Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[antroji]

JDaniel, that is an abstraction of a high order and would work as well if you had all those men there as heterosexuals. Try to keep some useful sense of proportion on here, as there is already so little. Do celibate priest reproduce? Ahem. yes, apparently, but in theory, no. Put them on your island. Or other categories of men who don’t, say those who are impotent for some reason. Wow! Natural Law at work!!! Perhaps you would volunteer for the experiment and take a few of the fellows from on here with you? Lord love you, JD, but make sense.

 

[JDaniel]

JDaniel, that is an abstraction of a high order and would work as well if you had all those men there as heterosexuals. Try to keep some useful sense of proportion on here, as there is already so little. Do celibate priest reproduce? Ahem. yes, apparently, but in theory, no. Put them on your island. Or other categories of men who don’t, say those who are impotent for some reason. Wow! Natural Law at work!!! Perhaps you would volunteer for the experiment and take a few of the fellows from on here with you? Lord love you, JD, but make sense.

Antroji:

Did I say they were all 'men?" Notice that I specifically said, “homosexuals.” If there were 50 lesbians and 50 gay men, or, 52 lesbians and 48 gay men, what would the results be? It is an abstraction, to be sure, but, so is any allusion to bestiality or any other form of aberrated sexuality to compare it to or against. Does that make more sense? I am clamoring for Nature, not, non-Nature. Not aberration.

You say animals participate in homosexuality. I strongly disagree. Certainly animals can simulate, or imitate “sex” with another of the same gender, but, to postulate intentionality to them is to be absurd beyond reason. 99.9 % (if not more) of higher animals are not homosexual by nature.

People often generalize to make their points. But, reality is reality, nothing more, nothing less. I feel bad for those that find themselves in the trap of homosexuality, but, I feel bad, too, for those people who are devoid of sexuality.

God bless,
jd

 

[larkin31]

Antroji:

Did I say they were all 'men?" Notice that I specifically said, “homosexuals.” If there were 50 lesbians and 50 gay men, or, 52 lesbians and 48 gay men, what would the results be? It is an abstraction, to be sure, but, so is any allusion to bestiality or any other form of aberrated sexuality to compare it to or against. Does that make more sense? I am clamoring for Nature, not, non-Nature. Not aberration.

Human sterility and infertility are both quite natural. I do not see what point you are making.

And you do know that gays do have sex across the gender line and do have children from time to time, right?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

antroji

JDaniel, that is an abstraction of a high order and would work as well if you had all those men there as heterosexuals.

Did you misread him?

He did not say 100 men, he said 100 homosexuals. If the men and women homosexuals did not mate, there would be no humanity left.

If there were 100 male and female heterosexuals, the island would be well enough populated in 100 years.

Fulfilling God and nature’s command: “Go forth and multiply.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

*And you do know that gays do have sex across the gender line and do have children from time to time, right? *

Yes, but usually with heterosexuals, not with other homosexuals.

 

[JDaniel]

Human sterility and infertility are both quite natural. I do not see what point you are making.

And you do know that gays do have sex across the gender line and do have children from time to time, right?

And so, in 100 years we go there and find one or two little lonely boys or girls, probably on their death beds from starvation? All the adults would most likely be dead!

My point is as clear as decent water. Aberrate nature and you will get aberration.

God bless,
jd

 

[larkin31]

And so, in 100 years we go there and find one or two little lonely boys or girls, probably on the death beds from starvation? All the adults would most likely be dead!

My point is as clear as decent water. Aberrate nature and you will get aberration.

God bless,
jd

So, you admit that gays reproduce. Excellent. We agree there.

Now, are you claiming that children of gays are “aberrant”? Or simply that gays do not have children as often as heteros do (which is, of course, true)?

 

[JDaniel]

So, you admit that gays reproduce. Excellent. We agree there.

Of course. They certainly have the physical requirements. But, every single gay that I have ever spoken to - and I am old enough to have spoken to many - is repulsed by even the notion of having sex with a member of the opposite sex! What are the odds? Hmmm?

Now, are you claiming that children of gays are “aberrant”? Or simply that gays do not have children as often as heteros do (which is, of course, true)?

The latter, of course. C’mon!

God bless,
jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Soulewolf

*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. *



.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

JDaniel

And so, in 100 years we go there and find one or two little lonely boys or girls, probably on their death beds from starvation? All the adults would most likely be dead!

No. The boys and girls will be saved in the nick of time by the landing of the next boatload of homosexuals.

