Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[Soulewolf]

Soulewolf
Nobody in his right mind could “feel” that it makes sense.

The natural law makes sense because reason shows that it is reasonable.

There is ample evidence of the fact of the natural moral law, and the fact that pagans, Ancient Egyptians, Roman philosopher Cicero (died 43 B.C.), Roman jurists, Sodom and Gomorrah, attest to it, and to the fact that it must be followed or the consequences must be paid, plus the simple steps that show the immorality of sodomy, the disorder of the homosexual, and the success of reparative therapy programs that enable many so afflicted to lead a normal life.

for one, i dont care who attests to it. that is appeal to authority and has no impact on the validity of the argument.

for two, if its not feeling then please explain the link between a refutable argument (such as faith in any belief system) and the acceptance of this argument into an individual paradigm.

for three, yes they can feel like it makes sense, and quite often do. Many things make sense to some people and many opposite things make sense to others. “sense” is subjective and completely dependent on a persons paradigm.

for four, you have no evidence of these “consequences”

 

[Abu]

Soulewolf
for one, i dont care who attests to it. that is appeal to authority and has no impact on the validity of the argument
you have no evidence of these “consequences”

1. Wrong again. The evidence is through pagan reasoning that the natural law exists and should be followed; that God destroyed because of it; Christ’s Church also supports the reasoning from cause to effect.
2. It is only reason that can make sense or nonsense, as against “feeling” which is likes, preferences, and wishful thinking. It is precisely the emotions (feelings) – the psychological basis of the orientation – which is exhibited and clouds the reason.
3. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah are recorded consequences. The evidence of the consequences is shown in the reality that many homosexuals/lesbians want to recover from their disorder and seek help, getting it from reparative therapy. The continuing spread of AIDS through promiscuity and the psychological conflicts are real and persistent.

“There is a whole way of thinking and feeling that occurs long before the inclination to genital acts with persons of the same sex arises in the heart…the disorder itself is rooted in unhealthy emotions.” [Fr John A Harvey, *The Truth About Homosexuality, Ignatius, 1996, p 154-5. Also Elizabeth Moberly’s Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic, and Gerald van Aardweg’s Homosexuality and Hope, for an analysis of such emotions].

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

 

[Soulewolf]

1. Wrong again. The evidence is through pagan reasoning that the natural law exists and should be followed; that God destroyed because of it; Christ’s Church also supports the reasoning from cause to effect.

Wrong again. Even if pagans came up with it, that has no consequence on the validity of the argument.

1. It is only reason that can make sense or nonsense, as against “feeling” which is likes, preferences, and wishful thinking. It is precisely the emotions (feelings) – the psychological basis of the orientation – which is exhibited and clouds the reason.

this does not answer the question. What is the link between objective logic, and the subjective “Sense”?

1. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah are recorded consequences. The evidence of the consequences is shown in the reality that many homosexuals/lesbians want to recover from their disorder and seek help, getting it from reparative therapy. The continuing spread of AIDS through promiscuity and the psychological conflicts are real and persistent.

Then why does Canada still exist?

“If AIDS is the reason that homosexuality is wrong, then Lesbians must be Gods favorite people.”
-(cant remember the name of the guy i’m quoting)

There are no psychological conflicts except for people who still have the outdated opinion that it is a psychological issue.

The suicide rate for people in reparative therapy is higher than their success rate. I could brainwash you into becoming gay as well.

 

[Soulewolf]

ps:

your “truth about homosexuality” is outdated and according to the American Psychological Association it is also in fact, NOT the truth about homosexuality. The “truth about homosexuality” according to the modern scientific community is prenatal hormone exposure. I believe i linked you to references in a previous post, but i assume you neglected to read it so, in lieu of your stubbornness, i’ll repost it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation

“The hormonal theory of sexuality holds that, just as exposure to certain hormones plays a role in fetal sex differentiation, such exposure also influences the sexual orientation that emerges later in the adult. Fetal hormones may be seen as the primary determiner of adult sexual orientation, or a co-factor with genes and/or environmental and social conditions.”

