosity and joy with respect to all the beliefs.

Presidente José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero**

And that kind of says it all. Until we have a definitive proof one way or the other we’ll keep arguing while the world moves on.

(No witty comments about Spain or other jurisdictions please, as the moderator may not be keen on that kind of thing.)

Hi inocente,
May I say that, given the usual insight you bring to debates here, I am somewhat dismayed that you would post the words of a politician to bolster your argument.
These fellows are the same the world over, let’s not beat around the bush here!
And frankly, call me cynical, but while we may freely qoute their platitudinous guff, do you really for an instant believe that they care about the concerns of religious people beyond the garnering of some handy votes?
And I cannot subscribe to your view that what Catholicism is merely some talking shop merrily arguing “while the world moves on”. This is a poorly thought-out view.
It assumes that those in favour of “gay marriage” are somehow of a superior mindset and whose arcane wisdom, as it were, is to be lauded.
The Catholic Church will not, ultimately, be beaten on this issue.
God knows, Catholic teaching has been stoutly and brilliantly defended on these threads and your comment seems hollow and insignicant when compared to what has gone before.
I hope you are not offended by my remarks. Maybe I’m just astounded they came from your good self!
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[larkin31]

We probably all find an incestuous relationship badly wrong, two non-scriptural reasons being that it is usually abusive and most people find it icky. But you judge a homosexual relationship as perverse while many others don’t.

We could look at an example of legal homosexual marriage. Take Spain, traditionally one of the most fiercely Catholic countries in Europe. Two thirds of the people supported this change in the law five years back. Civilization hasn’t collapsed, life goes on.

*Aware that some people and institutions * profoundly disagree with this legal change, I wish to say that like other reforms to the marriage code that preceded this one, this law will not generate bad results, that its only consequence will be to avoid senseless suffering of human beings. A society that avoids senseless suffering of its citizens is a better society.

In any case, I wish to express my deep respect to those people and institutions, and I also want to ask for the same respect for all of those who approve of this law. To the homosexuals that have personally tolerated the abuse and insults for many years, I ask that you add to the courage you have demonstrated in your struggle for civil rights, an example of generosity and joy with respect to all the beliefs.

Presidente José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero**

And that kind of says it all. Until we have a definitive proof one way or the other we’ll keep arguing while the world moves on.

(No witty comments about Spain or other jurisdictions please, as the moderator may not be keen on that kind of thing.)

This was, too, the judge’s point in the CA ruling: the litigants claimed that gay marriage would harm marriage and society, and then provided no evidence and no witnesses to support that claim. The judge ruled how he had to with such a weak case being made.

There is no evidence whatsoever that a gay marriage in a town or in a neighborhood has any deleterious effect on any other resident or family of a town other than a possible affront to one’s sensibilities. And that is not enough reason in this country to halt the broadening of equal justice. Justice trumps sensibilities. As it should.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

*You’re not a very charitable person in your judgments

and I see that you have not even bothered to enter that discussion, either

your lack of charity of spirit might be problematic *

Character assassination will get you nowhere. Rant on!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Soulewolf

*i thought my answer was pretty clear on this in my post. We live in a democracy. if the people say it should be, it should be. So yes. yes i would say it should be legalized if that is the kind of society that the people want to live in.

and yes if ultimately people say homosexuals should not marry, then legally they should not marry, and they should be free to pursue whatever form of commitment they desire outside of the legal system. *

Spoken like a true democrat. So you support the people of California who voted no homosexual marriage. Glad to hear it.

 

[stenlis]

I will now ask the question to all viewers of this thread who defend the right to homosexual marriage:

If that institution is defended as a legal right by the courts, what reason will there be to deny the same legal right to people involved in close incestuous relationships: father-son, mother-daughter, mother-son,father-daughter, sister-brother?

Every perverse relationship will have as much right to declare itself valid as any other perverse relationship.

Marriage should be a legal bond between two consenting and adult individuals. Technically this could include a mother-son pair but in reality - do you see any activists trying to fight for their rights to marry their mothers? If somebody lives in such a relationship, they don’t gain any legal benefits from marriage and they don’t seek the acceptance of society either.

So what’s there to worry about?

 

[inocente]

And frankly, call me cynical, but while we may freely qoute their platitudinous guff, do you really for an instant believe that they care about the concerns of religious people beyond the garnering of some handy votes?

I remember a lot of unrest amongst politicians about how voters would view what was quite a radical change. Beforehand, no one knew the amount of support that the opposition could muster.

