Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[Portrait]

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.

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.

Dear Soulewolf,

Cordial greetings.

The root of the problem of homosexuality is the same as the source of any immoral or hideous vice. At their deepest levels, homosexual liasons reflect a demand to live one’s life on one’s own terms. Owing to man’s fallen estate, even when convinced of the error of his sinful ways, he continues to scratch and claw for autonomy. With an obdurate independence, he chooses to ignore the God who designed him to find rest and wholeness in Him. Homosexual acts of depravity are just one of the many ways that men supress the truth regarding the God who created them to find abundant life in Him. This fundamental problem with homosexuality cannot be sidestepped or rationalized by talk of “biological factors”. Whilst it is perfectly true that genetic influences and predispositions may contribute to any unwanted behaviour, it is important that one is not misled by unsound research alleging that homosexuality is genetic or inborn.

In the epistle to the Romans (see 1: 18-26) St. Paul made a strong connection between homosexuality and supressing the truth of God. He explained that the supression of truth (v. 18), seen in a proud, indignant refusal to honour and thank God (v. 21), is the beginning of a downward spiral progression that leads to foolish thinking (v. 21), loss of moral discernment (v. 21) and ultimately idolatry (v. 23). Rebellious sexual lust and conduct is one of the ways in which idolatry finds expression (vv. 24-25), which includes homosexual aberrant acts and many other manifestations of independence (vv. 26-27).

Every man is born with a sinful propensity to ignore God and live independently of Him. Before we were ever sinned against we were disposed to move in this direction - “Behold, I came forth in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51: 5). In other words, sin is genetic. Of course our painful past helps to mould and set the specific directions in which we live out our sinful tendencies and need to be taken into consideration, nevertheless, our painful wounds are never the root of the problem.

As difficult as it is in acknowledging the sin of defiant independence, especially in these irreligous times, as the root problem of homosexual conduct, we cannot avoid the issue, as much as we might like to.

Whilst the Christian Gospel does not claim to undo a man’s sinful past, it does, through the Church, offer absolution for his sinful responses. This enables the penitent to rise above the wounds as it were and live a life of passion, meaning, chastity and love.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Soulewolf

I will never be persuaded by an argument just because some famous person believed it to be true.

It is not that Plato was famous as a philosopher that what he said was true. It is that Plato speaks as an authority for the Greek point of view toward homosexuality. You can’t seem to separate this point in your mind. I have been arguing that historically the world over homosexuality has been viewed as unnatural and shameful. Citing Plato is only one of many sources I could cite in many different cultures. The reason for citing Plato is that there is a myth promoted by homosexuals that the Greeks viewed homosexuality as natural and acceptable. Plato gives the lie to that myth. He is an authority on the values of his own time. He is certainly more of an authority than you or I.

In reply to an earlier point I made about incest versus homosexuality, you said.

*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. *

This is really strange. First you argue strenuously against the fallacy of the majority, and then invoke the majority as the deciding factor in moral questions, regardless of whether the majority is right or wrong?

Whew! :coolinoff:

By the way, would you be voting for the right of adult sons to marry their mothers, and adult daughter to marry their fathers?

 

[larkin31]

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.

No one has ever done so persuasively, and no one has done so at all here. You claim this, but the truth of your assertion is wanting.

 

[davidv]

No one has ever done so persuasively, and no one has done so at all here. You claim this, but the truth of your assertion is wanting.

There are some who adamantly insist on having things their own way despite all evidence. For these, there is no persuasion.

 

[colmcille1]

There are some who adamantly insist on having things their own way despite all evidence. For these, there is no persuasion.

Hi davidv,
This is a very true statement. This thread must be about 193 miles long at this stage. About halfways back, a fool like me understood the reasoning proffered by Abu, Charlemagne et al.
I am baffled that others cannot see.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[larkin31]

There are some who adamantly insist on having things their own way despite all evidence. For these, there is no persuasion.

So some people claim. Do you have some “evidence” to share, or are you only referring to it in this way?

