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

  • Thread starter Thread starter JFonseka
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So when did the moral codes of the bible change?
They didn’t. Natural law and divine law come down on sex outside the confines of marriage. A 14-year-old girl who is married is married. While current cultural norms frown upon such marriages, it isn’t self-evident that they are wrong rather than merely unadvisable.

I was stationed in Hawaii for a while. We had a 19-year-old soldier assigned to us for PDY. He had a 16-year-old wife. They’d been married for nearly a year. I’m sure everyone here can do the math. The company commander wisely ordered him to enroll his wife in the base high school so she could earn her diploma.

It was certainly an unusual situation, but I doubt anyone could make much of a case for its immorality.

Now if that same soldier had showed up with his 16-year-old girlfriend that he’d been shacked up with for nearly a year…

BTW, it is interesting to note that you complete avoided addressing the issue of the obvious problems inherent in positive law regarding ages of consent.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
They didn’t. Natural law and divine law come down on sex outside the confines of marriage. A 14-year-old girl who is married is married. While current cultural norms frown upon such marriages, it isn’t self-evident that they are wrong rather than merely unadvisable.

BTW, it is interesting to note that you complete avoided addressing the issue of the obvious problems inherent in positive law regarding ages of consent.

– Mark L. Chance.
First of all…wow…okay. You think it’s okay four 14 and maybe even 13 year olds or 12 year olds to have sex. Just as long as they are married?

Okay, I don’t even want to really continue that, because that’s just self evident as wrong. Just like I don’t believe a 12-16 year old can consent to sex, I don’t think they can consent to marriage either. The brain just isn’t developed enough yet.

As for the other complaint by you at the end, I don’t even know where to start, because we disagree on axioms. It is inherently impossible to feasible debate about axioms.
 
First of all…wow…okay. You think it’s okay four 14 and maybe even 13 year olds or 12 year olds to have sex. Just as long as they are married?
I didn’t actually say that, now did I?
Okay, I don’t even want to really continue that, because that’s just self evident as wrong.
On what basis do you make that moral judgement?
Just like I don’t believe a 12-16 year old can consent to sex…
In several U.S. states, a 16-year-old can consent to sex. In some states, a child as young as 15 can legally enter into a marriage contract. From at least a legal perspective, your belief, while it may be right, doesn’t seem to have much basis.

Since positive law cannot support your belief, you must obviously resort to either natural law or divine law. Of course, in doing so, you cannot be selective. Thus, if you appeal to natural law, you must appeal to it in toto. Thus, once again, we end up concluding that homosexual activity is immoral.

I wonder if there’s any connection between that chain of thought, and the fact that there’s at least one homosexual rights group – which rejects natural law as well as divine law – that actively seeks to lower age of consent laws?

– Mark L. Chance.
 
I didn’t actually say that, now did I?

On what basis do you make that moral judgement?

.
I make the judgement based on science that the teenage brain is heavily in fluctuation and not settled into an adult pattern yet. The brain is changing wildly during this time, teenagers literally do not understand projecting to the future like adults do, they can do it yes, but it is processed differently by their brains.

There are no morals per say involved in this judgement, it is science based.

Also, you do realize that multiple ‘natural laws’ exist? I am assuming you are refering to Thomas Aquinas given this is a Catholic forum, but there are plenty of other sets of natural laws besides his.

random googled links on studies that show the state of teenage brains below:
nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/teenage-brain-a-work-in-progress.shtml
pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/teenbrain/work/
msnbc.msn.com/id/14738243
 
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.

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.
OK. I was misunderstanding your posts. We are speaking the same language. Your is just more eloquent.🙂
 
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?
Natural law shows that after puberty procreation is possible. I would venture to say back then children were more mature to raise children than today’s children. I would suggest this is a man made intervention.
 
Intersexed. Genetically, physiologically and physically speaking I am neither male nor female.

I am living proof that ‘mistakes’ happen, though I really don’t like to think of myself as a mistake, it’s rather depressing.
You are certainly not a “mistake”. You are made in the image and likeness of God, and He does not make “mistakes” in His creation. However, some of us are born with anomolous composition. It is our cross to bear in life, I think.
Regardless of whatever is determined as the ‘opposite’ sex of me, I still suffer from SSA, because I am bisexual. Every scientific mind I’ve talked to isn’t surprised I have bisexual thoughts because of my situation.

Needless to say it isn’t a stretch of the imagination to ‘understand’ what it it is like.
This is very understandible. It is a painful gift that you have the ability to empathize in this matter.
I am not ‘chasing’ love. I have found it and been in that state for years. I have been dating and engaged to a amazingly patient man for three almost four years now. He has never pushed for ‘carnality’ of any sort that you speak of, he is willing to wait until my issues with the church are resolved.
pathia;2767811:
I am not ‘chasing’ love. I have found it and been in that state for years. I have been dating and engaged to a amazingly patient man for three almost four years now. He has never pushed for ‘carnality’ of any sort that you speak of, he is willing to wait until my issues with the church are resolved.

You seem to presume to know entirely more about my situation than you possibly could.
You seem to presume to know entirely more about my situation than you possibly could.
I am not ‘chasing’ love. I have found it and been in that state for years. I have been dating and engaged to a amazingly patient man for three almost four years now. He has never pushed for ‘carnality’ of any sort that you speak of, he is willing to wait until my issues with the church are resolved.

Help me understand this better. What “issues” are there? It seems to me that each person must resolve for themselves how to live out the Teachings. One benefits from pastoral counsel and guidance, but one person cannot decide or dictate to another how to cope with such a unique situation.

You seem to presume to know entirely more about my situation than you possibly could.

Sorry, perhaps I was a bit harsh. I must have taken something wrong from one of your posts. Do you think you are required to leave your fiance because of the church teaching?
 
The brain is changing wildly during this time, teenagers literally do not understand projecting to the future like adults do, they can do it yes, but it is processed differently by their brains.
That’s it? According to some “science” teenagers can project “to the future” but not “like adults do”? That sounds pretty weak.
There are no morals per say involved in this judgement, it is science based.
If it isn’t a moral judgement, then why use morally loaded language about “moral law” changing or that the activity is “wrong”? Just to set up the strawman? If it isn’t a moral judgement, you just removed yourself from the conversation entirely since this thread is about the morality of certain activities.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
That’s it? According to some “science” teenagers can project “to the future” but not “like adults do”? That sounds pretty weak.

– Mark L. Chance.
If you need lots of studies and scientific evidence to show that teenagers act differently and are incapable of thinking about the future then I don’t know what to say…it’s just intuitively obvious.

Teens have always been wild and unruly, conducting risky behavior. I know, considering I went through the phase myself and witnessed two thousand others do it too, it was called highschool! 😃
 
My friend is a homosexual. He came out and told me, saying that I would understand. I told him that it is wrong and he got mad at me first but then he told me it was only because of my religion so he wasn’t mad but then I corrected him telling him that it is just plain wrong. He has had a boyfriend and told me he has done “gay acts” already so that is a sin, but he also told me just recently that he feels that he is just confused. I find this to be a perfect time to try and convince him out of the whole dilemma and I really would love some help on what exactly should make him see the light. Thanks in advance to all whoever help me with this problem.
 
You might explain more than just that homosexual acts are sinful and that’s that- explain that sexual acts are only correct in the context of marriage and with openness to the possibility of children.

Also you might add that Christ instructed us to take up our cross and follow Him. Some of us have more difficult crosses than others. Your friend might have one such cross. Hope this helps.
 
If you need lots of studies and scientific evidence to show that teenagers act differently and are incapable of thinking about the future then I don’t know what to say…it’s just intuitively obvious.
Make up your mind. First you say teenagers are incapable of thinking about their future, which is patently untrue as more than a decade teaching has shown me, or they are capable of it, but just in a different way than adults, which appears to be an essentially meaningless statement.

BTW, it is also intuitively obvious that homosexual activity is wrong. “Lots of studies and scientific evidence” support this intuition, as do centuries of philosophical thought going all the way back to Plato.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Make up your mind. First you say teenagers are incapable of thinking about their future, which is patently untrue as more than a decade teaching has shown me, or they are capable of it, but just in a different way than adults, which appears to be an essentially meaningless statement.