 

[Abu]

Soulewolf
There are no psychological conflicts except for people who still have the outdated opinion that it is a psychological issue….the American Psychological Association it is also in fact, NOT the truth about homosexuality…. The “truth about homosexuality” according to the modern scientific community is prenatal hormone exposure…The hormonal theory of sexuality

False. We need facts not theories.
“…homosexuality is a disturbance, comparable to although not identical with a physical illness. Strictly speaking there is no “cancerous person,” “paralytic person,” “pedophile person,” or “transsexual person.” There is, rather, a “person with cancer,” or a “person with a homosexual problem.” In contrast, it is correct to speak of the “heterosexual person,” because every human person is, as a man or a woman, designed for the sexual encounter with the opposite sex irrespective of the existence of a disturbance.” “…both therapy and self therapy may completely eradicate a fully homosexual orientation and restore normal heterosexuality.”
Dubious Psychology by Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, a clinical psychologist with more than 30 years of practice in therapy with homosexuals. Catholic World Report, November 1997].

Refuted by Dr Hershberger who states: narth.com/docs/triplets.html
"The orderly, law-like pattern of changes…observed in Spitzer’s study is strong evidence that reparative therapy can assist individuals in changing their homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation. Now it is up to those skeptical of reparative therapy to provide comparably strong evidence to support their position. In my opinion, they have yet to do so."1
1 Hershberger, Scott L., Guttman Scalability Confirms Effectiveness of Reparative Therapy, Archives of Sexual Behavior 32:5, p. 440.

Unsubstantiated Claims
narth.com/docs/psychobiology.html
2) *On Born Gay: The Psychobiology Of Sex Orientation *By G. Wilson and Q. Rahman, Peter Owen, London, 2005, 176pp. (Reviewed by Neil E.Whitehead, Ph.D)
“The authors argue that there is a 30% genetic contribution to SSA, (this includes any other pre-natal common factors) and then say the remaining amount (70%) is prenatal exposure to hormones. Their case collapses, as most do, on those same twin studies. Remember that the 30% includes all the prenatal common factors, so the only way for hormones to be responsible for an additional 70% would be to have hormones affecting one twin and not the other. This would be an individual factor, not a common factor. However, it is well known that even opposite-sex twins influence each other hormonally in the womb.

“One would expect in such a book that there be a reasoned derivation for this estimate of the supposed 70% contribution of hormonal activity, but there isn’t.”

Toronto, August 10, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Dr. Stanton Jones and his research partner, Dr. Mark Yarhouse, were given the opportunity, on Sunday morning at 8:00 a.m., to present their findings on a study of sexual reorientation therapy, at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association (APA) in Toronto.

The six year study concluded that there is evidence that homosexual tendencies can be controlled and redirected toward normal sexual attraction.
[usa-lifesitenews-com-monday-august-10-2009-new-study-measures-benefits-of-more-involved-fathers/]

 

[Soulewolf]

False. We need facts not theories.
“…homosexuality is a disturbance, comparable to although not identical with a physical illness. Strictly speaking there is no “cancerous person,” “paralytic person,” “pedophile person,” or “transsexual person.” There is, rather, a “person with cancer,” or a “person with a homosexual problem.” In contrast, it is correct to speak of the “heterosexual person,” because every human person is, as a man or a woman, designed for the sexual encounter with the opposite sex irrespective of the existence of a disturbance.” “…both therapy and self therapy may completely eradicate a fully homosexual orientation and restore normal heterosexuality.”
Dubious Psychology by Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, a clinical psychologist with more than 30 years of practice in therapy with homosexuals. Catholic World Report, November 1997].

Refuted by Dr Hershberger who states: narth.com/docs/triplets.html
"The orderly, law-like pattern of changes…observed in Spitzer’s study is strong evidence that reparative therapy can assist individuals in changing their homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation. Now it is up to those skeptical of reparative therapy to provide comparably strong evidence to support their position. In my opinion, they have yet to do so."1
1 Hershberger, Scott L., Guttman Scalability Confirms Effectiveness of Reparative Therapy, Archives of Sexual Behavior 32:5, p. 440.

Unsubstantiated Claims
narth.com/docs/psychobiology.html
2) *On Born Gay: The Psychobiology Of Sex Orientation *By G. Wilson and Q. Rahman, Peter Owen, London, 2005, 176pp. (Reviewed by Neil E.Whitehead, Ph.D)
“The authors argue that there is a 30% genetic contribution to SSA, (this includes any other pre-natal common factors) and then say the remaining amount (70%) is prenatal exposure to hormones. Their case collapses, as most do, on those same twin studies. Remember that the 30% includes all the prenatal common factors, so the only way for hormones to be responsible for an additional 70% would be to have hormones affecting one twin and not the other. This would be an individual factor, not a common factor. However, it is well known that even opposite-sex twins influence each other hormonally in the womb.