 

[davidv]

So some people claim. Do you have some “evidence” to share, or are you only referring to it in this way?

Did you miss the prior 1538 posts?

 

[larkin31]

Did you miss the prior 1538 posts?

Did you miss all my responses? I have pointed out every time each objection. Simply claiming that “Natural Law proves homosexuality is wrong” or simply claiming that it is wrong because “the Catholic Church says so infallibly” or simply stating that infertile sexual acts are “against Natural Law” is a long way from being persuasive that homosexuality “is wrong because it is against Natural Law.” No one here has even *established *“Natural Law” as a fact other than to state that it is so, repeatedly. So I keep stating that “Natural Law” is no more than idea until one establishes it as an empirical fact or until one demonstrates that it is more than an extension of one’s faith in God (“faith” again being an idea, or a working of the mind).

So, yes, I have read ALL of these pages and participated on many of them (many more than you) and I am fully aware of the scope and limitations of the argument presented.

If there is something better, I would be glad to read it.

 

[Portrait]

No one has ever done so persuasively, and no one has done so at all here. You claim this, but the truth of your assertion is wanting.

Dear larkin,

Your declaration that no one has ever cogently argued the case for natural law morality is, sir, a very biased and subjective viewpoint, based upon your own deeply established relativistic presuppositions and scepticism. Many of the respondents in this current thread have argued convincingly, passim, the case for natural law, evincing much erudition in the process. As the old adage says, there are none so blind as those that will not see.

Natural moral law whilst unwritten is known by all men who possess the faculty of reason. It uses basic common sense, prudence, and justice. It was because of the natural moral law that Cain and Moses, for example, knew that it was wrong to commit murder, long before the fifth Commandment was promulgated. It is because of natural law morality that trials for war crimes can be conducted against any man who is a perpetrator of genocide or mass murder, regardless of his religion or want of it. Thus a Nazi could not have fallen back on the defence that he did not recognize the authority of the Bible, because even the most evil of Nazis still had the use of reason, and reason is what discovers the natural moral law for each and every man. The excuse, just obeying orders or following the civil law will not bear scrutiny either; an immoral act violates the natural moral law even if it conforms to a local civil law. Again, Apartheid is another example of where the legalized racial segregation in South Africa from 1948 to 1991 defied the natural moral law. In this case the civil law endorsed, tolerated or promoted disgraceful injustices, precisely because the natural moral law was being violated. The natural moral law exists notwithstanding what sceptics, political parties and civil authorities assert and legislate to the contrary.

Now natural moral law applies also to homosexual deviant acts because men, who have the faculty of reason, have a basic ethical intuition that certain aberrant sexual behaviours are wrong because they are unnatural. Thus men perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.

By parity of reasoning the same is likewise applicable to the case of homosexual conduct. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and, vice-versa, the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus men have a corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality or incest.

The case against homosexual deviant acts, on the basis of natural moral law, is manifestly as compelling as the other examples that I have cited. Only those who are desperate to uphold a particular polemical position (e.g. the normalisation of homosexual conduct, either for ones self or for others) would seriously demur from such an assertion.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[davidv]

Did you miss all my responses?

No, I have judged most of them to be biased rhetoric.

I have pointed out every time each objection. Simply claiming that “Natural Law proves homosexuality is wrong” or simply claiming that it is wrong because “the Catholic Church says so infallibly” or simply stating that infertile sexual acts are “against Natural Law” is a long way from being persuasive that homosexuality “is wrong because it is against Natural Law.” No one here has even *established *“Natural Law” as a fact other than to state that it is so, repeatedly. So I keep stating that “Natural Law” is no more than idea until one establishes it as an empirical fact or until one demonstrates that it is more than an extension of one’s faith in God (“faith” again being an idea, or a working of the mind).

I therefore conclude that you must not, or don’t want to, understand what you are arguing against. Do you you think if you repeat your claims often enough they will become true?

