Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[Portrait]

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.

Dear larkin,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response above.

It is good to hear that you are not in favour of reducing the age of sexual or marital consent, on that at least we do agree.

No, age of consent does not have any bearing upon natural law, the subject of the present thread. However, the debate had meandered off topic and I was simply responding accordingly to the points currently being discussed by contributors, including yourself.

To return to natural law. The natural law was antecedent to the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament and was binding upon the nations of the world who had never heard the law of Moses ( cf. Romans 2: 14). All men, without exception, are subject to this natural law, irrespective of whether they recognise the Decalouge, the Gospel or the authority of the Church. God was free not to create human nature, but having created it He could not but assign to it moral or natural law. Moreover, the endowment of freewill, which accompanies our rational nature, is our peril as well as our chief glory, for in disregarding the laws of our nature we are responsible for the resulting ruin and disorder.

As has already been observed, it is termed natural law because it can be perceived by the light of reason per se and because its precepts can be deduced by reason from the data of human nature.

We find from the experience of our own nature that we are a complex organism having many faculties, tendencies and needs. In the interplay of these various parts a certain subordination of the lower to the higher, of the parts to whole, and of the whole to God is clearly seen. Thus, for example, it is morally wrong to satisfy the desire for food and drink in a manner which causes harm to the whole body or which obscures the use of our reason. We intuitively know that this is wrong without having to have recourse to the bible or the Church. Certain faculties, as the power of procreation, having a natural purpose and natural oragans for that purpose, it is morally wrong for us to pervert this by homosexual genital acts or birth prevention devices. Again we can perceive this by inductive reasoning, apart from any divine revelation. It is sheer folly to deny the existence of natural law and those who do so, do so for polemical purposes and not on the basis of sound reasoning.

BTW, the substance of the Decalogue, with the exception of the Third Commandment, is nothing more than a written expression of the natural law. If I tell you to live according to your nature, to develop your faculties harmoniously in accordance with their natural objects and to live in a manner that befits the dignity of a human being, I am merely telling you to obey the natural law which is reflection in your nature of the eternal law of God. To put it simply, in telling you to do good and avoid evil, I am basicly telling you not to break the commandments of God; the two sets of ideas are mutually inclusive. This is natural law.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[larkin31]

Dear larkin,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response above.

It is good to hear that you are not in favour of reducing the age of sexual or marital consent, on that at least we do agree.

No, age of consent does not have any bearing upon natural law, the subject of the present thread. However, the debate had meandered off topic and I was simply responding accordingly to the points currently being discussed by contributors, including yourself.

To return to natural law. The natural law was antecedent to the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament and was binding upon the nations of the world who had never heard the law of Moses ( cf. Romans 2: 14). All men, without exception, are subject to this natural law, irrespective of whether they recognise the Decalouge, the Gospel or the authority of the Church. God was free not to create human nature, but having created it He could not but assign to it moral or natural law. Moreover, the endowment of freewill, which accompanies our rational nature, is our peril as well as our chief glory, for in disregarding the laws of our nature we are responsible for the resulting ruin and disorder.

As has already been observed, it is termed natural law because it can be perceived by the light of reason per se and because its precepts can be deduced by reason from the data of human nature.

We find from the experience of our own nature that we are a complex organism having many faculties, tendencies and needs. In the interplay of these various parts a certain subordination of the lower to the higher, of the parts to whole, and of the whole to God is clearly seen. Thus, for example, it is morally wrong to satisfy the desire for food and drink in a manner which causes harm to the whole body or which obscures the use of our reason. We intuitively know that this is wrong without having to have recourse to the bible or the Church. Certain faculties, as the power of procreation, having a natural purpose and natural oragans for that purpose, it is morally wrong for us to pervert this by homosexual genital acts or birth prevention devices. Again we can perceive this by inductive reasoning, apart from any divine revelation. It is sheer folly to deny the existence of natural law and those who do so, do so for polemical purposes and not on the basis of sound reasoning.

