Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[Soulewolf]

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.

i already said yes.

 

[inocente]

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.

No. In the past it’s been tolerated in the case of certain royal families, but as I understand it most incestuous relationships are abusive and dysfunctional, and any offspring don’t exactly help the gene pool. There is no scientific case, not many are inclined that way, and it’s very rare in the history of the world to see an Incest Rights march. The opposite of the case with homosexuals, don’t you think?

 

[inocente]

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?

I wouldn’t say so. It’s wrong to stereotype but compared with other places I’ve been, the Spanish on the whole are more tolerant and laid-back (partly a Mediterranean thing), less materialistic (although catching up), and Christian in their morals and outlook. The issue is a falling away from the Church in which an association with the past seems to be a factor. Whether the Church could be more upbeat and accommodating I don’t know.

Is the adoption of “gay marriage” just another illusory freedom that comes with this new-found wealth?

The problem with that argument is that it can never be proved wrong. I mean suppose every country in the world adopted gay marriage. Some people may say “Oh well, the whole world’s been corrupted”, but imho the Church would never use that rationale (to do so would be an implicit admission of failure).

In Romans 2, some of the Gentiles presumably worshipped pagan gods like Venus before coming to Christ. The Bible wasn’t available on Amazon, they couldn’t read Hebrew and Aquinas wasn’t born. All they had was trust in Christ, a mighty fine apostle and their consciences.

Now whether or not Paul was against the homosexual act, did the Gentiles have it written on their hearts? If they did, there must surely be a more simple and direct argument than natural law to convince people today.

 

[dchezik]

Some of you may be interested in the June 2007 Discover magazine article, “Is there a gay gene?” No conclusion is firmly drawn, but it does appear that while there is no specific gay gene, there are perinatal conditions which predispose the developing fetus in a sexually preferential way. It appears that an excess of sex hormones during gestation can not only cause a mismatch between genetic sex and the sex organs but influence sexual preference as well!

Which raises an interesting question: If sexual preference a matter of choice? If it isn’t, how could it be wrong? Don’t you have to choose to be morally culpable? If you can’t help it, how can it be wrong?

For those of you who think sexual preference is a matter of choice, try choosing to be the opposite orientation from what you currently are.

Can’t do it, can you? And furthermore what sane individual would ever choose to be gay, given the social condemnation?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

innocente

*No. In the past it’s been tolerated in the case of certain royal families, but as I understand it most incestuous relationships are abusive and dysfunctional, and any offspring don’t exactly help the gene pool. There is no scientific case, not many are inclined that way, and it’s very rare in the history of the world to see an Incest Rights march. The opposite of the case with homosexuals, don’t you think? *

30 years ago one could have said the same thing about homosexuals demanding the right to be married. Since the shame of homosexuality has gone away pretty much, why won’t the shame of incest follow suit in time? You don’t see it now, but no one saw the demand for homosexual marriages coming either, thinking it was a laughable and lunatic notion 30 years ago. But here it is.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

dchezik

For those of you who think sexual preference is a matter of choice, try choosing to be the opposite orientation from what you currently are.

You made this point a while back. I’ll give you the same answer I gave then.

Homosexuals, if they want to, can enter therapy to overcome their homosexuality. That so many don’t is merely a symptom of our times … that people have no shame and are willing to give in to their baser impulses.

You are evidently a psychological determinist. Ever heard of conversion? Ever heard of healing? Ever heard of striving to be better than we are?

 

[larkin31]

… You don’t see it now, but no one saw the demand for homosexual marriages coming either, thinking it was a laughable and lunatic notion 30 years ago. But here it is.

Gay rights were very active in 1980 (30 years ago).

Where are the incest rights marches? Why do you keep bringing this up?

Are you aware that the “slippery slope” method of debate is a logical fallacy? To defend gay rights logicsally requires no argument against incest. That would be like saying that to allow men and women to marry means that you have to argue against mothers marrying sons (they are a subset of “men” and “women”). But I don’t ask you to do this, because the slippery slope argument is a fallacy.

 

[antroji]

Homosexuals, if they want to, can enter therapy to overcome their homosexuality. That so many don’t is merely a symptom of our times … that people have no shame and are willing to give in to their baser impulses.

Charlemagne II, does this then mean that you could enter therapy if you want and change your sexual orientation? I mean that there are homophobes who use their protestations as a defense against their own emotions, so it ought to work both ways.

And why, given that we believe in the Fall, is not entering therapy a symptom of our times? Is homosexuality new in our age? I thought it was kind of historical that the homosexuals have always been with us, and the hermaphrodites as well. No one has addressed that subset here.

