Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[larkin31]

Why is/was Plato and expert on this topic? Why should we care at all what someone, 400 years BCE, had to say about homosexuality and gay marriage today?

Because Plato lived in a time when gay sex was rampant, like our own. Because Plato is as far as anyone can get from Biblical injunctions. Because Plato probably reflected the general common sense judgment of his time against the unnatural aspects of homosexual sex. Because Plato did not have to be what you call an “expert” to have an opinion. Neither do the rest of us have to be experts, whatever that means.

No strong reason, then.

Gay sex is not “rampant” now. That is a funny overstatement.

 

[antroji]

Plato also commits the logical fallacy of restricting homosexual acts only to seducers and weaklings. Those clearly not a categories inclusive of all homosexuals. And certainly we can say that the motive of pleasure is definitely not a part of heterosexual activity. I’m sure that with your eyes closed you can tell exactly who, male or female, is touching you; your nerves just transmit; you mind is what judges. So stimulation is functional, not “natural” or not according to our emotional/religious/ habitual preferences. That is a moral judgment for each to make by conscienc, not for another if they suffer no deliberate consequence. And again it is necessary to ask why is something that is perceived, rightfully, as unnatural for one segment of the population because of their inclinations, be distributed over another segment for whom that way is natural as it is what means can be used as a mode of expression. And ditto to Larkin31.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

antroji

*And again it is necessary to ask why is something that is perceived, rightfully, as unnatural for one segment of the population because of their inclinations, be distributed over another segment for whom that way is natural *

You surely know that even atheists are capable of moral objectivism, as Ayn Rand would agree.

Suppose one segment of the population believes in sex with children as unnatural, and another segment doesn’t … such as the North American Man Boy Love Association. Are you saying that people who don’t believe in it should not be calling the shots for people who do, and whose infamous signature motto is: “If not by 8, it’s too late!”

Plato also commits the logical fallacy of restricting homosexual acts only to seducers and weaklings.

I don’t think he does. Only in that passage is he talking about them as seducers and weaklings. He has certainly talked about them as perverts as well, perverting the natural law. What other kinds of people do you think he should have included?

 

[larkin31]

antroji

*And again it is necessary to ask why is something that is perceived, rightfully, as unnatural for one segment of the population because of their inclinations, be distributed over another segment for whom that way is natural *

You surely know that even atheists are capable of moral objectivism, as Ayn Rand would agree.

Suppose one segment of the population believes in sex with children as unnatural, and another segment doesn’t … such as the North American Man Boy Love Association. Are you saying that people who don’t believe in it should not be calling the shots for people who do, and whose infamous signature motto is: “If not by 8, it’s too late!”

Plato also commits the logical fallacy of restricting homosexual acts only to seducers and weaklings.

I don’t think he does. Only in that passage is he talking about them as seducers and weaklings. He has certainly talked about them as perverts as well, perverting the natural law. What other kinds of people do you think he should have included?

The RCC does not call them “perverts” and specifically condemns your tone and approach to homosexuals. I suggest that, if you do claim to be an orthodox Catholic, that you either soften your superior and self-righteous tone toward them, or admit that you are not following your Church’s teachings. Of course, I don’t think that any Catholic actually DOES follow them all (nor do I expect it), but you are one of the more self-righteous around here of late, so it is a bit more satisfying in your case to point it out.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The RCC does not call them “perverts” and specifically condemns your tone and approach to homosexuals.

If that’s true, I must be very famous indeed. Can you tell me where my name is given the the RCC?

You DO love to rant and throw out ad hominems. This has been pointed out by others, not only in this thread, but in others as well.

I’m only saying what Paul said. Does the RCC condemn him too?

 

[larkin31]

The RCC does not call them “perverts” and specifically condemns your tone and approach to homosexuals.

If that’s true, I must be very famous indeed. Can you tell me where my name is given the the RCC?

What?