BTW, the substance of the Decalogue, with the exception of the Third Commandment, is nothing more than a written expression of the natural law. If I tell you to live according to your nature, to develop your faculties harmoniously in accordance with their natural objects and to live in a manner that befits the dignity of a human being, I am merely telling you to obey the natural law which is reflection in your nature of the eternal law of God. To put it simply, in telling you to do good and avoid evil, I am basicly telling you not to break the commandments of God; the two sets of ideas are mutually inclusive. This is natural law.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

This, as you must know, I take as a statement of faith bit not of reason. The “musts” and “facts” of this are based on suppositions and assumptions based on faith in God. I don’t share this faith, and reject the suppositions as too speculative and unfounded.

 

[MarianD]

According to the law of the wild, homosexuality is allowed as a method to show dominance. But so is rape, murder, leaving a family, and taking away of mates (which is rape in the ancient sense of the word). Clearly, the law of the wild is not the law human beings are supposed to follow, and the law of the wild shouldn’t be used to prove or disprove what humans should do.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I was (rather absurdly) accused by Soulewolf of using the appeal to authority when citing Plato’s view on homosexuality. I explained that I did not use him as an appeal to authority (though Plato was certainly an authority on the Greek view of homosexuality), but only to show that the view of homosexuality is not, strictly speaking, Catholic. Plato was not a Catholic. Nor were any other Greeks of his time, in case you didn’t know that. The view that homosexuality is unnatural and shameful was a view of the vast majority of Greeks, as the following website illustrates.

youtube.com/watch?v=aHk9JoXoBMY&p=2C9C369EE404666F&playnext=1&index=2

Now I expect to be told that citing nearly the entirety of ancient Greek culture before Laius is also the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Unfortunately, the view of many defenders of homosexuality has been corrupted by the work of John Boswell, who vigorously sought to demonstrate that homosexuality was regarded as acceptable in ancient Greece.

Boswell died of complications from AIDS in the Yale infirmary in New Haven, Connecticut on December 24, 1994, at age 47.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Marian

*According to the law of the wild, homosexuality is allowed as a method to show dominance. But so is rape, murder, leaving a family, and taking away of mates (which is rape in the ancient sense of the word). Clearly, the law of the wild is not the law human beings are supposed to follow, and the law of the wild shouldn’t be used to prove or disprove what humans should do. *

Bravo! :yeah_me::clapping:

 

[Portrait]

This, as you must know, I take as a statement of faith bit not of reason. The “musts” and “facts” of this are based on suppositions and assumptions based on faith in God. I don’t share this faith, and reject the suppositions as too speculative and unfounded.

Dear larkin,

Natural law is not a ‘statement of faith’ for it is aquired by inductive reasoning without recourse to religion, Church or catechisms etc. Please re-read my post again as I do make this very point. Natural law is deduced from what a man intuitively discerns and not some written moral code such as the Decalogue, for example. The whole point of natural law is that it can be perceived by the light of reason alone, unaided by any divine revelation. Moreover, it is not so much an issue of proving this intuitive sense, but rather a matter of accounting for its very existence; if man is a mere collection of atoms then how do we explain his innate faculty to distinguish right from wrong. The only satisfying answer is surely that this in-built arbiter is an evidence of our invincible moral nature and an undesigned proof that God does bear witness to Himself in our hearts. I have yet to hear a compelling alternative atheistic explanation, the reason being because there simply isn’t one. Indeed, only an aggressive and irrational atheism would deny the existence of the natural law and that man is continually confronted with the obligation to bring his conduct into conformity with said law.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[larkin31]

Dear larkin,

Natural law is not a ‘statement of faith’ for it is aquired by inductive reasoning without recourse to religion, Church or catechisms etc. Please re-read my post again as I do make this very point. Natural law is deduced from what a man intuitively discerns and not some written moral code such as the Decalogue, for example. The whole point of natural law is that it can be perceived by the light of reason alone, unaided by any divine revelation.

This has never been done. Your explanation clearly goes to God. As do all others (whatever their spiritual belief in the world “beyond” is), or else it is merely a set of generalizations from patterns in the natural world.

Moreover, it is not so much an issue of proving this intuitive sense, but rather a matter of accounting for its very existence; if man is a mere collection of atoms then how do we explain his innate faculty to distinguish right from wrong. The only satisfying answer is surely that this in-built arbiter is an evidence of our invincible moral nature and an undesigned proof that God does bear witness to Himself in our hearts.