 

[Soulewolf]

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!

i’m sorry. every time i make a point, like ask the link between logic and sense to point out the fact that faith relies on feeling, or point out that twin studies actually show evidence towards a prenatal explanation for homosexuality, or how i proved that Sense is completely subjective, it either gets completely ignored, or you do a red herring like you are doing here in this post. I think i’m going to take antroji’s advice and let you run me out of this thread.

You and abu can not see reason, nor choose to learn anything new and expand your views on the infinite Divinity or even the objective world that we live in.

I wish you well on your spiritual endeavors. But i will not be part of them in this thread any longer.

 

[JDaniel]

i’m sorry. every time i make a point, like ask the link between logic and sense to point out the fact that faith relies on feeling, or point out that twin studies actually show evidence towards a prenatal explanation for homosexuality, or how i proved that Sense is completely subjective, it either gets completely ignored, or you do a red herring like you are doing here in this post. I think i’m going to take antroji’s advice and let you run me out of this thread.

You and abu can not see reason, nor choose to learn anything new and expand your views on the infinite Divinity or even the objective world that we live in.

I wish you well on your spiritual endeavors. But i will not be part of them in this thread any longer.

My friend, Soulewolf. Why such thin skin? Remember, you may be very smart, but, so is just about everyone else on this board. Some more than others, but, nevertheless.

I don’t mind being altruistic with those who are afflicted by homosexuality - and I am - but, as my friend used to say, “I am willing to go to the wall for you, but please, don’t ask me to climb it.”

God bless,
jd

 

[larkin31]

Of course. They certainly have the physical requirements. But, every single gay that I have ever spoken to - and I am old enough to have spoken to many - is repulsed by even the notion of having sex with a member of the opposite sex! What are the odds? Hmmm?

The latter, of course. C’mon!

God bless,
jd

So because they have children less often you call them “unnatural” or against “nature”? I don’t see, in any way, how lower reproductive frequency is in any way “unnatural.” It is simply less reproductive.

 

[antroji]

Hmmmm… What then, JD, about all those marriages that produced children where the guy, or the gal, at last comes out of the closet? And once again, I don’t think that if we put a “+” on the board that it covers all cases, one preference in each quadrant. It is more likely about twelve permutations and the hermaphroditic population as well. Nature, or Life, will attempt every possibility. It is its Nature. It is the Law. It is the Natural Law. God, if you will, “made” it that way.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

antroji

*God, if you will, “made” it that way. *

As you are a Catholic, you cannot possibly believe that God obliges us to commit homosexual acts by having nature make us for that purpose.

Please tell me you said nothing of the sort.

 

[JDaniel]

So because they have children less often you call them “unnatural” or against “nature”? I don’t see, in any way, how lower reproductive frequency is in any way “unnatural.” It is simply less reproductive.

So, you don’t see life as the primary dynamic of humankind?

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Hmmmm… What then, JD, about all those marriages that produced children where the guy, or the gal, at last comes out of the closet? And once again, I don’t think that if we put a “+” on the board that it covers all cases, one preference in each quadrant. It is more likely about twelve permutations and the hermaphroditic population as well. Nature, or Life, will attempt every possibility. It is its Nature. It is the Law. It is the Natural Law. God, if you will, “made” it that way.

This isn’t Jurassic Park. We’re not participating in a movie. If you reduce the frequency of birth, you reduce the population - steadily. Perhaps to zero.

But, that may be what you want. More room for the other species of animals.

God bless,
jd

 

[larkin31]

So, you don’t see life as the primary dynamic of humankind?

jd

Life and death are present in our existence in exactly equal numbers. Honestly, death is just as present, just as important, just as “natural.”

But that is not the issue. You called low fertility against “nature.” My specific rejoinder is simply that the facts do not bear this claim out. Low fertility exists naturally in many ways. Even in humans, where between 8-12 percent of hetero couples are reported to be infertile (according to the CDC).

 

[antroji]

I meant exactly what I said, not making moral judgements as to acts. If God didn’t “make” Nature, please explain how it happened? You have the most excellent and exquisit way, CII, of misreading my words and turning them to your own agenda. Please read what I am saying and comment on that if you must. I prefer you didn’t, as I don’t like dealing with… Better yet, how’s about you take a break and go read something like MJ Adler’s How to Read a Book. Then share it with some of your compadres on here. It would bless us all.

 

[Abu]

We are commanded to make moral judgments on all acts, and any Catholic not so doing according to the natural moral law, and not following the teaching of Christ’s Church on that law is objectively guilty. (Post #1380).