BTW, it is also intuitively obvious that homosexual activity is wrong. “Lots of studies and scientific evidence” support this intuition, as do centuries of philosophical thought going all the way back to Plato.

– Mark L. Chance.
I agree with you, except for one point, and perhaps it can further what you’re saying.

Now, going back to Plato, the ancient greeks socially approved of…“relations”…so to speak …with a young boy and an older man.

It was socially acceptable.

Now, just because something is socially acceptable, does that make them right.

With social acceptance comes justifications for one’s actions.

It would be safe to say that homosexuality has achieved a great amount of social acceptance, and with it, found justifications for it’s existance.

Does that make it suddenly acceptable?

Does that suddenly make it morally applicable?
 
Now, going back to Plato, the ancient greeks socially approved of…“relations”…so to speak …with a young boy and an older man.
Many Greeks approved of such things, but Plato did not. One can infer that Socrates did not as well. Neither did Aristotle. In fact, there is a constant stream of scorn aimed at homosexual activity found throughout many ancient texts. The idea that the ancients widely approved of homosexual activity has more in common with modern political propaganda as it does with actual history.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Oh. Interesting. What about two men kissing?
The early Christians greeted each other with a holy kiss. A common greeting in many cultures is the embrasso in which men greet one another with a hearty hug, clapping each other on the back and maybe kissing each other on both cheeks.
Watching old movies made in the 1930’s,1940’s, I find it interesting how easily two men living together would say, “I love you.” There was no implication of any sexual activity. This openness and freedom has been greatly dampened in the last couple decades. There is a scene from an “On the road” movie in which the sultan invites Bob Hope to bathe with him. A treasure map has been tattooed on his chest and so the sultan chides him for “acting like a maiden” as he covers his chest with his hands. The type of humor expressed could never be written into the sit-coms of today. The masculinity of the men in these old movies is never questioned. Today, the question revolves around how my actions might be interpreted. Can two men slap each other on the back any place other than the baseball bullpen or athletic field?
Today’s focus on sexual activity for the sake of sexual activity has not really increased our freedom. As Pope Benedict XVI would state it, we have replaced true freedom with a pseudo-freedom that does not recognize personal responsibility for the actions we take.
Splenda has replaced sugar and nobody knows the effects the chemicals might have on the body. Margarine was touted as a cheap alternative to butter that might help with weight management and lower cholesteral. Doctors are now saying eat butter because our bodies know how to handle butter. The body does not know how to handle margarine with its hydroxidated fats.
We cannot replace the natural with something artificial and not expect consequences. That which we consider valuable we protect. Science has recently discovered how the secretion of hormones during congugal relationships makes the male protective of his wife and the wife desire to cling to her husband. The becoming one expressed in Genesis can be physiologically described. Nature would protect the family and the life that might come from the union between male and female. These physiological actions have a psychological impact when disrupted, as with adultery, fornication, and divorce. These actions, as described by St. Paul, become a sin against the self and a denial of who we are in God’s sight. They change how we see ourselves.
Wearing eyeglasses does not keep the nose from performing its natural function of breathing while helping the eyes better perform what they are called to do; that is to see.
Christianity is a religion that deals with relations. It is about our relationship with God, with ourselves, and with each other. The desire for strong relationships is not limited to only one religion. It is a natural desire that men and women have with each other. Anything that disrupts that relationship is therefore harmful.
 
Make up your mind. First you say teenagers are incapable of thinking about their future, which is patently untrue as more than a decade teaching has shown me, or they are capable of it, but just in a different way than adults, which appears to be an essentially meaningless statement.

BTW, it is also intuitively obvious that homosexual activity is wrong. “Lots of studies and scientific evidence” support this intuition, as do centuries of philosophical thought going all the way back to Plato.

– Mark L. Chance.
We disagree on axioms, there is no reason to continue this discussion.
 
We disagree on axioms, there is no reason to continue this discussion.
So be it. It seems sensible to point out that the traditional, natural law argument against homosexual activity continues to withstand challenge. As always, all that the opposing side can offer proves insufficient to refute the fact that homosexual activity is disordered and, therefore, immoral.

Adieu.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top