You ask a fair question, then answer a priori that the “only satisfying answer” is an absolute nature connected to God. You have made my point.

I have yet to hear a compelling alternative atheistic explanation,

I have not attempted one. That you only find “satisfying” a religious answer is exactly why I pointed out that “Natural Law” arguments ultimate rest on conceptions of God. Which you denied. Then you rested yours on God.

Indeed, only an aggressive and irrational atheism would deny the existence of the natural law and that man is continually confronted with the obligation to bring his conduct into conformity with said law.

Existentialists fully obligate the individual, without God or any objective realm of morality, to be fully responsible and moral. Reason and history and religion and culture and psychology and environment all interact to produce our ehtical systems. This is why there is some variety from culture to culture. That there are some nearly universal values is not “proof” that there is something out there that we call “Natural Law” in actual existence. The IDEA exists, for certain, and as such it has some efficacy. But as to actual existence of objective morality (even without humans to exist and think it)? Well, thee is no REASON to think that that is true.

 

[Soulewolf]

This is in keeping with an emphasis on feelings, likes, preferences and wishful thinking versus reason and the natural moral law, and is totally out of step with the facts of sound therapy, well established. We would all hope that those so orientated would seek help and advice from those professionals who are knowledgeable enough and willing to assist. Courage and Exodus are but two of the knowledgeable Groups that can inform and assist.

Psychiatrist Dr Jeffrey Satinover in his monumental Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, provides solid medical and scientific facts which place the “lifestyle” with behavioural problems like alcoholism and drug addiction. He explains that the activity is “rooted in choices the individual has made in the search for pleasure, and which become so powerfully addictive that they become habitual.” For 15 years Dr Satinover has helped over 50% to overcome their homosexual disorder. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Dr Jeffrey Satinover, 1996, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.]

**Little Recognition Given To Study of Sexual Reorientation Therapy at APA Convention
Findings contradict the APA position that homosexuality is not changeable.
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski **

**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 paper titled, “Ex Gays? An Extended Longitudinal Study of Attempted Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation,” was presented as a part of an APA symposium titled Sexual Orientation and Faith Tradition Symposium.

The six year study concluded that there is evidence that homosexual tendencies can be controlled and redirected toward normal sexual attraction.

The research was based on a study of 98 men and women who sought help from Exodus International, a Florida-based evangelical ministry that provides sexual-orientation conversion therapy and counseling. The group seeks to help individuals troubled by their sexual orientation to achieve “freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ.”

Dr. Jones began his presentation by outlining the rejection of reorientation therapy for homosexuals by most professional mental health associations. Last week the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution urging mental health professionals to avoid telling clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments.

“I had met people in the religious community who claimed to have changed,” said Dr. Jones, a professor of psychology at Wheaton College, a Christian college in Illinois. “And at the same time I saw a growing momentum behind the view that change is impossible. As a scientist it is an empirically interesting question when you see a growing momentum behind a view but you feel that you also see exceptions to that view. So I thought it would be an interesting thing to study.”

Jones then noted an important limit and hypotheses of the study: “Our study addresses the generic questions of whether sexual orientation is changeable, and whether the attempt is intrinsically harmful, by focusing only on the religiously mediated approaches to change; this is not a study of professional psychotherapy.”

In light of the newly accepted convention that homosexuality is not a mental illness, the researchers stated that, “We hypothesized that sexual orientation is not changeable, and the attempt to change is likely harmful.”

However, the study found two forms of successful reorientation away from homosexuality in the study group.

Thirty percent of the study group categorized themselves as successful in chastity: “Subjects who reported change to be successful and who reported homosexual attraction to be present only incidentally or in a way that does not seem to bring about distress, allowing them to live contentedly without overt sexual activity.”

23% of the group reported a successful conversion to normal heterosexuality: “Subjects who reported change to be successful by experiencing substantial reductions in homosexual attraction and substantial conversion to heterosexual attraction and functioning.”

Drs. Jones and Yarhouse conclude that their findings contradict the APA position that homosexuality is not changeable.

“In conclusion, the findings of this study would appear to contradict the commonly expressed view of the mental health establishment that sexual orientation is not changeable and that the attempt to change is highly likely to produce harm for those who make such an attempt.”

