D
davidv
Guest
Whether or not this occurs with women is of no relevance to the morality of homosexual activity. It is off topic and a red herring.
- Status
L
larkin31
Guest
It is totally relevant to an argument trying to be made against homosexuality using logic (this thread title). If you wish to make a* persuasive* argument against homosexuality and for heterosexuality, then you had better show better skills than simply stating that “bad people are bad.” Or that “adults have a history of being attracted to youth.” Yes, they sure do. One cannot make prejudicial arguments and expect them to be considered persuasive logically.
J
John21652
Guest
For someone who suggests an adherence to logic, you sure are good at throwing in non seuitur answers. You side-stepped Portrait’s post so much we can only just see your footprints. You have also distorted the thread topic label. The topic is Can Homosexuality Be proved Wrong From Natural Law. You have sidestepped the topic so much the entire thread has gone awry.
Enough arguments have been put forward on this thread to show that homosexuality does in fact prove that homosexuality is wrong. As Portrait tells us, the homosexual lobby is trying very hard to “normalise” homosexuality so that it can be considered as normative behaviour. Natural law is the concept of a body of moral principles that is common to all humankind and, as generally posited, is recognizable by human reason alone. Throughout human history homosexuality has not been the norm. It never will be unless the natural inclinations of human beings are corrupted. That is what Portrait is telling us and you have ignored his argument.
L
larkin31
Guest
One need not continually respond specifically to the claims made from false logic. I simply pointed out the error at the heart of it all. The rest becomes irrelevant, in the very manner that I described.
You’re blaming me for where the thread topic has gone? HA.
Well, I don’t know what to make of this claim.
No one here ever states that homosexuality is “the norm.” This claim of yours is irrelevant, made against a strawman position.
I have not “ignored” it at all. I reply frequently, and point out where I disagree, when I disagree, and why I disagree.
See how I even reply to you? You seem to be taking my specific disagreements as efforts to “ignore.” That is very interesting to me that you would do that.
J
John21652
Guest
Poor excuse for ignoring Portrait’s post. The poster straight after Portrait, davidV, also called you on this.
Well, if you aren’t the one who sent this thread awry, then show some intellectual rigour and get it back on topic.
Simple, really. Just go back and read what others have posted. Then go brush up on what Natural Law really is.
Yes you did. You swung the debate totally away from what Portrait wrote about. In doing so you ignored Portrait’s points. As I pointed out, even davidV called you on this.
Larkin, once you write the word “seems” it is cause for pause and reflection. Using the word “seems” in a response should alert you to the fact that personal biases may be influencing your responses. Once you find the need to resort to using the word “seems” it is time to ask more questions, to seek more information, because using the word “seems” means you are not sure. It makes for very wobbly logic. It also tends to allow emotiveness to creep into a debate and that really sends people of topic!
Now poor old Portrait and some of his readers are still awaiting a response.
Cheers.
L
larkin31
Guest
Before your snottiness embarrasses you any further, read what you wrote here again and clarify it. This IS the topic, and when you write something clear on the topic I will respond to it.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear larkin31,
Cordial greetings and thankyou for your remarks in response to my post.
You make a very valid point and I would concur that the sexual exploitation of young women ought equally to be denounced in the strongest terms. In fact the whole shameful sexualisation of the young per se is a very sad indictment upon our permissive and sex obsessed Western society. Immorality and hedonism is being actively peddled by the fashion industry, salacious films and tv programmes and that debased sensory material termed rock and pop music. All of these unwholesome influences are unrelentingly aimed at young people who are barely out of childhood and who are being pressurised to think and behave way beyond their tender years. However, that is, alas, the legacy of the permissive sixties, the after effects of which are now all too plainly evident in our very troubled world.
However, that is not the topic currently under review in this thread, for here we are addressing the issue of lowering the age of consent for homosexual males and, specifically, seeking to show that homosexuality can be proved wrong from natural law.
Sorry larkin, but I fail to see how you have seriously engaged with what I have actually said respecting, for example, the legalisation of practices by governments that put our young people at risk and the potentially horrifying effects of lowering the age of homosexual consent, namely that homosexual activists eventually start speaking in defence of sexual desire directed towards children. All of this, I would contend, should flash up the warning cones regarding the homosexual agenda - out of its thoroughly evil treasure it is bringing out nothing but evil and depravity; is there really no limits to which their depravity will not take them?; what other hideous vices will they seek to justify next?
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
L
larkin31
Guest
I am opposed to lowering the age of sexual and marital consent. I don’t see how this is relevant to a debate about homosexuality and “Natural Law.”
Do you mean NAMBLA? If you want to discuss the agenda of NAMBLA, I suggest that you name it outright, and then seek another thread on that topic.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Those who maintain that there is no argument against homosexuality based on the natural law must also argue that there is no argument against incest also that can be based on the natural law. If an adult male and his mother, or an adult female and her father, want to have sex, there can be no persuasive argument against it if not the natural law argument.