So, yes, I have read ALL of these pages and participated on many of them (many more than you) and I am fully aware of the scope and limitations of the argument presented.

If there is something better, I would be glad to read it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Soulewolf or larkin:

If you regard incest between parents and adult children as a natural act, please say so. If you regard it as an unnatural act, please state why.

Here’s what I am trying to get at. If all sexual acts for you are natural, including homosexuality and incest (between adults) then there’s no persuading you to begin with.

So if you say that incest is as natural as homosexuality, if you say that homosexuals should be able to marry each other and that parents and their children ought to be able to marry each other, then I will have to throw in the towel as far as this discussion goes.

But first I want to hear you say that both homosexual acts and incestuous acts are morally natural and to be defended and legitimized by the state.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

david

I therefore conclude that you must not, or don’t want to, understand what you are arguing against. Do you you think if you repeat your claims often enough they will become true?

We might go a step farther, and concur with Chesterton’s signature on this post.

 

[larkin31]

Dear larkin,

Your declaration that no one has ever cogently argued the case for natural law morality is, sir, a very biased and subjective viewpoint, based upon your own deeply established relativistic presuppositions and scepticism. Many of the respondents in this current thread have argued convincingly, passim, the case for natural law, evincing much erudition in the process. As the old adage says, there are none so blind as those that will not see.

Well, when one ultimately bases their argument on “my belief in God makes it true,” what do you expect those of non-belief to say?

Just quote ANY post number here, and I will re-read it and AGAIN offer my estimation of its “cogency.” I will even quote it for everyone to see here. So, please, pick the strongest post you think is here. I actually come to every “Natural Law” thread to see if anyone can offer a strong argument.

 

[larkin31]

No, I have judged most of them to be biased rhetoric.

I therefore conclude that you must not, or don’t want to, understand what you are arguing against. Do you you think if you repeat your claims often enough they will become true?

Actually, the burden for proof is on those who claim that there is such a thing as “Natural Law” as an objective thing.

 

[John21652]

Actually, the burden for proof is on those who claim that there is such a thing as “Natural Law” as an objective thing.

You need to do some homework on Natural Law as a science. The objectivity of natural Law has long been established and recognised. Just as the objectivity of, say, Chemistry and Physics has been long established and recognised.

The psychologist Leonard Carmichael, in “Absolutes, Relativism and the Scientific Psychology of Human Nature,” wrote the following -

We do not turn aside from what we know about astronomy at any time because there is a great deal we do not know, or because so much that we once thought we knew is no longer recognized as true. May not the same argument be accepted in our thinking about ethical and esthetic judgments?

Or take what Henry Veatch writes, in For an Ontology of Morals

Moreover, it is in virtue of a thing’s nature — i.e., of its being the kind of thing that it is — that it acts and behaves the way it does. Is it not also in virtue of a thing’s nature that we often consider ourselves able to judge what that thing might or could be, but perhaps isn’t? A plant, for example, may be seen to be underdeveloped or stunted in its growth. A bird with an injured wing is quite obviously not able to fly as well as others of the same species…. And so it is that a thing’s nature maybe thought of as being not merely that in virtue of which the thing acts or behaves in the way it does, but also as a sort of standard in terms of which we judge whether the thing’s action or behavior is all that it might have been or could have been.

The striving for objectivity has long been a basic tenet of Natural Law theorists, just as it has been for the physical scientists down through humankind’s history.

Finally, we arrive at what the eminent English jurist, Sir William Blackstone, said as he summed up the natural law and its relation to human happiness - :

This is the foundation of what we call ethics, or natural law … demonstrating that this or that action tends to man’s real happiness, and therefore very justly concluding that the performance of it is a part of the law of nature; or, on the other hand, that this or that action is destruction of man’s real happiness, and therefore that the law of nature forbids it.