I guess you are kind of a black and white thinker, and don’t see even a gray scale, not to mention color? I don’t know. I just don’t understand how things are so clear cut in your “thinking.” I certainly understand moral considerations apply to whatever our orientation, but orientation itself? Please. There is naiveté, and there is being silly.

 

[inocente]

I thought it was kind of historical that the homosexuals have always been with us, and the hermaphrodites as well. No one has addressed that subset here.

The Wikipedia time-line of LGBT history is interesting if it can be trusted. A few extracts:

• 12,000 years Before Present (BP) — Around the end of Paleolithic, mankind started to make artifacts which suggest an appreciation of homosexual eroticism
• 509 BCE – The Roman Republic is founded. Homosexuality, as in Greece, is widespread and legalized throughout the Roman heyday, from the Republic to the Empire
• 1265 – Thomas Aquinas argues that sodomy is second only to murder in the ranking of sins.
• 1532 – Holy Roman Empire makes sodomy punishable by death.
• 1924 - The first homosexual rights organization in America is founded in Chicago — The Society for Human Rights. The movement exists for a few months before being ended by the police.
• 1970 – The first Gay Liberation Day March is held in New York City; The first LGBT Pride Parade is held in Los Angeles; The first “Gay-in” held in San Francisco;

 

[colmcille1]

Charlemagne II, does this then mean that you could enter therapy if you want and change your sexual orientation? I mean that there are homophobes who use their protestations as a defense against their own emotions, so it ought to work both ways.

And why, given that we believe in the Fall, is not entering therapy a symptom of our times? Is homosexuality new in our age? I thought it was kind of historical that the homosexuals have always been with us, and the hermaphrodites as well. No one has addressed that subset here.

I guess you are kind of a black and white thinker, and don’t see even a gray scale, not to mention color? I don’t know. I just don’t understand how things are so clear cut in your “thinking.” I certainly understand moral considerations apply to whatever our orientation, but orientation itself? Please. There is naiveté, and there is being silly.

antroji, more than once have I seen you refer to “black and white thinker”.
First off, I’d like you to explain what you mean by this.
Second, the old chestnut about the repressed homophobe is a non-runner. There are every class of nutjob out there and some are behind bars, thank God. The fact that homophobes focus their sickening attitudes towards homosexuality is indicative of a mind that could just as easily be out indulging in any other number of repulsive practices.
Third, I read that there are 14 subsets on the male/female spectrum. I understand charlemagne’s point to be that there is not, therefore, 14 varieties of condemnation. No.
He is quite simply pointing that therapy (and we do live in a therapeutic age, do we not?)
has shown to be successful for gays. His “thinking”, as you flagged, is mere reportage of what is freely available for all to read about. The fact that said reportage is not widespread is the subject for another thread but it should nevertheless play upon our overall consideration of the topic in hand. He is not being naive. And certainly, if you have diligently followed his arguments to date, he is anything but silly.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[antroji]

dchezik adds important information in post #1278. (Wow… this is a loooooooong thread!) I’ve read similar information in entomological studies about genetic determinism.

What say you, Charlemagne II? I mean I personally have not found it pleasant to be hit on by my own gender. But it is a fact of life that such dynamics exist and that similarly to grades of intelligence, innate abilities, coloration, size, longevity, etc, there must be a commensurate and natural gradation in orientation on say a bell curve of some kind. That is not even to mention the great contributions made to society by some of its homosexual members. So the laws of Nature, or natural law would tend to support, if anything, the naturalness of homosexuality beyond the statistical proportion, such as hermaphroditism, that might be thought of as an aberration.

So putting your great and habitual momentum aside, if you can, what is your take on that? So far it looks like you are making homosexuality wrong because you want to. Great. But be honest about that and don’t distort the Church or bring up weird and failed pseudo-Catholic “thinking” about this.

 

[davidv]

dchezik adds important information in post #1278. (Wow… this is a loooooooong thread!) I’ve read similar information in entomological studies about genetic determinism.

What say you, Charlemagne II? I mean I personally have not found it pleasant to be hit on by my own gender. But it is a fact of life that such dynamics exist and that similarly to grades of intelligence, innate abilities, coloration, size, longevity, etc, there must be a commensurate and natural gradation in orientation on say a bell curve of some kind. That is not even to mention the great contributions made to society by some of its homosexual members. So the laws of Nature, or natural law would tend to support, if anything, the naturalness of homosexuality beyond the statistical proportion, such as hermaphroditism, that might be thought of as an aberration.