“One would expect in such a book that there be a reasoned derivation for this estimate of the supposed 70% contribution of hormonal activity, but there isn’t.”

Toronto, August 10, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Dr. Stanton Jones and his research partner, Dr. Mark Yarhouse, were given the opportunity, on Sunday morning at 8:00 a.m., to present their findings on a study of sexual reorientation therapy, at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association (APA) in Toronto.

The six year study concluded that there is evidence that homosexual tendencies can be controlled and redirected toward normal sexual attraction.
[usa-lifesitenews-com-monday-august-10-2009-new-study-measures-benefits-of-more-involved-fathers/]

number one, any behavior can be changed or controlled with brainwashing. Have you read “A Clockwork Orange”?

number two, the article i posted talks about twin studies. i wish you would just read the thing already instead of thinking you already know everything on the subject.

“Another issue is the recent finding that even monozygotic twins can be different and there is a mechanism which might account for monozygotic twins being discordant for homosexuality. Gringas and Chen (2001) describe a number of mechanisms which can lead to differences between monozygotic twins, the most relevant here being chorionicity and amniocity.[10] **Dichorionic twins potentially have different hormonal environments and receive maternal blood from separate placenta. **Monoamniotic twins share a hormonal environment, but can suffer from the ‘twin to twin transfusion syndrome’ in which one twin is “relatively stuffed with blood and the other exsanguinated”.[11] If one twin receives less testosterone and the other more, this could result in different levels of brain masculinisation.”

For three, your first paragraph is nothing but a semantics argument which has no validity in objective logic, though it might have some validity for the way we communicate. But how we communicate is not the topic at hand.

You asked for the facts, these are the facts. it is your choice whether to accept them or not.

For four, you only attempted to give a response to a single one of my points which was not even part of the origional conversation. This is a Straw Man.

1.) this does not answer the question. What is the link between objective logic, and the subjective “Sense”?

1. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah are recorded consequences.

2). Then why does Canada, which allows gay marriage, still exist?

The continuing spread of AIDS through promiscuity and the psychological conflicts are real and persistent.

3.) “If AIDS is Gods answer to homosexuality, then Lesbians must be gods favorite people”

 

[antroji]

Soulewolf, many on here are emotionally incapable of accepting facts because of the drama factor, if you will. Drama is defined as “what is at stake.” Some on here have so identified their essence with an appearance or a form that it is impossible for them to have the dispassion to look at new evidence from other than a rigid framework of their acceptance of their version of a particular belief system and its assumptions and the emotional investment that goes with it. Thereby are even the “words of God” created in their own image and likeness, and they will protest till death that it is not so, that they speak on external authority, though never having seen “within.” If you are familiar with Castaneda, then you know what we are here dealing with is the advanced form of an adamantine assemblage point.

If you recall, Don Juan Matus had to barrage Carlos with hallucinogens to no other end than to break down his adopted and limited mental structuring of the world in order to get him into a state of receptivity where he could even see a bit of another paradigm. For these people there is no other paradigm. You, Soulewolf, have been fortunate to see beyond the iron clad structures that were necessary for you, and all of us, to adopt in order to get along and even survive as children. But you were lucky; something happened to make you see yourself differently.

It is safe to talk even like this about such matters, because to those of that mind set reading this, these words are heresy and ignorance. Those individuals are already too well shielded against another position, even to see it accurately and dispassionately. Until they receive such a shock as will force them to re-assess their mind set, they will live “successfully” by what they have as their own definition of actuality. And that is the natural order of things that they should do so. Argument here, no matter how erudite, astute and accurate, will be of no avail due to the nature of the human mind and its progress, or not, in awareness. You may or may not take my advice, but let it go. Your energy is better used on your own advancement. You will naturally attract the ready, and no amount of words will convince the unwilling, however good exercise you might deem that to be.

 

[Soulewolf]

“For example, a recent meta-study by Hershberger (2001)[5] compares the results of eight different twin studies: among those, all but two showed MZ twins having much higher concordance of sexual orientation than DZ twins, suggesting a non-negligible genetic component. Two additional examples: Bailey and Pillard (1991) in a study of gay twins found that 52% of monozygotic (MZ) brothers and 22% of the dizygotic (DZ) twins were concordant for homosexuality.[6] Also, Bailey, Dunne and Martin (2000) used the Australian twin registry to obtain a sample of 4,901 twins.[7] Self reported zygosity, sexual attraction, fantasy and behaviours were assessed by questionnaire and zygosity was serologically checked when in doubt. MZ twin concordance for homosexuality was found to be 30%.”