I have yet to hear a homosexual answer this objection. We must then legalize incestuous relationships, and if following the homosexual argument for marital rights, we must then legalize marriage rights for mother and son, father and daughter, if the demand is made … as it may well be made should morals and common sense sink so low. Let it not be argued that the demand will not be made. Nobody thought fifty years ago that men would be demanding the insane right to marry other men, and women to marry other women.
I have yet to hear a homosexual answer this objection. We must then legalize incestuous relationships, and if following the homosexual argument for marital rights, we must then legalize marriage rights for mother and son, father and daughter, if the demand is made … as it may well be made should morals and common sense sink so low. Let it not be argued that the demand will not be made. Nobody thought fifty years ago that men would be demanding the insane right to marry other men, and women to marry other women.
S
Soulewolf
Guest
heh i’m homosexual and i answered your question like 100 miles back on the thread.
A
Abu
Guest
Homosexual activity is wrong because anything against the natural moral law is wrong. Why?
The Natural Law is “a law that is in principle accessible to human reason and not dependent on (though entirely compatible with and, indeed, illumined by) divine revelation.” (The Clash of Orthodoxies, Professor Robert P George (Princeton),2001, p 169). So that’s where you have to start – with reason, and the effects of acting against reason and the natural moral law.
We are the one animal that must think even to survive, and the one animal whose actions are not governed by instincts but are judged by standards of good and evil. We don’t consider it cruel not to teach your dog to read, but we think that keeping children from getting an education deprives them of something they should have. We don’t jail rambunctious roosters for forcing themselves on beleaguered hens, but we send men to the slammer for rape.
As soon as you deny the natural moral law, any action can feel acceptable – sodomy, incest, bestiality. It is the evil of utilitarianism and the proof of the pudding is in the eating:
**See Live Australian Debate on Consensual Animal Sex at **blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
Professor Peter Singer: “It is a fact that there is sexual contact between some humans and animals. I was raising the question why we have such a taboo on this. Sometimes it involves cruelty and the infliction of power and dominance on an animal, and clearly I oppose that. There can be occasions, I don’t know how much vivid description you want.
Women have said this is something that pleases them, the dog is free to do it or walk away, there’s no dominance over the dog, that seems harmless.”
[Peter Singer (Austalian philosopher) is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. He specialises in applied ethics, approaching ethical issues from a secular preference utilitarian perspective].
Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome.
Bentham and Mill were hedonists; i.e., they analyzed happiness as a balance of pleasure over pain and believed that these feelings alone are of intrinsic value and disvalue.
Today utilitarians often describe benefits and harms in terms of the satisfaction of personal preferences.
The Natural Law is “a law that is in principle accessible to human reason and not dependent on (though entirely compatible with and, indeed, illumined by) divine revelation.” (The Clash of Orthodoxies, Professor Robert P George (Princeton),2001, p 169). So that’s where you have to start – with reason, and the effects of acting against reason and the natural moral law.
We are the one animal that must think even to survive, and the one animal whose actions are not governed by instincts but are judged by standards of good and evil. We don’t consider it cruel not to teach your dog to read, but we think that keeping children from getting an education deprives them of something they should have. We don’t jail rambunctious roosters for forcing themselves on beleaguered hens, but we send men to the slammer for rape.
As soon as you deny the natural moral law, any action can feel acceptable – sodomy, incest, bestiality. It is the evil of utilitarianism and the proof of the pudding is in the eating:
**See Live Australian Debate on Consensual Animal Sex at **blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
Professor Peter Singer: “It is a fact that there is sexual contact between some humans and animals. I was raising the question why we have such a taboo on this. Sometimes it involves cruelty and the infliction of power and dominance on an animal, and clearly I oppose that. There can be occasions, I don’t know how much vivid description you want.
Women have said this is something that pleases them, the dog is free to do it or walk away, there’s no dominance over the dog, that seems harmless.”
[Peter Singer (Austalian philosopher) is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. He specialises in applied ethics, approaching ethical issues from a secular preference utilitarian perspective].
Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome.
Bentham and Mill were hedonists; i.e., they analyzed happiness as a balance of pleasure over pain and believed that these feelings alone are of intrinsic value and disvalue.
Today utilitarians often describe benefits and harms in terms of the satisfaction of personal preferences.
S
Soulewolf
Guest
yeah i think we get your opinion abu. the same info has been posted again and again.
You know the definition of insanity according to einstein is "doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
You know the definition of insanity according to einstein is "doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
A
Abu
Guest
Soulewolf, like some others, has the problem identified by Bishop Fulton J Sheen of being quite unable to distinguish between the problem of encouraging people to conform to the right standards and of making standards conform to people.
The sincere Catholic never tires of offering the truth so that others may be saved from imbibing error – G K Chesterton put it brilliantly: “I could never at any time understand why there is supposed to be something insolent or intolerant [or insane, Abu] about a man asserting that he has the Truth, and therefore proposes to persuade as many people as possible that is the Truth.”
Such is the natural moral law, and it is Christ and His Church that has the fullness of Truth on faith and morals to confirm mankind in acting in accordance with that natural moral law.
The sincere Catholic never tires of offering the truth so that others may be saved from imbibing error – G K Chesterton put it brilliantly: “I could never at any time understand why there is supposed to be something insolent or intolerant [or insane, Abu] about a man asserting that he has the Truth, and therefore proposes to persuade as many people as possible that is the Truth.”
Such is the natural moral law, and it is Christ and His Church that has the fullness of Truth on faith and morals to confirm mankind in acting in accordance with that natural moral law.
J
John21652
Guest
Well, if you “get” Abu’s opinion, why did you feel the need to respond in a derogitory manner? Why respond at all if you have nothing new to offer, which is exactly what you have criticised Abu for? You have done exactly what you condemn him for doing. Not real clever mate.
I’m sure Einstein, whom you quote, was referring to the carrying out of physical science experiments. Let’s apply your Einsteinian quote to say, parenting. Would you give up telling a child how to behave simply because after each telling they don’t comply? Or would a persistent parent responding to a recidivist child be “insane” according to your Einsteinian quote? Or what about a Policeman who constantly strives to get better behaviour from motorists, but the results never change and driver behaviour remains problematic. Is the Policeman “insane” because he keps trying, regardless of the results? Acording to you, he should give up or be considered insane!
Well, here’s the rub. By your own self admission you live outside and against the morality of the Natural Moral Law. Along comes Abu with an alternate message and all you can do is mock. He does not mock you. He repeats the central core of what Natural Law morality tells us. You mock it. In the process you mock much of human history. In the process you mock what is the norm in human behaviour and has been considered so since time immemorial. Why do you do this? To assuage your own lifestyle perhaps? Because, according to the Natural Law it is perverse. The proofs have been given often enough in this thread and yet you seem detemined to ignore them and instead attempt a mocking defense of what is, according to the Natural Law, the indefensible.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Soulewolf
*heh i’m homosexual and i answered your question like 100 miles back on the thread. *
Huh?
Lordy, did I miss it? I don’t know which of us is really insane, but I know which of us is arguing against the natural law.
Plato, Laws [636c] “And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.”
And Plato was not even a Jew or a Christian!
*heh i’m homosexual and i answered your question like 100 miles back on the thread. *
Huh?
Lordy, did I miss it? I don’t know which of us is really insane, but I know which of us is arguing against the natural law.Plato, Laws [636c] “And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.”
And Plato was not even a Jew or a Christian!
A
antroji
Guest
is a way oversimplification. It also provides a hiding place for lack of finesse. You see, it makes a dualistic choice out of what in actuality is a more broadly dimensioned dynamic. It also is a remnant from Zoroastrian religious thought as adopted into the morphing Church and conforms with the lowest level of logic outside of pure egoism or narcissism who’s one value is “ME.” And unfortunately, this two valued logic is what most fundamentalism is based on, Catholic or otherwise.
Similarly to the sic et nonof homosexual/not homosexual assessment that denies the continuum of gender tones, including the hermaphroditic, the Good Bishop, whom I very much enjoyed watching at that time, is favoring a black vs white interpretation of morality as you apply it here. And because this is generally misunderstood, Christians also lack a major defense of the sic et non contradictions in the Bible and teaching. And by applying the good Bishop’s rubric here, you distort the matter at question. You are also making some assumptions that we all make when holding forth for our position.
First, you are assuming that you know what a right standard is in this case. You have to remember that most likely you adopt your standard as part of accepting at some point in your life and enforcing by repetition a third party morality. In other words, you and others who hold your type of opinion didn’t invent the RC Church, you accepted, full blown or nearly, someone else’s invention of it over 2K years of momentum.
Second, the quote above fails to distinguish between contradictories and contraries. Sometimes, as is clear both in counseling and in jurisprudence, the standards must be adapted to the individual circumstance or bureaucratic fascism ensues. (hmmm…)
Third, I’m guessing that you are standing where you are as an intellectual exercises as distinct from having come to your conclusion through experience with friends, family, or neighbors who are themselves homosexual. We, as humans, tend to be xenophobic, the position of moralizing on behalf of a sub-group being a manifestation of this. We need only think of the Inquisition, witch hunts, and missionary-ism by any faction to conclude that we are guilty of this mind set as a group.
Fourth, it is possible that in his speaking this dictum Archbishop Sheen was addressing a specific instance which as is very and too commonly done, you have abstracted and distributed over a much broader issue.
We can go further with this, but since many people don’t have the mental tools to see beyond dualities, and therefore live in a funda-mentalist view of religion, that’s all for now.
A
antroji
Guest
What? And *that *makes him right?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
antroji
*What? And that makes him right? *
No, but it makes him an icon representative of the many non Christian civilizations that have held, by common sense, the view that that homosexual acts are disordered and unnatural.
*What? And that makes him right? *
No, but it makes him an icon representative of the many non Christian civilizations that have held, by common sense, the view that that homosexual acts are disordered and unnatural.
S
Soulewolf
Guest
I told you yes. The way that this country is built, it is fully on the population to dictate what kind of society they wish to live in. If the majority of the population votes pro incest then incest we shall have. Same with homosexuality. its pretty simple.Soulewolf
*heh i’m homosexual and i answered your question like 100 miles back on the thread. *
Huh?
- Status