The report also stressed the need to keep “a range of professional and ministry options open to clients who experience same sex attraction, are distressed by this because of their moral or religious beliefs, and who may benefit from hearing about a number of intervention modalities.”

Straw man. I posted empirical fact and what you focused on was a single statement. please post a concise respose to the data provided. I want a response this time. I’ve posted this same data twice now and i wont have this one ignored.

“A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]”

 

[Soulewolf]

I was (rather absurdly) accused by Soulewolf of using the appeal to authority when citing Plato’s view on homosexuality.

your argument:
Plato said it an he isnt a christian. Therefor it must be true.

By definition this is an appeal to authority.

" 1. Source A says that p is true.
2. Source A is authoritative.
3. Therefore, p is true."

-wiki

it is a logical fallacy whether you want to believe it or not.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

I explained that I did not use him as an appeal to authority (though Plato was certainly an authority on the Greek view of homosexuality), but only to show that the view of homosexuality is not, strictly speaking, Catholic. Plato was not a Catholic. Nor were any other Greeks of his time, in case you didn’t know that. The view that homosexuality is unnatural and shameful was a view of the vast majority of Greeks, as the following website illustrates.

Who believes it doesn’t matter. it has absolutely no impact on the logic behind the argument itself.

Now I expect to be told that citing nearly the entirety of ancient Greek culture before Laius is also the fallacy of appeal to authority.

No… thats appeal to majority.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_majority

Unfortunately, the view of many defenders of homosexuality has been corrupted by the work of John Boswell, who vigorously sought to demonstrate that homosexuality was regarded as acceptable in ancient Greece.

Boswell died of complications from AIDS in the Yale infirmary in New Haven, Connecticut on December 24, 1994, at age 47.

Actually i was “corrupted” by empirical data. you might wanna look into it. the sooner you do, the sooner people like you will stop torturing innocent homosexuals.

**PLUS
I posted my response to your question TWICE now and have yet to see a response. **

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

*That there are some nearly universal values is not “proof” that there is something out there that we call “Natural Law” in actual existence. The IDEA exists, for certain, and as such it has some efficacy. But as to actual existence of objective morality (even without humans to exist and think it)? Well, thee is no REASON to think that that is true. *

This way of thinking indicates once again the moral bankruptcy of atheism. If there is no objective rational certitude (outside of religious faith) that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us, then we can legitimately stand that principle on its head and do just the opposite: “Do unto others before they do it unto you.” The atheist has no ground upon which deny this alternate view, since the atheist says there is no “natural law” that is objectively certain. That is of course why atheists, generally speaking, cannot find anything in nature that opposes homosexuality. So far as the atheist is concerned, we are all just collections of atoms, the same atoms that have existed since the dawn of time, just new and more different atoms, but none more “natural” than any other. The person who hates humanity (and the notion that some things are against human nature) must love atheism … because atheism can help him clear his conscience of any ultimate wrongdoing. There is no God who commands, there is no duty to obey, and there is no consequence to his immortal soul since he hasn’t got one.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Soulewolf

*I posted my response to your question TWICE now and have yet to see a response. *

What number was that post? You keep insisting you answered my argument, but you never identify the post in which you answered it? Am I supposed to look back 100 miles to find your post? Now I can’t even remember what post it was you say you have already answered twice!

PLEASE BE SPECIFIC OR GET OFF THE DIME!!!

Now I expect to be told that citing nearly the entirety of ancient Greek culture before Laius is also the fallacy of appeal to authority

Having said that myself, I guess I will have to take you by the hand and lead you gently. Please try to understand instead of constantly throwing up brick walls to understanding.

When Plato is cited, and the mainstream not only of Greek culture but of all cultures through recorded history, the argument is not only to show that the majority have judged against homosexuality, but to show also that homosexuality is repugnant to human nature, that it is disordered, and that it cannot be regarded as anything but a shameful condition by those who are still capable of shame. That is the subject of this thread.

If I told you that indiscriminate murder was regarded as vile conduct by everyone on the planet except those who indiscriminately murder, would you call that the fallacy of appeal to authority? Yes, I would call it the appeal to authority, the authority of our human nature. But I would not call citing the the authority of our human nature a fallacy … unless I didn’t believe in human nature … which apparently you don’t.