Then along comes psychologist Leonard Carmichael, who wrote in “Absolutes” -

because man has an unchanging and an age-old, genetically determined anatomical, physiological, and psychological make-up, there is reason to believe that at least some of the “values” that he recognized as good or bad have been discovered or have emerged as human individuals have lived together for thousands of years in many societies. Is there any reason to suggest that these values, once identified and tested, may not be thought of as essentially fixed and unchanging? For example, the wanton murder of one adult by another for the purely personal amusement of the person committing the murder, once it is recognized as a general wrong, is likely always to be so recognized. Such a murder has disadvantageous individual and social effects. Or to take a milder example from esthetics, man is always likely to recognize in a special way the balance of two complementary colors because he is born with specially constituted human eyes

The English philosopher, David Hume wrote that reason can establish such a social ethic: “nature provides a remedy in the judgment and understanding for what is irregular and uncommodious in the affections”. In other words, the notion that an objective ethics can be established through reason has been well established down through the ages. That fact lies beneath the topic of this thread. The burden of proof now lies with those who would detract from a Natural Law morality. As someone once wrote, The natural law always buries its undertakers.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The difficulty with talking about natural law as a standard by which to judge moral acts is that anyone who does not believe in God likely as not also does not believe in teleology (the existence of design in nature). If you do not believe that nature selected the male penis for the female vagina alone, you are free to believe that the penis can be used to penetrate the male anus for the sake of pleasure alone, since reproduction is impossible. Thus homosexual acts are purely hedonistic and the claim is made that they are justified on that basis alone. But these acts can result in extreme sickness or death to either or both partners. If you believe that having sex with your mother or father is justified in pursuit of pleasure alone, you are engaged in a hedonistic act, but may be subject to extreme neurotic, or even psychotic, symptoms as a consequence. If you are a sadist and believe that your torture of your victim (say a masochist who agrees to be tortured and likes it) you are still involved in a hedonistic activity, the pursuit of pleasure through the giving and receiving of pain.

If one is to believe those who deny natural law, such acts as those described above are not subject to judgment because they all constitute pleasure given and taken by the parties involved. Yet it seems to me that actions based on a pure hedonism, without regard for the consequences, goes against the natural instinct we all have for survival.

If a given homosexual at the age of twenty could be told that promiscuous sex with other men could render him dead in 5-10 years, would common sense tell him to avoid such sex? It should, but often it doesn’t. Homosexuals cannot be said to have much common sense if they are willing to engage in such promiscuous sex with other men (the same could be said of heterosexuals who frequent female prostitutes or just sleep around). It therefore seems all the more relevant that many homosexuals are atheistic or agnostic, and that Chesterton’s insight applies to them especially.

The first of natural laws is the drive to survive. I don’t see how homosexual acts, incestuous acts, and sadistic-masochistic acts, though agreed to and pleasurable to the participants, can be said to enhance their drive to survive.

Now it is the turn of others to explain why there is no such thing as a natural law with the imperative that we should act in such a way as to survive.

That would be larkin and Soulewolf.

 

[inocente]

Now it is the turn of others to explain why there is no such thing as a natural law with the imperative that we should act in such a way as to survive.

There’s an interesting hypothesis about how sexual orientation developed in early humans. The idea is that homosexuals provide an extra resource in a family without adding to the load by producing their own offspring. (In evolutionary terms, the homosexual relies on the family’s proxy-genes rather than their own.)

Homosexuality is then explained as supporting group survival. Anecdotally, homosexuals often show more caring characteristics than heterosexuals, as if primed for this role. Homosexual love is then misrepresented as hedonistic when it may even be more deeply experienced than heterosexual love. (Homosexuals may or may not be naturally more promiscuous than heterosexuals, but it is difficult to prove as long as they are not given the option to be legally monogamous.)

Now all of this is just one idea about why homosexuality developed in the first place. It is possibly too simplistic and certainly needs more research. But suppose for one moment that it turns out to be true, could natural law schema incorporate such subtleties?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

*Now all of this is just one idea about why homosexuality developed in the first place. It is possibly too simplistic and certainly needs more research. But suppose for one moment that it turns out to be true, could natural law schema incorporate such subtleties? *

Well, are you now arguing that in fact **there is a natural law **in favor of homosexuality?