It seems as if the numbers for twin studies support the idea of prenatal hormonal exposure.

 

[colmcille1]

number one, any behavior can be changed or controlled with brainwashing. Have you read “A Clockwork Orange”?

Hi Soulewolf,
May I kindly point out that citing this work (and, by extension, the movie) is a fatally weak tactic. If you are aware of the reason behind the late Anthony Burrough’s decision to write this novel, you will know why I have posted this. Since you have used it in your defence I can only assume that you are not aware of said writer’s reason. I have no wish to create an off-topic byroad so may I suggest you research this at your leisure.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[colmcille1]

Soulewolf, many on here are emotionally incapable of accepting facts because of the drama factor, if you will. Drama is defined as “what is at stake.” Some on here have so identified their essence with an appearance or a form that it is impossible for them to have the dispassion to look at new evidence from other than a rigid framework of their acceptance of their version of a particular belief system and its assumptions and the emotional investment that goes with it. Thereby are even the “words of God” created in their own image and likeness, and they will protest till death that it is not so, that they speak on external authority, though never having seen “within.” If you are familiar with Castaneda, then you know what we are here dealing with is the advanced form of an adamantine assemblage point.

If you recall, Don Juan Matus had to barrage Carlos with hallucinogens to no other end than to break down his adopted and limited mental structuring of the world in order to get him into a state of receptivity where he could even see a bit of another paradigm. For these people there is no other paradigm. You, Soulewolf, have been fortunate to see beyond the iron clad structures that were necessary for you, and all of us, to adopt in order to get along and even survive as children. But you were lucky; something happened to make you see yourself differently.

It is safe to talk even like this about such matters, because to those of that mind set reading this, these words are heresy and ignorance. Those individuals are already too well shielded against another position, even to see it accurately and dispassionately. Until they receive such a shock as will force them to re-assess their mind set, they will live “successfully” by what they have as their own definition of actuality. And that is the natural order of things that they should do so. Argument here, no matter how erudite, astute and accurate, will be of no avail due to the nature of the human mind and its progress, or not, in awareness. You may or may not take my advice, but let it go. Your energy is better used on your own advancement. You will naturally attract the ready, and no amount of words will convince the unwilling, however good exercise you might deem that to be.

Hi antroji,
May I state that I know where you are coming from in this post.
When other thread topics have become seemingly intractable, a post such as yours invariably shows up. Let me hasten to add that this is not a value judgement on said post.
At this stage of this thread, (beyond a few new well-structured points) I think the law of diminishing returns has effectively set in. I may well be wrong.
But I too have posted something similar on another thread (it gets a bit confusing after a bit!) and, on reflection, I have realised that it may be construed as simply another angle of pro/con; rather than as the reflective concise overview which was perhaps the poster’s intention.
Be that as it may, I firmly believe that debate should be full-on, full-blooded (though without any virtual bloodletting!) because it is only (as far as these threads are concerned) through the dark and half-dark chambers of human thought can one truly arrive at His Way.
It is, in the last analysis, unworthy for any poster (and I stand guilty) to issue forth in a philosophical glissade of mild condemnation or derision.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Abu]

Soulewolfe
Then why does Canada, which allows gay marriage, still exist?

Fatuous. For the same reason (not “feeling”) that while God killed Onan for contraception as an example to others, He no longer kills those who contracept because He has established His Church to teach infallibly. His destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was a warning then, which you have been quite unable to understand.
Your denial of the natural moral law even known by the pagans, of Christ’s very clear building of His Church with His authority, as God the Son, while you divinize feelings, likes, preferences and wishful thinking, belies your ability to reason from cause to effect.

As logic is reasoned and reasonable judgment, it is totally removed from your concept of “sense” which equals feelings, likes, preferences and wishful thinking which you “feel”:

yes they can feel like it makes sense, and quite often do. Many things make sense to some people and many opposite things make sense to others. “sense” is subjective and completely dependent on a persons paradigm.

As a matter of logic and reason “opposite things” as statements that affirm or deny something are either true or false – both cannot be true. What the natural moral law and the doctrine of the Church both affirm are logically true.
“Common sense” is not “feeling” it is sound practical judgment based on sound reason.