 

[ddarko]

Homosexual behaviour is unethical!

1. Basis of ethics : All human life is intrinsically valuable
2. Thus there is a correct way of having a relationship with another human being i.e. it must not impede or devalue the intrinsic value of the other human being or ones own self

Now if you accept the above

1. Utilitarianism is unethical since it involves the denial of the intrinsic value of a human being and focuses on the usefulness of the other for pleasure/fame/power etc.
2. Now if a relationship is unethical, it does not matter if the parties are consenting. For an example, a person may consent to be the slave of another man. BUT it would be unethical since the nature of the relationship DOES NOT acknowledge the intrinsic value of the slave as a human being.
3. In homosexuality, it is merely about the satisfaction of sexual needs of the two individuals involved. That is after all the only difference between a homosexual relationship and that of two same sex friends who care for each other. In other words, satisfying ones sexual appetite is the centre of it all. Thus it is utilitarianism. Therefore homosexuality is UNETHICAL.

NOTE: this applies to some heterosexuals as well. If the nature of the relationship with the other is utilitarian, then it is UNETHICAL.

So in short, to Larkin and Soulewolf, Homosexuality is unethical since it is based on a utilitarian relationship between two human beings focused on satisfying ones sexual needs.

God Bless

 

[Soulewolf]

Soulewolf

*I posted my response to your question TWICE now and have yet to see a response. *

What number was that post? You keep insisting you answered my argument, but you never identify the post in which you answered it? Am I supposed to look back 100 miles to find your post? Now I can’t even remember what post it was you say you have already answered twice!

PLEASE BE SPECIFIC OR GET OFF THE DIME!!!

Now I expect to be told that citing nearly the entirety of ancient Greek culture before Laius is also the fallacy of appeal to authority

Having said that myself, I guess I will have to take you by the hand and lead you gently. Please try to understand instead of constantly throwing up brick walls to understanding.

When Plato is cited, and the mainstream not only of Greek culture but of all cultures through recorded history, the argument is not only to show that the majority have judged against homosexuality, but to show also that homosexuality is repugnant to human nature, that it is disordered, and that it cannot be regarded as anything but a shameful condition by those who are still capable of shame. That is the subject of this thread.

If I told you that indiscriminate murder was regarded as vile conduct by everyone on the planet except those who indiscriminately murder, would you call that the fallacy of appeal to authority? Yes, I would call it the appeal to authority, the authority of our human nature. But I would not call citing the the authority of our human nature a fallacy … unless I didn’t believe in human nature … which apparently you don’t.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7065520&postcount=1493

yes i understand your argument with plato. Though again, the number of people who believed that homosexuality is right or wrong has no impact on the actual argument.

Believing that it does have an impact on the validity of the statement “homosexuality is wrong”, is the logical fallacy Appeal to Majority. So the first statement is falsified.

Secondly, it can not be said to be repugnant to human nature because the majority of human societies say so, simply because the majority of human societies do NOT say so.

"In a detailed compilation of historical and ethnographic materials of Preindustrial Cultures, “strong disapproval of homosexuality was reported for 41% of 42 cultures.”

-wiki

So less than half found it repugnant. if we round that up its about 50/50. i dont see an argument here either.

 

[Abu]

The illusory denial of the innate inscription of the natural moral law in the nature of mankind leads to all sorts of fantasies, many by those small number of particular homosexuals who want to justify their behaviour by a compulsive gene rather than “the devil made me do it.”

The “born that way theory” to try to justify immorality has several facets but the facts debunk the theories.
narth.com/docs/080307Abbott_NARTH_article.pdf
Myths and Misconceptions About Behavioral Genetics And Homosexuality
Douglas A. Abbott Ph.D.,* July 2007
The genetic theory of homosexuality rests on a foundation of three seminal studies in the early 1990’s – which all have serious methodological, sampling, and interpretation problems. Simon LeVay (1991) dissected the brains of 19 gay men and supposedly 16 non-gay men and found, on average, a slighter smaller area of the hypothalamus (INAH-3) in the gay men. He then “suggests that sexual orientation has a biological substrate.” There were several major flaws with his research: (a) the sample was small, (b) the control group was inappropriate, (c) there is no evidence that the INAH-3 part of the brain had anything to do with sexual preference, (d) AIDS could have caused the brain differences, and (e) the study has never been replicated.

Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard (1991) concluded there must be a genetic cause to homosexuality because they found higher rates of homosexuality among identical than fraternal twins and even less concordance (similarity) among adopted siblings. These quantitative genetic studies have similar limitations. First, the samples may be biased because researchers usually recruit a volunteer sample from gay publications and organizations. Second, such studies require a large sample in order to make valid heritability estimates, and samples are usually small. Third, environmental factors are usually not studied so its effects are unaccounted for. Fourth, there are obvious interpretation problems because only about half of identical twins reared in the same family have a gay brother. If genes determined homosexuality then both brothers should be gay. Fifth, other twin studies have not supported their claim of a strong genetic component to homosexuality (see Hershberger, 1997).

Even if biogenic factors have a weak, but indirect, affect on sexual orientation on some individuals,Valenstein (1998) explains:
Most recent claims that a gene has been discovered that causes alcoholism, schizophrenia, [or] homosexuality…have proven illusory… genes do not produce behavioral or mental states. Genes carry the instructions and template for producing and assembling amino acids and proteins intoanatomical structures. Behavior and mental traits; however, are the product of an interaction between anatomical structure and experience…Even where there is compelling evidence that some behavioral or mental trait is influenced by genetic factors it is almost always a predisposition, not a certainty… a predisposition is not a cause. (p.140-141, 224). Even advocates for a genetic explanation of homosexuality such as Szuchman (2002), concluded that the scientific evidence for a biological cause of homosexual behavior is “remarkably flawed, such that no unbiased view for or against many of these factors * is possible…We still have no good evidence of biological influences on sexual preference or sexual orientation” (p. 212). Gay advocates Parker and DeCecco (1995) conceded that “research into possible biological bases of sexual preference has failed to produce any conclusive evidence” (p. 427).

The continued waffling to try to defend the indefensible and to attack the natural moral law shows the prevalent unfortunate tendency to try to dissuade those so orientated from seeking the assistance and professional help which they crave, as we all do when challenged, help which has proved so beneficial is so many cases.*

 

[John21652]

your argument:
Plato said it an he isnt a christian. Therefor it must be true.

By definition this is an appeal to authority.

" 1. Source A says that p is true.
2. Source A is authoritative.
3. Therefore, p is true."

-wiki

it is a logical fallacy whether you want to believe it or not.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Soulwolf, your attack on Charlemagne is disingenuous and that’s putting it politiely.
He cannot be cited for what you term “appeal to authority”. I read his post and it is very obvious that he mentioned Plato almost as an aside. He also coupled Plato with “not even being a Christian” and that made it very obvious to any reasonable reader that he was pointing out he wasn’t quoting a Christian source. You have manipulated your response to Charlemagne to try and make it appear that he has provided fallacious reasoning. He hasn’t. You have. The so called fallacy of authority can only work if the source, or authority quoted, cannot have its veracity verified. Sorry, but Plato is one of the pillars of Western Philosophy, along with Socrates and Aristotle. Plato’s credentials are impeccable and anyone who can accurately cite his work is held to be also authoritative. If you think otherwise, then you had better set about trying to re-write Philosophy courses in Universities throughout the western hemisphere.

 

[Soulewolf]

The illusory denial of the innate inscription of the natural moral law in the nature of mankind leads to all sorts of fantasies, many by those small number of particular homosexuals who want to justify their behaviour by a compulsive gene rather than “the devil made me do it.”

The “born that way theory” to try to justify immorality has several facets but the facts debunk the theories.
narth.com/docs/080307Abbott_NARTH_article.pdf
Myths and Misconceptions About Behavioral Genetics And Homosexuality
Douglas A. Abbott Ph.D.,* July 2007
The genetic theory of homosexuality rests on a foundation of three seminal studies in the early 1990’s – which all have serious methodological, sampling, and interpretation problems. Simon LeVay (1991) dissected the brains of 19 gay men and supposedly 16 non-gay men and found, on average, a slighter smaller area of the hypothalamus (INAH-3) in the gay men. He then “suggests that sexual orientation has a biological substrate.” There were several major flaws with his research: (a) the sample was small, (b) the control group was inappropriate, (c) there is no evidence that the INAH-3 part of the brain had anything to do with sexual preference, (d) AIDS could have caused the brain differences, and (e) the study has never been replicated.

ok now you introduce a whole different study and still refuse to respond to the ones i posted.
I STILL WANT A RESPONSE TO MY OTHER POST!