If so, I think you need a good deal more than such vague speculations as you have offered. The notion that homosexuals are somehow superior to heterosexuals in their moral life simply baffles me. I have known too many homosexuals to believe that argument has any merit. And I have known too many parents who keep a watchful eye on their children with known-to-be homosexual relatives to believe that homosexuals contribute all that much to the family tree.

I don’t say homosexuals cannot be capable of generosity, but I think it is almost always on their own terms as there is a chronic tendency for homosexuals to be narcissistic as well as hedonistic. For example, based on anecdotal evidence, one hardly ever sees a homosexual in the prison ministry, where generosity is taxed to the nth degree.

Finally, to make your case the least bit scientific, you will have to prove there is a gene for homosexuality that pops up in certain people. Is there also a gene for pedophiles, and another one for sado-masochists? Etc., etc.

Whatever happened to: “The devil made me do it?” :bigyikes:

 

[colmcille1]

There’s an interesting hypothesis about how sexual orientation developed in early humans. The idea is that homosexuals provide an extra resource in a family without adding to the load by producing their own offspring. (In evolutionary terms, the homosexual relies on the family’s proxy-genes rather than their own.)

Homosexuality is then explained as supporting group survival. Anecdotally, homosexuals often show more caring characteristics than heterosexuals, as if primed for this role. Homosexual love is then misrepresented as hedonistic when it may even be more deeply experienced than heterosexual love. (Homosexuals may or may not be naturally more promiscuous than heterosexuals, but it is difficult to prove as long as they are not given the option to be legally monogamous.)

Now all of this is just one idea about why homosexuality developed in the first place. It is possibly too simplistic and certainly needs more research. But suppose for one moment that it turns out to be true, could natural law schema incorporate such subtleties?

Hi inocente, my friend, how are you?
Your post prompted some memories to pop into my head. So, if I may, I’d like to share them with the forum and hopefully contribute something to the discussion.
In a previous life, I was a professional actor. As you know, the theatre business is a haven for homosexuals. I just state that as a fact not as a judgemental quip. The reasons are probably to do with dressing up, make-up, extrovert behaviour. My personal experience with working with gay men was not, overall, a pleasant one. I found them to be sly and backbiting. There was a fair bit of anger there too and in-fighting. So, your point about the group survival is lost on me in this respect. Now I understand that my experience is subjective and I certainly do not judge any group based on a few individuals; yet is it wise to assert as a given that a more caring attitude can be attributed to homosexuals?
God Bless you, my friend,
Colmcille.

 

[larkin31]

You need to do some homework on Natural Law as a science. The objectivity of natural Law has long been established and recognised. Just as the objectivity of, say, Chemistry and Physics has been long established and recognised.

The psychologist Leonard Carmichael, in “Absolutes, Relativism and the Scientific Psychology of Human Nature,” wrote the following -

Or take what Henry Veatch writes, in For an Ontology of Morals

The striving for objectivity has long been a basic tenet of Natural Law theorists, just as it has been for the physical scientists down through humankind’s history.

Finally, we arrive at what the eminent English jurist, Sir William Blackstone, said as he summed up the natural law and its relation to human happiness - :

Then along comes psychologist Leonard Carmichael, who wrote in “Absolutes” -

The English philosopher, David Hume wrote that reason can establish such a social ethic: “nature provides a remedy in the judgment and understanding for what is irregular and uncommodious in the affections”. In other words, the notion that an objective ethics can be established through reason has been well established down through the ages. That fact lies beneath the topic of this thread. The burden of proof now lies with those who would detract from a Natural Law morality. As someone once wrote, The natural law always buries its undertakers.

Before I reply to each of these individually, I would like to know if you mean these quotations as persuasive argument for the objective existence of “Natural Law” as more than an idea, or do you offer these more as conversation? I don’t want to spend the time analyzing each one if you simply mean to converse for a bit.

Is this your argument?