For Portrait,
Thanks again – this is becoming an interesting discussion.
Bestiality. You see I do not think that it is wrong because it is unnatural; I think it is wrong for other reasons. It takes us too far off track to discuss these other reasons. Sufficient to say that for me being unnatural is not enough to condemn it.
I agree that most people have a feeling of revulsion when they consider bestiality but that is not enough to say it is wrong. You see I get a feeling of revulsion when I consider the eating of raw oysters but that does not entitle me to say it is wrong.
I also agree that many people have an intuition that, if something is unnatural, it is also wrong. [It seems to break a natural law if you like]. But we are debating whether this intuition is correct or not and to decide that we need to answer the question; ‘OK it is unnatural but why is it wrong?’
Finally you correctly point out that the dictionary definition of ‘unnatural’ has a negative flavour. True but in the everyday sense of the word lots of unnatural things are perfectly fine when you think about it – cars, spectacles, fidelity, loving ones enemies… [Don’t go into these – just take the point, in the usual sense of the term you certainly may not say, ‘unnatural = wrong’.] So we cannot rely on the dictionary to help us here.
With best wishes,
Laurie
Dear Laurie,
Thankyou for your reply old chap.
Regarding beastality, you say that you believe it is wrong, not becuase it is unnatural, but for other reasons and that its unnaturalness is,
for you, insufficient to condemn it. Now that is merely your private opinion; what authority do you have and who is to say that you are correct? If beastality is unnatural, as you freely admit, then it most decidedly cannot be right and morally permissible, therefore it must clearly be wrong and morally improper. As far as I can see it is impossible to occupy a midway position in this matter, it is either right or wrong on account of it being unnatural.
Whether repulsion is one’s response to the thought of beastial behaviour is really neither here nor there. Certainly, if a man’s moral consceince is functioning properly he should indeed find such conduct repulsive, but that is a subjective consideration and not to the point. It is its unnaturalness that renders it wrong and improper conduct.
If you acknowledge that people have an ethical intuition which instinctively tells them that certain sorts of unnatural conduct are wrong, then you must then ask from whence this innate faculty to distinguish right from wrong comes. To date you have provided no satisfying answer to this most crucial of questions.
On the contrary, the dictionary definition helps us immensely because it clearly shows how the word is ordinarily understood by the vast majority of people. That ‘unnatural’ has chiefly a negative import admits of no doubt and that is how your average man on the London Underground would so understand it. They would not readily apply the term ‘unnatural’ to the examples that you cite; imagine a man saying about another man wearing glasses, “I say that fellow is unnatural using his nose as a rest for his spectacles, that is contrary to the proper use of his nose, how very strange”. However, in contradistinction, the terms ‘unnatural’ and ‘morally wrong’ would easily come to mind in your average person when thinking about homosexual genital acts and beastality.
One of the primary arguments, from natural law reasoning, against homosexual deviant acts is the biological argument. Purely from a biological standpoint, those of the same sex are not designed for intimate ‘face to face’ coitus, physically or genetically. Who would seriously deny that the female vagina is intended to accommodate the male penis? Moreover, the vagina has natural lubrication and multiple layers of skin cells that the anus does not have, hence the hazards of infection and disease from sodomy are patently obvious. That condoms have to be used to reduce this risk only further highlights the unnaturalness (and wrongness) and dangers involved in such sexual deviancy. Now these biological considerations alone should suffice to flash up the warning cones with regards to homosexual aberrant acts. That they do not is unmistakeable evidence of man’s fallen estate and his revolt against not only the natural law, which clearly informs him that such deviant acts are wrong and unnatural, but also, more importantly, the moral law of God.
Laurie, it was interesting to read antunesaa’s contribution to the debate. Since we have been debating for some considerable time now, I would be more than happy to bow out so that you can debate with antunesaa, and any others who may wish to join in. Not that I am finding the debate tiresome or stale, on the contrary I am enjoying it immensely and would be more than happy to continue as I have so much more to say (no surprise there!). Well, I’ll leave the decision entirely up you old chap - your wish is my command.
If you do wish me to take my leave then may I thank you for a lively but very good natured debate. We have been able to disagree without being disagreable - so very important on public forums such as this.
Hope that our paths will cross again at another time and another place.
Blessings be upon you and may the peace of God be yours now and always.
Warmest good wishes and prayers,
Portrait:tiphat:
