Can someone point me to a rigorous proof as to why homosexuality is wrong?

[Bennie_P]

I’m sorry those things have happened to you. I now understand why you think the way you do.

Forgive, me, however, for pointing out the obvious fallacy. Just because a handful of X people have acted in Y way doesn’t mean all X people act in Y way, right?

Correlation is not causation, but it sure is a hint. Not all:shrug: but where should we draw the line when it comes to morality? The adultery may make it, say, with only with single women that the wife does’nt know? or that wife approves? Maybe only when he or she is out of town? maybe he will decide to be “gay” on Saturdays and straight the rest the week? that way it really would be adultery, right? How about the homosexual? only with other adults of the same sex and age?; or maybe those over 15? well how about 14? the pedphile? just with children that are 8? 5? 4? It really is relaltive, right. What does the Church know, I know how I love?

Correlation is not causation, but it sure is a hint

 

[Exalt]

Enough common sense to realize that tossing out sunglasses as an argument against natural law or claiming that a homosexual person isn’t allowed to ever hold hands are both very silly claims to make.

– Mark L. Chance.

I’ll explain why it’s a bad idea for a gay man to marry a straight woman (or a gay woman marrying a straight man) if you’ll explain why my argument is wrong.

Would it be okay for two gay men, who are interested in eachother, to hold hands? If so, that’s really interesting.

 

[mlchance]

I’ll explain why it’s a bad idea for a gay man to marry a straight woman (or a gay woman marrying a straight man) if you’ll explain why my argument is wrong.

Using a nose to hold up eyeglasses doesn’t either detract from or negate any purpose of a nose. Sodomy, OTOH, both detracts from and negates one of the two key purposes of sexual activity. If one understands natural law theory, such a distinction is immediately obvious.

Would it be okay for two gay men, who are interested in eachother, to hold hands? If so, that’s really interesting.

I don’t find it interesting at all. There is nothing immoral about people holding hands. Cultural norms might cause us to raise an eyebrow or two, but such activity is not contrary to natural law.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Exalt]

I don’t find it interesting at all. There is nothing immoral about people holding hands. Cultural norms might cause us to raise an eyebrow or two, but such activity is not contrary to natural law.

– Mark L. Chance.

Oh. Interesting. What about two men kissing?

 

[mlchance]

Oh. Interesting. What about two men kissing?

That’s quite beside the point. Your silly attempt to use sunglasses to somehow refute natural law arguments against homosexual activity is obviously a failure. Your claim that homosexual persons are forbidden by the Church to engage in a whole range of activities that includes hand-holding is also obviously incorrect.

This is part of the consistent pattern when any attempts to justify homosexual activity. All that is ever offered are false analogies, diversions into endless nitpicking, distortions of Church teaching, misrepresentations of natural law theory, and a whole truckload of emotionalism and accusations of hatred.

The traditional natural law case against homosexual activity is solid. It has well stood the test of time since the days of Plato. No refutation of it has ever been offered; rather, the case is simply ignored or else turned into a strawman.

The OP wanted “rigorous proof” as to why homosexual activity is wrong. That proof – in the form of natural law applied to the activity in question – remains.

It isn’t up to tradition to prove its case. Its up to those who decry tradition and want to turn that tradition on its head to prove theirs. IOW, the burden of proof as to the “non-immorality” of homosexual activity lies in your court. After posts ad nauseum, you’ve not met that burden with anything that is truly a cogent, concise, logical argument.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Exalt]

Your silly attempt to use sunglasses to somehow refute natural law arguments against homosexual activity is obviously a failure. Your claim that homosexual persons are forbidden by the Church to engage in a whole range of activities that includes hand-holding is also obviously incorrect.

This is part of the consistent pattern when any attempts to justify homosexual activity. All that is ever offered are false analogies, diversions into endless nitpicking, distortions of Church teaching, misrepresentations of natural law theory, and a whole truckload of emotionalism and accusations of hatred.

The traditional natural law case against homosexual activity is solid. It has well stood the test of time since the days of Plato. No refutation of it has ever been offered; rather, the case is simply ignored or else turned into a strawman.

The OP wanted “rigorous proof” as to why homosexual activity is wrong. That proof – in the form of natural law applied to the activity in question – remains.

It isn’t up to tradition to prove its case. Its up to those who decry tradition and want to turn that tradition on its head to prove theirs. IOW, the burden of proof as to the “non-immorality” of homosexual activity lies in your court. After posts ad nauseum, you’ve not met that burden with anything that is truly a cogent, concise, logical argument.

– Mark L. Chance.

First of all, this is all in the context of a secular discussion. I don’t care about Church tradition, God’s law, God’s purpose, or anything related to any kind of divine plan.

My argument is simple. The natural law argument, according to this very website, is a “basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.”

I recognize, of course, that, biologically speaking, the primary function (Not the *only *function, but the *primary *function) of the sexual reproduction system is to create new offspring. But the jump that doesn’t make sense to me, and billions of others, is why anything that doesn’t serve that one purpose is wrong just because it doesn’t serve that one purpose. (There’s the concise argument you asked for)

Homosexual sexual activity is one of those sexual activities that does not serve the function of creating offspring. It serves many other functions of human sexuality - just not that part about making more children.

So, basically, what makes no sense is why some behaviors, actions, technologies (etc) that go beyond the biological function of an organ are okay and why others are wrong. It seems almost completely arbirtrary, and only focused around the issues of sex. And, in fact, it isn’t just that a given activity goes beyond the function of an organ - it’s that people think it’s “just wrong.”

Here’s my suspicion. Lots of conservative, rational folk have a basic disgust of homosexuality (especially male/male homosexuality): “people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural,” as the website here points out. Then they go back and say “Oh, it’s because that just shouldn’t go together. That just doesn’t fit, biologically speaking,” even though there are countless examples of things that ‘don’t fit’ biologically speaking that are perfectly acceptable.

In other words, it isn’t *just *that it doesn’t fit, it’s that it *bothers people. *

If the sunglasses explaination doesn’t work, what about the countless other examples of things that don’t serve the primary biological purpse/function of a given biological system that aren’t immoral?

One example I’ve been turning around is Splenda. It’s an artificial sweetener that takes the place of sugar. It’s an artificial, molecularly-engineered chemical designed to mimic the taste of sugar without the effects of sugar. It is clearly not natural. And it does not serve the many biological functions of sugar.

Similiarly, homosexuality does not serve the biological function of sex.

So why is Splenda okay, but homosexuality wrong?

There is seriously some point about Natural Law that I’m missing. Or the whole argument is bogus because, for some reason, it seems to only apply when trying to explain why homosexuality or contraception or anything other than heterosexual vaginal intercourse is wrong.

(And if I’m working with a definition of “natural law” that you don’t agree with, please point me to the **correct **definition, instead of just telling me I don’t understand it, as I asked in an earlier post.)

 

[Bennie_P]

One example I’ve been turning around is Splenda. It’s an artificial sweetener that takes the place of sugar. It’s an artificial, molecularly-engineered chemical designed to mimic the taste of sugar without the effects of sugar. It is clearly not natural. And it does not serve the many biological functions of sugar.

Similiarly, homosexuality does not serve the biological function of sex.

So why is Splenda okay, but homosexuality wrong?

There is seriously some point about Natural Law that I’m missing. Or the whole argument is bogus because, for some reason, it seems to only apply when trying to explain why homosexuality or contraception or anything other than heterosexual vaginal intercourse is wrong.

(And if I’m working with a definition of “natural law” that you don’t agree with, please point me to the **correct **definition, instead of just telling me I don’t understand it, as I asked in an earlier post.)

The jury is still out on Splenda my friend

On the other side of the argument are responsible experts who say that Splenda is unsafe — the latest in a succession of artificial sweeteners that claim at first to be healthy, only later to be proven to be full of side effects. These authorities say that Splenda has more in common with DDT than with food.

Myself, I try to feed my family with what is most natural. For over and over when mankind tries to be God they tend to screw things up.

For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.

 

[buffalo]

First of all, this is all in the context of a secular discussion. I don’t care about Church tradition, God’s law, God’s purpose, or anything related to any kind of divine plan.

My argument is simple. The natural law argument, according to this very website, is a “basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.”

I recognize, of course, that, biologically speaking, the primary function (Not the *only *function, but the *primary *function) of the sexual reproduction system is to create new offspring. But the jump that doesn’t make sense to me, and billions of others, is why anything that doesn’t serve that one purpose is wrong just because it doesn’t serve that one purpose. (There’s the concise argument you asked for)

Homosexual sexual activity is one of those sexual activities that does not serve the function of creating offspring. It serves many other functions of human sexuality - just not that part about making more children.

So, basically, what makes no sense is why some behaviors, actions, technologies (etc) that go beyond the biological function of an organ are okay and why others are wrong. It seems almost completely arbirtrary, and only focused around the issues of sex. And, in fact, it isn’t just that a given activity goes beyond the function of an organ - it’s that people think it’s “just wrong.”

Here’s my suspicion. Lots of conservative, rational folk have a basic disgust of homosexuality (especially male/male homosexuality): “people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural,” as the website here points out. Then they go back and say “Oh, it’s because that just shouldn’t go together. That just doesn’t fit, biologically speaking,” even though there are countless examples of things that ‘don’t fit’ biologically speaking that are perfectly acceptable.

In other words, it isn’t *just *that it doesn’t fit, it’s that it *bothers people. *

If the sunglasses explaination doesn’t work, what about the countless other examples of things that don’t serve the primary biological purpse/function of a given biological system that aren’t immoral?

One example I’ve been turning around is Splenda. It’s an artificial sweetener that takes the place of sugar. It’s an artificial, molecularly-engineered chemical designed to mimic the taste of sugar without the effects of sugar. It is clearly not natural. And it does not serve the many biological functions of sugar.

Similiarly, homosexuality does not serve the biological function of sex.

So why is Splenda okay, but homosexuality wrong?

There is seriously some point about Natural Law that I’m missing. Or the whole argument is bogus because, for some reason, it seems to only apply when trying to explain why homosexuality or contraception or anything other than heterosexual vaginal intercourse is wrong.

(And if I’m working with a definition of “natural law” that you don’t agree with, please point me to the **correct **definition, instead of just telling me I don’t understand it, as I asked in an earlier post.)

Is pedophilia wrong and why?

 

[mlchance]

First of all, this is all in the context of a secular discussion. I don’t care about Church tradition, God’s law, God’s purpose, or anything related to any kind of divine plan.

Then why did you bring up your distorted version the Church’s teaching? Just to set up the strawman?

My argument is simple. The natural law argument, according to this very website, is a “basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.”

Good summary.

I recognize, of course, that, biologically speaking, the primary function (Not the *only *function, but the *primary *function) of the sexual reproduction system is to create new offspring. But the jump that doesn’t make sense to me, and billions of others, is why anything that doesn’t serve that one purpose is wrong just because it doesn’t serve that one purpose. (There’s the concise argument you asked for)

That’s not an argument. It’s just you admitting you don’t understand natural law theory, and then making some sort of vague argument from popularity about “billions of others” who allegedly also don’t understand natural law theory.

One example I’ve been turning around is Splenda. It’s an artificial sweetener that takes the place of sugar. It’s an artificial, molecularly-engineered chemical designed to mimic the taste of sugar without the effects of sugar. It is clearly not natural.

You only further reinforce your lack of understanding. Please explain to me the moral significance of sugar.

There is seriously some point about Natural Law that I’m missing. Or the whole argument is bogus because, for some reason, it seems to only apply when trying to explain why homosexuality or contraception or anything other than heterosexual vaginal intercourse is wrong.

Once again, you display your lack of understanding. Natural law governs much more than sexual activity.

Read these books:

Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law

In Defense of Natural Law

The First Grace: Rediscovering the Natural Laws in the Post-Christian World

Master the material therein. After this, perhaps you can actually make a case against the immorality of homosexual activity without advancing silly arguments based on sunglasses or artificial sweeteners.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[blessedtoo]

Here’s my suspicion. Lots of conservative, rational folk have a basic disgust of homosexuality (especially male/male homosexuality): “people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural,” as the website here points out. Then they go back and say “Oh, it’s because that just shouldn’t go together. That just doesn’t fit, biologically speaking,” even though there are countless examples of things that ‘don’t fit’ biologically speaking that are perfectly acceptable.

Lots of people. regardless of their “conservative or liberal” ideology, have a basic revulsion of homosexuality because instinctively one knows that this type of sexual activity is unnatural. Even young kids who have some basic working understanding of biology will naturally have an “ick” response to the suggestion of two men or two women engaging in sexual behavior. It is only after kids are repeatedly exposed to the “normalization” of such behavior that they learn to ignore their natural responses. Same for adults. Indoctrination is a very effective tool.

If the sunglasses explaination doesn’t work, what about the countless other examples of things that don’t serve the primary biological purpse/function of a given biological system that aren’t immoral?

One example I’ve been turning around is Splenda. It’s an artificial sweetener that takes the place of sugar. It’s an artificial, molecularly-engineered chemical designed to mimic the taste of sugar without the effects of sugar. It is clearly not natural. And it does not serve the many biological functions of sugar.