 

[larkin31]

Here is the opening of the Letter to American Bishops on ministering to homosexuals. Decide for yourself:

GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Respecting Human Dignity
The commission of the Church to preach the Good News to all people in every land points to the fundamental dignity possessed by each person as created by God. God has created every human person out of love and wishes to grant him or her eternal life in the communion of the Trinity.2 All people are created in the image and likeness of God and thus possess an innate human dignity that must be acknowledged and respected.1

In keeping with this conviction, the Church teaches that persons with a homosexual
inclination “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”2 We recognize that these persons have been, and often continue to be, objects of scorn, hatred, and even violence in some sectors of our society. Sometimes this hatred is manifested clearly; other times, it is masked and gives rise to more disguised forms of hatred. “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs.”3 Those who would minister in the name of the Church must in no way contribute to such injustice. They should prayerfully examine their own hearts in order to discern any thoughts or feelings that might stand in need of purification. Those who minister are also called to growth in holiness. In fact, the work of spreading the Good News involves an ever-increasing love for those to whom one is ministering by calling them to the truth of Jesus Christ.4

Yeah, they aren’t the words of Paul.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin
Romans 1

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

So I’ll ask you again, does the RCC condemn Paul?

Try not to erupt with more ad hominems.

 

[larkin31]

larkin
Romans 1

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

So I’ll ask you again, does the RCC condemn Paul?

Try not to erupt with more ad hominems.

The RCC knows that it should not just take Paul’s words and throw them at the “perverts” and other sinners. Read carefully.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

If you are the academic type, you know the dictionary defines a pervert as someone who turns aside from the natural course of things. That is what this thread is about … whether homosexuality is withing the natural law or a perversion of the the natural law.

You have never heard me use such words as fag, queer, nancy, or any other word to describe homosexuals. However, homosexuals do pervert the natural law, and therefore they are perverts. I would also call anyone who molests children a pervert, or anyone who tortures for the sheer pleasure of it. But neither I nor anyone else can be called to account by the Catholic Church for using the same language used by Saint Paul.

 

[antroji]

I guess it is useful to point out exceptions by stating extremes, C II. However, I was pointing out a broader class which we are considering, not having mentioned pederasts as reprehensible as whom you cite in an attempt to discredit consideration of a much more inclusive category. And I am not arguing for seducers, pedophiles, wimps, etc of any description. I am arguing that homosexuals who have loving relationship as any other two people might, should not be hindered in their expression because of your interpretation of what is “natural.”

If we transfered the same argument into the behavior realm and not consider gender, then certainly we can see that there are abusive, demeaning manipulative, destructive, murderous, unholy, perverted and etc ad nauseam relationships among heterosexual couples as well. I do not see the existence of those perversions used as an advertisement to prevent marriage or relationship. What does apply is the prudent consideration of what is good and trans personal in a relational sense. And I use those terms because neither all homosexuals nor all heterosexuals are ether necessarily Catholic or even religious.

As for Plao’s hypothetical list, he could have included sane, moral, upstanding contributing members of society. How many of our wonderful people did we completely accept and embrace, and even accolade until their gender orientation became known? Following your example of stating extremes, lets ask about the case of say, Alan Turing. Here was a man who is said to have shortened the second world war by about two years due to his astonishing capacity for mathematics and other sciences as well as philosophy. He died tragically, almost certainly of suicide according to the inquest that decided the matter. He was at the hight of his career which was ruined, and the world deprived of his genius, because of laws concerning homosexuality in Brittain and the utter shame and humiliation he suffered due to those. And that was his own homeland, which most directly profited by, or was even saved by his work. You can read more here, and be as impressed, I would hope, by his stature as I am.

But there are many like him, from Michaelangelo of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican, to Alexander, Hadrian, Tchaikovsky and a litany of others, all who accomplished and continue to accomplish, great things on the world stage. And then we might consider such as Popes John XII, Benedict IX, Alexander VI, Julius III, and Paul II. Look up their biographies. Let Plato add them as well.

 

[larkin31]

If you are the academic type, you know the dictionary defines a pervert as someone who turns aside from the natural course of things. That is what this thread is about … whether homosexuality is withing the natural law or a perversion of the the natural law.

You have never heard me use such words as fag, queer, nancy, or any other word to describe homosexuals. However, homosexuals do pervert the natural law, and therefore they are perverts. I would also call anyone who molests children a pervert, or anyone who tortures for the sheer pleasure of it. But neither I nor anyone else can be called to account by the Catholic Church for using the same language used by Saint Paul.

Nice dodge and self-justification! You are clearly violating the spirit of the advice in this guidance letter.