Charlemagne II put it well:
“Feeling? We do not decide what is right by what we feel to be right at a given moment, when the feeling conveniently comes over us and we want to give in to it. We decide what is right by what we know is right now and forever. If our will is determined, we can always enlist the service of intellect to justify any feeling. But we cannot enlist the service of feeling to justify any duty. Indeed, sometimes duty calls forth feelings we would prefer not to have if it were possible to avoid them.”

 

[larkin31]

“For example, a recent meta-study by Hershberger (2001)[5] compares the results of eight different twin studies: among those, all but two showed MZ twins having much higher concordance of sexual orientation than DZ twins, suggesting a non-negligible genetic component. Two additional examples: Bailey and Pillard (1991) in a study of gay twins found that 52% of monozygotic (MZ) brothers and 22% of the dizygotic (DZ) twins were concordant for homosexuality.[6] Also, Bailey, Dunne and Martin (2000) used the Australian twin registry to obtain a sample of 4,901 twins.[7] Self reported zygosity, sexual attraction, fantasy and behaviours were assessed by questionnaire and zygosity was serologically checked when in doubt. MZ twin concordance for homosexuality was found to be 30%.”

It seems as if the numbers for twin studies support the idea of prenatal hormonal exposure.

Yes, a number of studies have indicated this possibility. Research in hormonal and other protein-based processes has been growing in recent years. Our knowledge in this regard is expanding.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Soulewolf

*I’m not asking if its consistent or not. i’m asking what the emotional nature of Faith is, and why you choose to have faith, and a good new question “how you acquired that faith” *

Why are you trying to change the subject of this thread?

The question is not about faith, but about the natural law re: homosexuality.

Plato subscribed to it without faith. How do you account for Plato’s view (without faith) that homosexuality is unnatural and shameful?

your “truth about homosexuality” is outdated and according to the American Psychological Association it is also in fact, NOT the truth about homosexuality.

Most psychologists are atheists. They are wrong about that too!

 

[antroji]

Charlemagne II, for my part Soulewolf’s question stands, because your third party claim as to what constitutes “natural law” is acquired by default, heavily relying on faith. Even your choice of pagan philosophical “support” is informed by faith, so Soulewolf’s point is spot on. He is asking you to examine your assumptions, which you won’t because you believe them. Kind of circular, eh? Your very weak argument that most psychologists are atheists attests to all of the above. You are a religionist as much as they are atheists. It is all belief.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

antroji

*Charlemagne II, for my part Soulewolf’s question stands, because your third party claim as to what constitutes “natural law” is acquired by default, heavily relying on faith. Even your choice of pagan philosophical “support” is informed by faith, so Soulewolf’s point is spot on. He is asking you to examine your assumptions, which you won’t because you believe them. Kind of circular, eh? Your very weak argument that most psychologists are atheists attests to all of the above. You are a religionist as much as they are atheists. It is all belief. *

Exactly what third party claim are you talking about? I gave three reasons for natural law: instinct, common sense, and faith. The first two can stand alone without faith. Plato, who was not a disciple of Moses or Paul, is proof of that. Again, I ask, what more reason did Plato need than common sense and instinct to assert a natural law that is “shamefully” violated by homosexual acts?

Your very weak argument that most psychologists are atheists attests to all of the above.

I’m not going to do your research for you, but you can find out on your own that most psychologists are indeed atheists. As a Catholic, you must certainly think they are wrong.You might start with a book by psychologist Paul Vitz titled Faith of the Fatherless. He points to the fountainhead of atheism among psychologists, Sigmund Freud, who regarded religion as a mental illness. So I would no more believe Freud on religion than I would believe the American Psychological Association on homosexuality.

You can call it going round and round all day and all night. It’s still common sense and instinct that homosexual acts are wrong because they are against the natural law.

Paul doesn’t even need to be invoked, except for those Catholics who are fallen away.

 

[antroji]

“instinct, common sense, and faith.” Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. QED. Thanks, CII!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Many things make sense to some people and many opposite things make sense to others. “sense” is subjective and completely dependent on a persons paradigm.

How do you justify this logic? Suppose two people disagree about something. One is right and one is wrong. Both think they have made sense of the situation, though they come to opposite conclusions. You are going to call both judgments subjective?