Similiarly, homosexuality does not serve the biological function of sex.

So why is Splenda okay, but homosexuality wrong?

Oh Lord. First sunglasses now sugar? You are really grasping at straws.

You are trying to make an argument to support immoral actions by using morally neutral examples. This is not an analagous argument to the topic at hand. You could take these strawman analogies to infinite levels (my feet are not meant to step on ants but they do - how is that different from homosexuality?) but it is not arguing in equal terms.

Morality has always been regulated. It is what guides our laws regarding everything from the definition of marriage to the criminality of such things as murder, theft, etc. In addition, behaviors have always been regulated. We are not allowed to drive 120 MPH because our roads would be deemed unsafe. We are no longer allowed to smoke in most public facilities because it may do harm to others. Behaviors that not only pose a risk to the individual who performs them but also to others in the society must be regulated for a civilization to continue.

The fact is, if wearing sunglasses caused communicable diseases that had a 90% fatality rate, you can bet they would be made illegal.

If Splenda is found to be damaging to the human person (look at what they did with trans-fats!), you can bet it would be pulled off the shelves in a heartbeat.

One could actually make the argument that sexual behavior is the ONLY area that society is afraid to make a moral judgement with regard to the safety of society. If we know that the cessation of all sexual activity will end the scourge of AIDS, why would we not call for complete abstinence of all who have the deadly disease? In this culture, we are quick to accept any level of sexual deviation in the name of “tolerance”, even if such tolerance means harm is inevitable. Yet we will not tolerate the second hand smoke of our fellow citizens (and have accepted with very little resistance that second hand smoke is harmful) or allow people to choose for themselves whether they want to ingest harmful fats.

In your other post, you effectively shut down any and all discussions about the obvious biological harm of homosexual acts. That’s a not-so-clever tactic to try and force the discussion into realms that are completely irrelevent (sunglasses). Despite the research, studies, papers, medical documentation, that clearly support the obvious fact that this lifestyle is physically, spiritually, emotionally, and socially destructive, you would rather swing the argument to absurdities. Despite the fact that sodomy was illegal in this country until a few decades ago (and understood by all to be morally repugnant and socially destructive), you want to talk about Splenda.

 

[pathia]

Is pedophilia wrong and why?

That’s simple, a child cannot consent to sexual conduct. This makes any sexual interaction with them rape/assault by default.

 

[mlchance]

That’s simple, a child cannot consent to sexual conduct. This makes any sexual interaction with them rape/assault by default.

Consent is a legal concept. The law says children below such-and-such age cannot consent to such-and-such activities. If the only thing wrong with pedophilia is consent, so why not just change the law? Or, perhaps, maybe there’s just more to the issue than such a superficial assessment? This something more could even have something to do with that pesky natural law theory.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Consent is a legal concept. The law says children below such-and-such age cannot consent to such-and-such activities. If the only thing wrong with pedophilia is consent, so why not just change the law? Or, perhaps, maybe there’s just more to the issue than such a superficial assessment? This something more could even have something to do with that pesky natural law theory.

– Mark L. Chance.

Maybe I’m not understanding your point so, in advance, please forgive me if this is the case.

I would have to disagree with you on this point. Consent is not a legal concept. When it comes to childhood sexual abuse consent can never be given. It CANNOT and DOES NOT exist. It is impossible for a child to consent to sexual activity. Because it is absolutely impossible for a child to understand the implications of the act.

Sorry to butt in but my family has been directly affected by this issue and it is a very tender issue to me.

 

[mlchance]

I would have to disagree with you on this point. Consent is not a legal concept. When it comes to childhood sexual abuse consent can never be given. It CANNOT and DOES NOT exist. It is impossible for a child to consent to sexual activity. Because it is absolutely impossible for a child to understand the implications of the act.

You’re arguing two different points: one legal, the other moral. The idea that a child below such-and-such cannot consent to sex is largely a legal construct. For example, consider a jurisdiction in which the legal age of consent is 18 or older. A 17-year-old is cannot “understand the implications of the act”? What about an extremely bright, percocious 14-year-old? What level of understanding of the implications is necessary to equal knowledeable consent?

The law tries to answer these questions by a legal generalization which varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. A 16-year-old in Alabama can consent to sex, but that same 16-year-old in Arizona cannot. Why? Simply because the laws between the two states are different. Is it moral for the Alabaman 16-year-old to have sex, but immoral for the Arizonan 16-year-old to do the same thing? Of course not.

To argue that a “child” cannot “consent” and therefore pedophilia is immoral is, at best, an incomplete argument. Consider this: If the laws of particular state were changed to make the legal age of consent 10, would this make sex with a 10-year-old moral? Obviously not.

By removing natural law from these legal and moral questions, all we are left with positive law. Positive law alone is not sufficient, as any number of examples of unjust positive laws would demonstrate.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Exalt]

Is pedophilia wrong and why?

Yes. The sexual abuse of children is always wrong because it’s extremely harmful for the child.

I do understand what you’re getting at, though. If you can’t use Natural Law to determine what it is right and wrong, what do you use? That is a question I’m unsure of. At the moment, I’m using a “working” ethical system that basically boils down to this: (1) We all are in this human experience together. (2) We ought to make the best of it for each person. (3) That includes causing no harm. I could go into this further, but it’s a bit off topic, I think. PM me if you’d like to know more.

 

[buffalo]

Yes. The sexual abuse of children is always wrong because it’s extremely harmful for the child.

I do understand what you’re getting at, though. If you can’t use Natural Law to determine what it is right and wrong, what do you use? That is a question I’m unsure of. At the moment, I’m using a “working” ethical system that basically boils down to this: (1) We all are in this human experience together. (2) We ought to make the best of it for each person. (3) That includes causing no harm. I could go into this further, but it’s a bit off topic, I think. PM me if you’d like to know more.

Society has the right to regulate behavior. We need to separate sexual orientation from the action.

 

[mlchance]

(1) We all are in this human experience together. (2) We ought to make the best of it for each person. (3) That includes causing no harm.

But why? If there is no divine law and no natural law, all there is positive law. If positive law is the highest standard by which actions can be judged, then there really aren’t any standards at all. Therefore, one is just as justified under such a reductionist view of morality to say (1) We all are in this human experience together. (2) Other people are competitors for what I want to make myself happy as I choose to define happines. (3) Therefore, I’m justified in taking advantage of others to get what I want.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[iamrefreshed]

You’re arguing two different points: one legal, the other moral. The idea that a child below such-and-such cannot consent to sex is largely a legal construct.

No it is not a legal construct. A child cannot consent to sex because they do not understand sex or its implications PERIOD!

Just because they say OK does not mean consent. As an example I’ll offer you the father who tells his daughter that it’s OK because it’s a ‘special love’ between us. The child agrees. By your definition above you would that make it OK legally or morally? Please tell me I’m not understanding your post!!!

To argue that a “child” cannot “consent” and therefore pedophilia is immoral is, at best, an incomplete argument. Consider this: If the laws of particular state were changed to make the legal age of consent 10, would this make sex with a 10-year-old moral? Obviously not.

It sounds to me as if you are on both sides of the same coin.

What don’t you understand about the inability of a child to consent to sex? They CANNOT do it. They are not part of the equation. They are not equipped to make that decision. The pedophile is not asking, they are telling.

Again I ask, am I mis-understanding you?

 

[mlchance]

…By your definition above you would that make it OK legally or morally?

Obviously not. But note that if the laws were changed, the activity would be legally OK even though the moral quality of the act would remain the same.

What don’t you understand about the inability of a child to consent to sex?

I understand the issue quite clearly. It is obvious from the perspective of Catholic moral teaching – which includes divine law and natural law – that children cannot consent to have sex.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where positive law in this country says that children can consent to have sex. The only qualifier is the varying ages of consent from state to state.

Is it moral for a 16-year-old to have sex? No.

In many states can a 16-year-old legally consent to have sex? Yes.

That same 16-year-old in others states, however, couldn’t legally consent to have sex? Why? What changed? Only the positive law of the particular state.

This sort of silliness is what happens when legislators divorce law-making from natural law.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[pathia]

Is it moral for a 16-year-old to have sex? No.

In many states can a 16-year-old legally consent to have sex? Yes.

That same 16-year-old in others states, however, couldn’t legally consent to have sex? Why? What changed? Only the positive law of the particular state.

– Mark L. Chance.

Let’s spin it around the other way then. You do realize that there are plenty of 16year olds in the biblical times, heck, 14 or even 12 year old girls, that are married off at that age.

I just have to look in my family tree, I see girls having kids at age 14 consistently, and its in everyone else’s family tree that studies that sort of thing.

This all during the time we followed biblical moral law codes apparently. So when did the moral codes of the bible change?