And I cannot subscribe to your view that what Catholicism is merely some talking shop merrily arguing “while the world moves on”.

The world may easily move toward the Catholic teaching as well as away - I was careful not to try to predict.

The Catholic Church will not, ultimately, be beaten on this issue.
God knows, Catholic teaching has been stoutly and brilliantly defended on these threads and your comment seems hollow and insignicant when compared to what has gone before.
I hope you are not offended by my remarks. Maybe I’m just astounded they came from your good self!

Thanks, and no, not offended. Again, I’m not trying to argue for or against, but can’t help noticing the length of this thread. Some things may be easy to argue in natural law, but homosexuality/the homosexual act doesn’t seem to be one of them.

One point of posting about Spain is this: The Church and main opposition party knew about this proposal in advance and campaigned against it, they were not complacent. The Spanish are more family-oriented than many other societies, and 80%+ are Catholic. Yet two thirds agreed to the change.

The implication is that the majority of Catholics approved or were neutral on the change. They either had it written on their hearts that homosexual marriage is good, or at least did not find it in their hearts to condemn it.

Now you could argue that everyone’s corrupted these days, but the whole basis of natural law is about what is written on our hearts, and the empirical evidence in this nation and others is wanting in the case against homosexuality. The California judge (larkin31’s post #1260) and others are not finding reasonable technical evidence against either. Why is that?

 

[colmcille1]

I remember a lot of unrest amongst politicians about how voters would view what was quite a radical change. Beforehand, no one knew the amount of support that the opposition could muster.

The world may easily move toward the Catholic teaching as well as away - I was careful not to try to predict.

Thanks, and no, not offended. Again, I’m not trying to argue for or against, but can’t help noticing the length of this thread. Some things may be easy to argue in natural law, but homosexuality/the homosexual act doesn’t seem to be one of them.

One point of posting about Spain is this: The Church and main opposition party knew about this proposal in advance and campaigned against it, they were not complacent. The Spanish are more family-oriented than many other societies, and 80%+ are Catholic. Yet two thirds agreed to the change.

The implication is that the majority of Catholics approved or were neutral on the change. They either had it written on their hearts that homosexual marriage is good, or at least did not find it in their hearts to condemn it.

Now you could argue that everyone’s corrupted these days, but the whole basis of natural law is about what is written on our hearts, and the empirical evidence in this nation and others is wanting in the case against homosexuality. The California judge (larkin31’s post #1260) and others are not finding reasonable technical evidence against either. Why is that?

Hi inocente,
Thank you for your post.
I seem to recall (you’re right-this is a long thread!) that you were wondering a while back if the new Spain (free of its Francoist shackles) had rushed headlong to embrace this new-found “freedom” (my quotes). I have had similar thoughts.
In 1997, my work necessitated a trip to Poland. While I was saddened by the poor infrastructure of the town where I stayed, I was more despairing of the messages sent via the media namely: we are now free from the grimness of communism, so lets party. But they seemed to revel in every vice which the west had to offer. Drunkenness was on the rise; prostitution was rife as was vandalism; the appeal to vanity via expensive fashion and cosmetics was more important, it seemed, than proper roads and rail network.
So, I wonder , could this be the case in Spain? Can we identify cycles of human behaviour where materialism sweeping all before it is seen as a morally sound lifestyle?
Is the adoption of “gay marriage” just another illusory freedom that comes with this new-found wealth?
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

stenlis
*
Marriage should be a legal bond between two consenting and adult individuals. Technically this could include a mother-son pair but in reality - do you see any activists trying to fight for their rights to marry their mothers? If somebody lives in such a relationship, they don’t gain any legal benefits from marriage and they don’t seek the acceptance of society either.

So what’s there to worry about? *

You may be very young. Twenty years ago the notion of men marrying men was not even on the radar screen. Now it is everywhere. The same could be true for incestuous marriages 20 years down the road, all the more so emboldened by any general acceptance of homosexual marriage. You may or may not have noticed that the American public is no longer ashamed of its decline in public morals … thanks to the dictatorship of relativism and political correctness.

That, however, does not have to be a permanent condition. The pendulum, after all, does swing.

In the 1920s Berlin was the homosexual capital of the world. In the 1930s homosexuals were being rounded up for the concentration camps and the gas chambers. The world can change radically in just a few years, for better or for worse.

 

[stenlis]

stenlis
*
Marriage should be a legal bond between two consenting and adult individuals. Technically this could include a mother-son pair but in reality - do you see any activists trying to fight for their rights to marry their mothers? If somebody lives in such a relationship, they don’t gain any legal benefits from marriage and they don’t seek the acceptance of society either.