I could just as well “justify” calling my son a “loser” in a critical tone just because, technically, he “lost” a race. Nice approach to one of God’s creation, huh?

You get the point; you just don’t want to admit it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

I could just as well “justify” calling my son a “loser” in a critical tone just because, technically, he “lost” a race. Nice approach to one of God’s creation, huh?

Uh, you lost me there! Losing a race is not unnatural or perverse.

And losing a race would not excuse yelling “Loser” at the loser unless you’ve had one too many beers.

Perhaps you have me confused with Archie Bunker?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

antroji

*But there are many like him, from Michaelangelo of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican, to Alexander, Hadrian, Tchaikovsky and a litany of others, all who accomplished and continue to accomplish, great things on the world stage. And then we might consider such as Popes John XII, Benedict IX, Alexander VI, Julius III, and Paul II. Look up their biographies. Let Plato add them as well. *

Well, I don’t think that Plato would begrudge anyone whatever achievements they have made in life, whatever contributions they have made to the world. But you seem to miss the mark entirely. Whatever great things homosexuals have achieved is not necessarily due to their homosexuality, just as whatever great things heterosexuals have achieved is not necessarily due to their heterosexuality. I don’t know why you think people of the type you named should have been named by Plato, when Plato is talking about people of all types, the achievers as well as the non-achievers. He is talking about human sexuality pure and simple, and he is distinguishing what he considered natural from unnatural.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

antroji

Alexander VI was a genuinely accomplished pope? I’m puzzled why you said that. He was widely believed to have purchased the papacy. Also, he is widely believed to have been behind the hanging and burning of the Dominican monk Savonarola. Savonarola had wanted the kings of Europe to demand from Alexander a new Council of the Church for the purpose of reforming the corruption within the Church. Doubtless, Alexander VI wanted none of that. So, as a Catholic, why do you pick him for one of your heroes?

 

[Abu]

Charlemagne II
How right you are. Those who villify Christ and His Church try to separate Her from Her Scriptures! A real scholar and faithful priest exposes them.

Answer by Fr. John Echert on Nov-15-2002 (EWTN):
[Extracts]
“The New Testament, consistent with the Old Testament, regards homosexual activity as a perversion and as spiritually life-threatening. In particular, St. Paul condemns in the strongest terms the behavior of pagans who failed to recognize the one true God and lapsed into sexual perversity, as we read in Romans:
“1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

“Furthermore, the Apostle lists among those who will not enter the Kingdom of God those who are actively homosexual:

“6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1Cor)

“Actually there are two words in the Greek behind the single RSV word ‘sexual perverts’, both of which regard homosexuality. The Greek language was able to distinguish between the passive partner of a homosexual union (acting as the female) and the active partner of that union, both of which are found in this text and stand behind the single designation, ‘sexual perverts’ of the RSV."

But the continued charade of fantasising that the hogwash of modern pollutants could be linked to what St Paul condemned as perversion so many millennia ago without it, beggars belief.

 

[Soulewolf]

hmm heres a question.

What is a higher authority? Personal experiance with Divinity, or scripture?

 

[Soulewolf]

But the continued charade of fantasising that the hogwash of modern pollutants could be linked to what St Paul condemned as perversion so many millennia ago without it, beggars belief.

the reason i introduced the chemical idea is because there is an obvious rise in homosexuality in the modern day compared to older civilizations. If you look at the bible as historically accurate, regular homosexual activity is constrained to certain groups of people such as in sodom and gomorrah. The idea that a chemical introduced to them through their water systems from the ground, which spread through livestock is far from far fetched (lol). Especially if there was volcanic activity nearby.

 

[davidv]

hmm heres a question.

What is a higher authority? Personal experiance with Divinity, or scripture?

Neither. Authorty is execised by persons. Experiences and texts cannot exercise authority as they are not persons. How does this relate to the OP?

 

[antroji]

It is a matter of subtlty, but I would hazzard, Soulewolf, that an encounter with the Divine is not personal in the sense we ordinarily mean it, though “person” certainly would evidence the residue of such an experience.

And Davidv, persons are comprised of thier experiences which grant them authority in their field of experience, so what really are you saying? I mean a priest, eg, speaks with “authority” about scripture due to his experience with them, no? And is not the Church a major excercise in granting authority to scriptures?

C II, those Popes are not heroes in my book. Dig deeper.