Now, in the case where two people disagree and come to different conclusions, it is possible that** both **are wrong. In that case, **both are subjective **because they have got a false sense, not a true sense, of the way things are. A third person comes along with another sense that disagrees with the first two, and his sense is demonstrably true … even the first two are won over. Are all three still subjective? Or are all three now objective because they have a true sense of the way things are?

It is, of course, possible that all three only sense that they now have the truth, when in fact all three are still subjectively viewing the matter from a false perspective. The objective truth of the matter is still waiting to be found out by the most truthful searcher. If it ever is found out, everyone can shout “Eureka!”

But to say that every person’s sense is as subjectively true as every other person’s sense … is just plain nonsense.

One does not fly an airplane without a sense that navigating through the air is an objective science … objective enough to know that, if there are no intervening factors, the plane is likely to land safely at its appointed destination. You don’t just feel that it will. You know that the science of aviation has proven itself sufficiently to earn your trust that it is true.

 

[antroji]

Oh. I see. You CII, are the most truthfull reasercher. Please pardon us. Me, at least. Bye now.

 

[Soulewolf]

Many things make sense to some people and many opposite things make sense to others. “sense” is subjective and completely dependent on a persons paradigm.

How do you justify this logic? Suppose two people disagree about something. One is right and one is wrong. Both think they have made sense of the situation, though they come to opposite conclusions. You are going to call both judgments subjective?

Now, in the case where two people disagree and come to different conclusions, it is possible that** both **are wrong. In that case, **both are subjective **because they have got a false sense, not a true sense, of the way things are. A third person comes along with another sense that disagrees with the first two, and his sense is demonstrably true … even the first two are won over. Are all three still subjective? Or are all three now objective because they have a true sense of the way things are?

It is, of course, possible that all three only sense that they now have the truth, when in fact all three are still subjectively viewing the matter from a false perspective. The objective truth of the matter is still waiting to be found out by the most truthful searcher. If it ever is found out, everyone can shout “Eureka!”

But to say that every person’s sense is as subjectively true as every other person’s sense … is just plain nonsense.

One does not fly an airplane without a sense that navigating through the air is an objective science … objective enough to know that, if there are no intervening factors, the plane is likely to land safely at its appointed destination. You don’t just feel that it will. You know that the science of aviation has proven itself sufficiently to earn your trust that it is true.

The definition of objective: Existence independent of the human mind.

Ex: The planet earth. Logic. Mathematics

The definition of Subjective: Existence dependent on the human mind.

Ex: Unicorns, Harry Potter, Things making sense

Things making sense are subjective simply because without the human mind, there is nothing to make sense in. Therefor things making sense are dependent on the human mind.

Two people may have differing opinions about a objective truth where one “sense” is objectively true and the other “Sense” is objectively false. However both “Senses” are subjectively true within the paradigm of the individual.

 

[JDaniel]

Dearly beloved friends,

A non-Christian may be prepared to concede that homosexual deviant acts are ‘unnatural’ in the sense that some things plainly have inherent functions (termed teleologies by philosphers). Thus to use one’s reproductive organs for purposes other than that for which they were intended (i.e. procreation) is manfestly unnatural.

However, whilst they might allow that homosexual genital acts are aberrant and unnatural, they would say that that does not necessarily make them wrong. They want to know how one leaps from unnatural to wrong. Thus, by way of example they will say that the bridge of the nose was not intended to hold glasses (an unnatural use), nevertheless, it is clearly not a ‘wrong’ thing to do. Again hair on the head is natures way of preventing heat loss, so to shave one’s head is unnatural and frustrates the function of hair. However, nobody would seriously argue that a No. 0 haircut was ‘wrong’. Likewise, they would contend that homosexual deviant acts may well be unnatural, or contrary to inherent functions, but that does not thereby render them wrong and improper.

Since it would be pointless to reference Sacred Scripture or the teaching of the Church, the authority of which atheists do not acknowledge, how can we respond to and refute these arguments by recourse to natural law reasoning only, demonstrating irrefragibly that homosexual genital acts are not only unnatural but wrong and improper also?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Yes, Portrait, but it seems almost silly to say it.

“Put 100 homosexuals on an island; go back in 100 years and report the findings. Reproduction is, perhaps, the pinnacle natural dynamic of mankind - and, really, all life - i.e., to reproduce, to forward itself into the future.” To obfuscate this would be a violation of the Natural Law, don’t you think?

God bless,
jd