We just went over this study in psychology:

#1 The study was done again with sheep and the same area of the brain was found to be smaller.
#2 “The INAH has been implicated in sexual behavior because of known sexual dimorphism in this area in humans and because it corresponds to an area of the hypothalamus that when lesioned, impairs heterosexual behavior in non-human primates without affecting sex drive.” -wiki.

Additionally, the argument in the third paragraph does not apply to the fraternal birth order effect
your sources continue to be wrong.

 

[Soulewolf]

The so called fallacy of authority can only work if the source, or authority quoted, cannot have its veracity verified.

no. it works when i ask “Why”
and they say “Because plato said so”

It is up to them to provide evidence. Not me. “because plato said so” is not evidence.

 

[John21652]

No… thats appeal to majority.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_majority

Though again, the number of people who believed that homosexuality is right or wrong has no impact on the actual argument.

Believing that it does have an impact on the validity of the statement “homosexuality is wrong”, is the logical fallacy Appeal to Majority. So the first statement is falsified.

Secondly, it can not be said to be repugnant to human nature because the majority of human societies say so, simply because the majority of human societies do NOT say so.

"In a detailed compilation of historical and ethnographic materials of Preindustrial Cultures, “strong disapproval of homosexuality was reported for 41% of 42 cultures.”

-wiki

So less than half found it repugnant. if we round that up its about 50/50.
Well, strike me. So majority opinion doesn’t count with you either, or so you tell Charlemagne. But then you go on to try and cite a majority figure as being important to your argument. No wonder you are a confused soul. As further evidence of just how disingenuous you are, you even push up a figure by 9% to “round it up” so you get 50/50. Again, that very elusive majority figure is important to you. You are trying to cite a majority figure at the same time you decry a so called “appeal to the majority”. In the process, you fudge the figures by 9%. Guess who fails statistics!

Now let’s be honest here Soulwolf. You denigrate authoritative figures who have had a massive influence on western thought. You wont hear of what a majority thinks, unless it suits you and you even decry observed real world data as a collection of meaningless tripe. You are actually espousing Hedonism. You then have the gall to write “…stop torturing innocent homosexuals.” You are forgetting that the thread topic is *“Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law”. *Obviously it can be. However you try to undermine the processes involved in the formulation of Natural Law morality by denouncing the very cornerstones of western civilization itself. You seem to think that because Natural Law denounces homosexuality that innocent homosexuals are being tortured by those who say ‘yes’ to the thread’s query. I suggest that you are torturing yourself because you have a vested interest in the negative answer to the question posed by this thread. According to Natural Law, practicing homosexuals are not “innocent”. However, no-one is “torturing” them.

 

[Soulewolf]

Well, strike me. So majority opinion doesn’t count with you either, or so you tell Charlemagne. But then you go on to try and cite a majority figure as being important to your argument. No wonder you are a confused soul. As further evidence of just how disingenuous you are, you even push up a figure by 9% to “round it up” so you get 50/50. Again, that very elusive majority figure is important to you. You are trying to cite a majority figure at the same time you decry a so called “appeal to the majority”. In the process, you fudge the figures by 9%. Guess who fails statistics!

Actually i just assumed that my falacy argument (though correct) would be ignored. So i did 5 minutes worth of research and based an argument on the same grounds as charlemagne to show him/her that no matter which way they wanted to state their argument, they were both wrong.

Plus, the 9 percent i rounded up was on your side. The side that found it repugnant. That was the last thing i thought you would be insulted by.