Please explain how the mere existance of something is proof of it rightness?

So putting your great and habitual momentum aside, if you can, what is your take on that? So far it looks like you are making homosexuality wrong because you want to. Great. But be honest about that and don’t distort the Church or bring up weird and failed pseudo-Catholic “thinking” about this.

It would appear that you used the logic you accuse Charlemagne II of using. What “weird and failed pseudo-x"thinking” are you using?

 

[antroji]

I didn’t say, davidv, that it was right or wrong. I said it was natural. I said that C II was making it wrong for someone else. Homosexual behavior is wrong for C II and for me: that is not my orientation. Is it wrong for someone born that way? Is it wrong for you to have a particular shape of nose? Or skin color? Well, yes, if I make it that way. Maybe you would like to be regarded as sub human because you are black or yellow or red, or think that that is right to think that. Appearently C II does by parallel.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin
*
Gay rights were very active in 1980 (30 years ago). *

That’s true. I remember it very well. I was 40 years old at the time. However, the demand for homosexual marriage rights was not even on the radar screen. That is what I mean by the downhill rush of American morals and the corrupt rise of political correctness which I have stressed throughout these posts.

 

[colmcille1]

I didn’t say, davidv, that it was right or wrong. I said it was natural. I said that C II was making it wrong for someone else. Homosexual behavior is wrong for C II and for me: that is not my orientation. Is it wrong for someone born that way? Is it wrong for you to have a particular shape of nose? Or skin color? Well, yes, if I make it that way. Maybe you would like to be regarded as sub human because you are black or yellow or red, or think that that is right to think that. Appearently C II does by parallel.

Ah, another old chestnut! The correlation between physical attributes of a racial type and the psychological make-up of a gay person.
And how about addressing the therapy question, antroji?
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[davidv]

I didn’t say, davidv, that it was right or wrong. I said it was natural. I said that C II was making it wrong for someone else. Homosexual behavior is wrong for C II and for me: that is not my orientation. Is it wrong for someone born that way? Is it wrong for you to have a particular shape of nose? Or skin color? Well, yes, if I make it that way. Maybe you would like to be regarded as sub human because you are black or yellow or red, or think that that is right to think that. Appearently C II does by parallel.

But you certainly questioned it being label wrong. C II did not declare it wrong on his own. It is grounded in Natural Law (the subset of Divine Law that is accessible by human reason).

One is not born committing sodomy. One may been born with sexual desires toward member of the same gender (though no real evidence for this exists). How is the shape of one nose, skin color comparable with SSA?

Why do bring up “sub human”? I don’t think you understand the argument.

 

[larkin31]

larkin
*
Gay rights were very active in 1980 (30 years ago). *

That’s true. I remember it very well. I was 40 years old at the time. However, the demand for homosexual marriage rights was not even on the radar screen.

I don’t actually know, but I am going to guess that you are flat wrong about what was on the minds of gays thinking and talking about legal rights and justice.

But this hardly matters.

Jim Crow lasted pretty well in many places until the guns were sent in to some key places. Sometimes quick change is required for justice. As MLK wrote, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” One of the most brilliant lines about social justice ever written.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

antroji

*I said that C II was making it wrong for someone else. Homosexual behavior is wrong for C II and for me: that is not my orientation. Is it wrong for someone born that way? *

Are you a moral relativist?

When you talk about someone born gay, I have to question your premises. Is there a gay gene? Show it to me. This is what larkin would ask if you were to tell him there is a devil. He would want to see the lab work that proves it. Where is the lab work on the gay gene?

On the other hand, homosexual orientation is different from homosexual behavior. Two men could live together and love one another as friends without necessarily engaging in sex, just as a man and a woman could do the same, all living holy lives dedicated to God.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

*I don’t actually know, but I am going to guess that you are flat wrong about what was on the minds of gays thinking and talking about legal rights and justice. *

Not being a mind reader, I have no idea what was on the minds of gays in the 1980s. What I remember is that homosexual marriage was not even mentioned in the media on 1980. That’s how far and fast we have come down.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

davidv

But you certainly questioned it being label wrong. C II did not declare it wrong on his own. It is grounded in Natural Law (the subset of Divine Law that is accessible by human reason).

That’s interesting. We as Christians are not alone in regarding homosexual activity as a violation of the natural law, knowable as such by the light of reason.

Plato, who certainly was no Christian, in the* Laws* called homosexuality shameful. Why would he say that unless it was common sense to him and to all right thinking people?

Can anyone give any other explanation for Plato’s view than his sense of the natural law?