So what’s there to worry about? *

You may be very young. Twenty years ago the notion of men marrying men was not even on the radar screen. Now it is everywhere. The same could be true for incestuous marriages 20 years down the road, all the more so emboldened by any general acceptance of homosexual marriage. You may or may not have noticed that the American public is no longer ashamed of its decline in public morals … thanks to the dictatorship of relativism and political correctness.

That, however, does not have to be a permanent condition. The pendulum, after all, does swing.

In the 1920s Berlin was the homosexual capital of the world. In the 1930s homosexuals were being rounded up for the concentration camps and the gas chambers. The world can change radically in just a few years, for better or for worse.

Look - when people start fighting for oidipean marriages, we shall have a discussion about them.

It’s like being against the legal possession of guns because people might start asking for grenades and rocket launchers.

 

[larkin31]

Look - when people start fighting for oidipean marriages, we shall have a discussion about them.

It’s like being against the legal possession of guns because people might start asking for grenades and rocket launchers.

exactly

or

we should oppose the marriage of men and women altogether because we men might ask to marry our mothers

 

[Charlemagne_II]

stenlis

*Look - when people start fighting for oidipean marriages, we shall have a discussion about them. *

Why wait until then? Would you be for them or against them? Yes or no? Simple question. Simple answer needed. I doubt you’ll give one.

 

[Soulewolf]

Soulewolf

*i thought my answer was pretty clear on this in my post. We live in a democracy. if the people say it should be, it should be. So yes. yes i would say it should be legalized if that is the kind of society that the people want to live in.

and yes if ultimately people say homosexuals should not marry, then legally they should not marry, and they should be free to pursue whatever form of commitment they desire outside of the legal system. *

Spoken like a true democrat. So you support the people of California who voted no homosexual marriage. Glad to hear it.

actually if i’m not mistaken, the people of California (specifically San Francisco) voted yes and it is now legal there. I’m not saying i support one way or another (i support gay marriage fyi) i’m saying the morality of it in a democracy is if the majority of people want to live in that kind of society, they have the right to do so. They also have the right to protest certain societal norms and ideologies, which is where you and many other Christians come into play. you are allowed your opinions and philosophies, and i am allowed mine. that is what makes this country great.

 

[PatrickSebast]

So, Portrait, there are 85 pages of discussion and I don’t want to read all of it. I notice no one really understood or answered your question in the early posts, but I was curious as to whether you ever managed to get an answer, and if so where approximately was it. I would like to note that I am specifically asking Portrait and not other people who believe they gave a good answer. If he confirmed your answer satisfied him then go ahead and mention it, but otherwise I really want to hear from the OP and not 10 different people who THINK they had the best answer.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Soulewolf

*actually if i’m not mistaken, the people of California (specifically San Francisco) voted yes and it is now legal there. I’m not saying i support one way or another (i support gay marriage fyi) i’m saying the morality of it in a democracy is if the majority of people want to live in that kind of society, they have the right to do so. They also have the right to protest certain societal norms and ideologies, which is where you and many other Christians come into play. you are allowed your opinions and philosophies, and i am allowed mine. that is what makes this country great. *

Right. But the matter of homosexual marriage will very possibly be settled in the Supreme Court, where there are now six Catholics, three Jews, and no Protestants nor Muslims; and, so far as we know, no atheists. Hardly a majority of the people. Not even a cross-section, except for race and sex.

 

[Soulewolf]

Soulewolf

actually if i’m not mistaken, the people of California (specifically San Francisco) voted yes and it is now legal there. I’m not saying i support one way or another (i support gay marriage fyi) i’m saying the morality of it in a democracy is if the majority of people want to live in that kind of society, they have the right to do so. They also have the right to protest certain societal norms and ideologies, which is where you and many other Christians come into play. you are allowed your opinions and philosophies, and i am allowed mine. that is what makes this country great.

Right. But the matter of homosexual marriage will very possibly be settled in the Supreme Court, where there are now six Catholics, three Jews, and no Protestants nor Muslims; and, so far as we know, no atheists. Hardly a majority of the people. Not even a cross-section, except for race and sex.

i would say this is an innate problem with our system. Its not perfect but its the way that it is and that is why the founding fathers gave us the right to protest.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I’d like to know if advocates for the right for homosexuals to marry believe that such a right should not only exist, but so also should the right for members of the same family to marry each other if they are so disposed.