Now let’s be honest here Soulwolf. You denigrate authoritative figures who have had a massive influence on western thought. You wont hear of what a majority thinks, unless it suits you and you even decry observed real world data as a collection of meaningless tripe. You are actually espousing Hedonism. You then have the gall to write “…stop torturing innocent homosexuals.” You are forgetting that the thread topic is *“Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law”. *Obviously it can be. However you try to undermine the processes involved in the formulation of Natural Law morality by denouncing the very cornerstones of western civilization itself. You seem to think that because Natural Law denounces homosexuality that innocent homosexuals are being tortured by those who say ‘yes’ to the thread’s query. I suggest that you are torturing yourself because you have a vested interest in the negative answer to the question posed by this thread. According to Natural Law, practicing homosexuals are not “innocent”. However, no-one is “torturing” them.

its obvious you have a lot of respect for Plato, Aristotle, etc… I do to as they were considered the forefathers of science. But scientists themselves do not prove an idea. Relativity wasnt correct because it came from Einstein. Relativity is correct because of the data that backs it up.

I will never be persuaded by an argument just because some famous person believed it to be true. Or i’d be a Scientologist (lol tom cruise).

On to the topic of the thread:

in order for the argument to be valid you must first prove that natural law exists.
Then, if you find it does, you must then provide a definition for what is natural and back that up with evidence.

The idea that biology is natural has been introduced as an idea.
Now we must look at homosexuality and see if it has biological factors. If it does it is natural. Studies point empirically to a biological factor.

 

[Portrait]

This has never been done. Your explanation clearly goes to God. As do all others (whatever their spiritual belief in the world “beyond” is), or else it is merely a set of generalizations from patterns in the natural world.

You ask a fair question, then answer a priori that the “only satisfying answer” is an absolute nature connected to God. You have made my point.

I have not attempted one. That you only find “satisfying” a religious answer is exactly why I pointed out that “Natural Law” arguments ultimate rest on conceptions of God. Which you denied. Then you rested yours on God.

Existentialists fully obligate the individual, without God or any objective realm of morality, to be fully responsible and moral. Reason and history and religion and culture and psychology and environment all interact to produce our ehtical systems. This is why there is some variety from culture to culture. That there are some nearly universal values is not “proof” that there is something out there that we call “Natural Law” in actual existence. The IDEA exists, for certain, and as such it has some efficacy. But as to actual existence of objective morality (even without humans to exist and think it)? Well, thee is no REASON to think that that is true.

Dear larkin,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your reply above.

On the contrary natural law can be percieved from inductive reasoning alone without recourse to God or religion, indeed that is why it is called natural law morality. The fact that the Catholic will assert that this logically and ultimately leads one to God is perfectly natural, if you will pardon the pun, given that he is a believer in a supernatural God revealed to mankind. However, be that as it may, one can still arrive at a law of morality derived from an instinctive sense of right and wrong, rather than from religion, legislation or the mores of society, for example. If this is followed through in an unprejudiced manner then it will finally lead to God, who is the genesis of natural law. Unfortunately though men are seldom neutral and fair-minded in such matters, for, owing to their obstinate atheism and morally relativistic world-view, they have every good reason for not wanting to follow things through impartially.

The reasoning of the existentialists is wholly defective since reason, history, cullture, enviroment, societal influences etc. cannot dictate as to whether natural law is universally binding. Moreover, if one contends that such factors as these “interact to produce our ethical systems”, then that is tantamount to stating that the natural law has its source in mere mortal men. This is a manifestly and inadequate explanation of the source of moral obligation because it woefully fails to account for its binding character. Thus, for example, if a parent commands his child to deal in illicit drugs, the childs moral obligation is clearly to disobey. No man can have absolute authority over another man.

As regards society, this only means more individual and flawed men like myself; what right do they have to legislate morality to me? Quantity cannot yield quality; adding numbers cannot change the rules of a relative game to the rightful absolute demands of conscience. No, the need for a body of unchanging and absolute moral principles, regarded as a basis for man’s conduct, is all too plainly evident and the natural moral law provides the only satisfactory and unerring basis.

The existentialist will ultimately find himself carried along a subjective path tothe dead end of moral relativism where every man does that which is right in his own eyes. Our post-modern world glories in this tragic state of affairs because it is a world of no moral absolutes where a man has unfettered freedom to do as he please, provided he hurts no one and everyone is seemingly happy and prospering.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax