Gay marriage : who cares?

[kenofken]

kenofken

*What you say here is very politically astute and very smart strategic thinking, but it’s also 100% pure utilitarianism, untainted by even a trace of moral absolutism. Whether a cause appears “winnable” should have no bearing to someone who truly believes in natural law. Abortion is not a “winnable” war in the forseeable future, yet I don’t see the church giving up on that front. I do see you all giving up on the divorce and hetero sodomy issues for the simple reason that you don’t have the backbone to hold yourselves to the same moral standards you would impose on a minority. *

It would appear that your arguments in favor of legalizing gay marriage have dried up. Why are you changing the subject? The title of this thread is Gay Marriage: Who Cares? It is not Is the Catholic Church Sincere and Consistent?

Do you plan to answer any of the points I made in post 625? Specifically this one?

If there is no such thing as natural law, and if therefore homosexual acts are not against nature, then why shouldn’t sex acts with consenting animals also be honored by enacting laws to protect such behavior? More to the point, if such acts with animals are to be protected by law, why not also provide in the law for marriage with the animal of one’s choice?

Then, of course, there would have to be divorce laws pertaining to marriage with a beast. There would also have to be provisions for division of property, alimony entitlements, etc.

But then you are going to say, “You can’t marry a beast!” And I am going to say what you are saying about gay marriage:

Why not? Whatever turns you on, go for it! It’s perfectly natural, because there’s no such thing as natural law to get in the way.

The bestiality argument is the resort of people who have nothing substantive to offer in the debate. An animal is incapable of forming “consent” as is a human. Any 7-year-old who has ever watched a television courtroom drama is capable of that level of legal reasoning. Either you can’t grasp that concept, or, far more likely, you think the rest of us are too stupid to do so. Don’t you feel the least bit embarassed resorting to such a transparently silly arguement? This isn’t esoteric legal theory we’re talking about here. It’s pretty well universally understood that animals don’t have the level of reasoning to be a proper party to ANY contract. They don’t have the privileges and obligations of citizenship. We don’t prosecute them for crimes because they we don’t believe they form criminal intent nor the ability to understand and obey the laws.

My arguments of late have not focused on arguments of legalizing gay marriage. They have focused on the fact that the key moral argument against it appears to be hollow. I have not changed the subject at all. I have focused, indeed harped on, a concept that is integral to the subject. I have raised a very sincere question and challenge about the moral reasoning underlying your arguments against gay marriage. I keep hammering on it because I have gotten NO rational answer that would pass muster with even a middle school forensics judge. After days and weeks of getting nothing but noise and bs on this point, I’m starting to suspect maybe you just don’t have a good answer to this disparity. If you did, I would think somebody would rise to the challenge. This is supposed to be a forum with lots of passionate apologists, and at least some knowledgeable ones.

Yes, the topic is “Gay Marriage, who cares.” My point is “why should anyone care” if it’s evident that your key arguements against it are founded on a belief of convenience, not true conviction. Would you need to dedicate ALL your resources to fighting heterosexual sodomy and remmarriage to demonstrate sincerity? No. But you would have to make SOME material effort to do so. Not only is no one willing to do that, they derisively dismiss even the possibility of doing so. That demonstrates a contempt of natural law that I would expect from Christopher Hitchens or Anton LaVey. Why do you find even the concept of living by your own law to be such a horrible and impractical idea?

 

[Abu]

The inanity of promoting homosexual/lesbian “marriage”.
Taken from post #291, 22/6/10, djeter Re: Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law
That there are so FEW faithful couples and multiple partners is one of the attributes of modern homosexuality – as confirmed by the following studies:

Homosexual men and women are far less likely to be in any kind of committed relationship than heterosexuals are. A 2006 study by researchers at UCLA concluded:
We found that lesbians, and particularly gay men, are less likely to be in a relationship compared to heterosexual women and men. Perhaps the most outstanding finding is also the most simple — that over half of gay men (51%) were not in a relationship. Compared to only 21% of heterosexual females and 15% of heterosexual males, this figure is quite striking. Charles Strohm, et al., “Couple Relationships among Lesbians, Gay Men, and Heterosexuals in California: A Social Demographic Perspective,” Paper can be accessed at: allacademic.com/meta/p104912_index.html

Selfist opinions are biased by sinful behaviours – much like a junkie who says he’s in control of his behaviour.

**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 six year study concluded that there is evidence that homosexual tendencies can be controlled and redirected toward normal sexual attraction.
[usa-lifesitenews-com-monday-august-10-2009-new-study-measures-benefits-of-more-involved-fathers/]

It is only the activists who campaign for a status which has no status in reality.

 

[Portrait]

Clarification. Some of Her members, not in Her dogma and doctrine.
The Church is “held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy” (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, art 39). Her holiness is reflected also in those who are faithful to the point of becoming saints.

Dear Abu,

Cordial greetings dear friend.

My apologies, I actually did think about that statement after posting and whether or not to let it stand. You are quite correct, we must distinguish between some unholy members and the “unfailingly holy” Church and its dogma and doctrine. Sorry for my lack of clarity on this most important point.

Hope all is well Abu and good to read your insightful contributions again.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[tonyrey]

The real criterion of gay marriage is its relation to parenthood. Would you want your children to be brought up by a gay couple?

 

[Portrait]

The bestiality argument is the resort of people who have nothing substantive to offer in the debate. An animal is incapable of forming “consent” as is a human. Any 7-year-old who has ever watched a television courtroom drama is capable of that level of legal reasoning. Either you can’t grasp that concept, or, far more likely, you think the rest of us are too stupid to do so. Don’t you feel the least bit embarassed resorting to such a transparently silly arguement? This isn’t esoteric legal theory we’re talking about here. It’s pretty well universally understood that animals don’t have the level of reasoning to be a proper party to ANY contract. They don’t have the privileges and obligations of citizenship. We don’t prosecute them for crimes because they we don’t believe they form criminal intent nor the ability to understand and obey the laws.

My arguments of late have not focused on arguments of legalizing gay marriage. They have focused on the fact that the key moral argument against it appears to be hollow. I have not changed the subject at all. I have focused, indeed harped on, a concept that is integral to the subject. I have raised a very sincere question and challenge about the moral reasoning underlying your arguments against gay marriage. I keep hammering on it because I have gotten NO rational answer that would pass muster with even a middle school forensics judge. After days and weeks of getting nothing but noise and bs on this point, I’m starting to suspect maybe you just don’t have a good answer to this disparity. If you did, I would think somebody would rise to the challenge. This is supposed to be a forum with lots of passionate apologists, and at least some knowledgeable ones.

Yes, the topic is “Gay Marriage, who cares.” My point is “why should anyone care” if it’s evident that your key arguements against it are founded on a belief of convenience, not true conviction. Would you need to dedicate ALL your resources to fighting heterosexual sodomy and remmarriage to demonstrate sincerity? No. But you would have to make SOME material effort to do so. Not only is no one willing to do that, they derisively dismiss even the possibility of doing so. That demonstrates a contempt of natural law that I would expect from Christopher Hitchens or Anton LaVey. Why do you find even the concept of living by your own law to be such a horrible and impractical idea?

Dear Kenofken,

Cordial greetings.

The analogy of homosexual conduct with bestiality is exceedingly cogent since man’s intuitive sense informs him that both behaviours are unnatural, wrong and to be avoided. The whole consensual issue is a red herring and in any case totally irrelevant since consent or non-consent has no bearing on conduct that is a priori wrong and unnatural in the first place by the general consent of mankind.

The fact is that homosexuals, like rapists, murderers and theives, have a God-given conscience which acts as a sort of built-in arbiter to evaluate their thoughts and actions. Although they may deny this faculty with every fibre of their being or at least labour to supress it, a man’s conscience can only become radically defective, it cannot be entirely extinguished. Thus when they engage in their shameful acts of depravity and indulge “in the lusts of their heart to impurity” (Romans 1: 24), they may try and convince themselves and others that they are happy and flourishing, but even if imperceptible at first, their lives will, at length, become blighted with feelings of guilt and deep self loathing. My parish priest often remarks in his homilies that “no one cheats on God”; one cannot engage in improper conduct which dishonours our Creator and expect to escape unscathed - “the wages of sin is death” and “whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap”.

Whether he likes it or not, the moral law of God is written on man’s heart and he cannot rid himself of it, try as he may. The fact is that men’s consciences do trouble them greatly and will give them no respite until they come to their senses in genuine penitence, seek the forgiveness of God and cease doing wrong by His enabling grace.

Of course those involved in homosexual liasons may be deluded into thinking that they are happy and fulfilled, but inwardly they are deeply sorrowful and unstable. How could it be otherwise? Indulging in sin can appear to bring hapiness for a season, but that “hapiness” is fleeting; it is a false happiness and what truer misery is there than a false hapiness or false pleasure? For this very reason sin should be doubly hated because it is ugly and false and sooner or later it defiles and mocks us. It is something like the man who dreams of a feast and awakes so hungry and vexed that he could eat his dream.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[John21652]

The bestiality argument is the resort of people who have nothing substantive to offer in the debate. An animal is incapable of forming “consent” as is a human.

Well, tell that to Professor Peter Singer, champion of preference utilitarianism and head honcho of the ethics department at Princton University. He says bestiality is just fine, so long as the animal doesn’t suffer. Singer says consensual sex between anybody is just fine and therefore bestiality is fine too, because he designates animals as ‘persons’. So, according to Singer, getting it off with your dog is on a par with getting it off with your boyfriend!!. Singer makes it all part of the one philosophy, so don’t go telling us the subject is used by people who have nothing substantive to offer in a debate, or else you will be accused of, and in fact be, guilty of shooting down in flames your very own philosophical mentor and champion. But of course that’s where the illogicality of departing from the Natural Law starts to shine through! As I said in an earlier post, the Natural Law has a habit of burying its undertakers.

… It’s pretty well universally understood that animals don’t have the level of reasoning to be a proper party to ANY contract.

Oh my, how you do confuse. A few posts back you were holding up the antics of apes, who use rampant homosexual and promiscuous sex as a bargaining tool and for structuring social relationships. Therefore, the apes, according to your argument, must have a degree of reasoning if they can recognise how to form relationships using homosexual and heterosexual sex and to know when to engage in either form of the sex. They are, in fact, making agreements using sex, and an agreement is what a contract is. After all, you did write "…animals don’t have the level of reasoning to be a party to ANY contract.

They don’t have the privileges and obligations of citizenship. We don’t prosecute them for crimes because they we don’t believe they form criminal intent nor the ability to understand and obey the laws.

Haven’t you been keeping abreast of the philosophical “advances” made by you philosophical soul mates, the utilitarians and moral relativists? Animal rights is high on the agenda and so called academic argument is now exploring how animals can be represented through the legal system, including in various legislatures, because they are to be considered as ‘moral persons’. Animal Rights is right up there with Gay Rights. If a homosexual is considered to be a ‘moral person’ and a dog is considered to be a ‘moral person’, then why can’t marrying a dog be right up there on the same ‘moral grounds’ as homosexuality? It’s all relative, you see.

They have focused on the fact that the key moral argument against it appears to be hollow. … I have raised a very sincere question and challenge about the moral reasoning underlying your arguments against gay marriage. I keep hammering on it because I have gotten NO rational answer that would pass muster with even a middle school forensics judge. After days and weeks of getting nothing but noise and bs on this point, I’m starting to suspect maybe you just don’t have a good answer to this disparity. If you did, I would think somebody would rise to the challenge. This is supposed to be a forum with lots of passionate apologists, and at least some knowledgeable ones.

Well, it is obvious that much of the arguments which have been given against you have passed right over your head. Maybe that’s because you can’t yet see the contradictions in your own argument. Your analogy with slavery for the introduction of homosexual ‘marriage’ was a case in point. There are many posts here which have clearly enunciated how the departure from Natural Law morality is a slippery slope fuelled by an extreme form of moral relativism and underpinned by utilitarianism and positive law. Hopefully the illogicalities which are apparent in the above discourse will begin to how you that departing from the norms that are apparent in human nature will lead to nothing else but a hedonism which has no restraint, no constraints, is devoid of any logicality and can never be called ‘moral’ in any universe. That’s what gay “marriage” is. It is disordered, against the natural order of things and an attempt by vested interests to ‘normalise’ what is clearly abnormal.

Yes, the topic is “Gay Marriage, who cares.” My point is “why should anyone care” if it’s evident that your key arguements against it are founded on a belief of convenience, not true conviction. Would you need to dedicate ALL your resources to fighting heterosexual sodomy and remmarriage to demonstrate sincerity? No. But you would have to make SOME material effort to do so. Not only is no one willing to do that, they derisively dismiss even the possibility of doing so. That demonstrates a contempt of natural law that I would expect from Christopher Hitchens or Anton LaVey. Why do you find even the concept of living by your own law to be such a horrible and impractical idea?

Because I don’t chase bank robbers doesn’t mean I approve of their behaviour. The Church and even sectarian followers of the Natural Law all preach that sodomy of any description is against the nature of man. Unfortunately, most of the existing breaches of the Natural Law and its attendant morality have been enshrined in positive law. Overturning instituted law is exceedingly difficult. Homosexual ‘marriage’ is not yet allowed by positive law, so obviously the battle is to ensure that people see reason and avoid its introduction. The day will come when most people will see that their society is being torn apart, bit by bit, by the introduction of positive laws based on moral relativism, under the guise of “rights” and which causes disorder.

 

[Leela]

Well, tell that to Professor Peter Singer, champion of preference utilitarianism and head honcho of the ethics department at Princton University. He says bestiality is just fine, so long as the animal doesn’t suffer. Singer says consensual sex between anybody is just fine and therefore bestiality is fine too, because he designates animals as ‘persons’. So, according to Singer, getting it off with your dog is on a par with getting it off with your boyfriend!!.

Bestiality may indeed be immoral, but why is it immoral? To say that it is immoral because it violates natural law is to offer no reason whatsoever. Since natural law is the same thing as the Moral Law, to say that it is unnatural is just to repeat that you think it is immoral. You still haven’t said why it is immoral.

In my view, bestiality is immoral because it simply cannot be consenual. See? I’ve given a reason for my moral view rather than just saying that it is immoral because it is immoral.

Now, why is homosexuality immoral?

 

[kenofken]

A new day has broken and I find rebuttals to a half-dozen arguments I never made, and a curious avoidance of the one I have been making. We have amateur psychology musings on the supposed inner life and guilt complexes of gay men.

We have an absolute fascination with the concept of bestiality at play here, inlcuding inferences that I’m somehow in league with some Princeton professor I’ve never heard of. Rebuttals to bizzaro-world contortions of arguments I made on other subjects. Statements that anyone who questions natural law in any way MUST be adovates and enthusiasts of bestiality. For a crowd that professes to abhor such aberrations, some of you seem quite fixated by the topic.

The one mention of my key argument says that natural law really only has to be upheld when it’s politically favorable to do so. Otherwise passive disapproval is good enough.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kenofken

The bestiality argument is the resort of people who have nothing substantive to offer in the debate. An animal is incapable of forming “consent” as is a human.

As a matter of fact, consent cannot be the sole criteria for whether a man has sex with a beast. You do not ask yourself whether the beast consents when he is killed and eaten, do you? Then why should you require his consent for sex?

Also, any seven year old can see as ludicrous the notion that a man might marry a man.

First you deny the natural law; then you introduce a natural law to refute bestiality. You say for sex to be legitimate, there must only be consent. Then you argue that it would be unnatural for a man to have sex with a beast because the beast cannot consent.

So which is it? Is sex with a beast natural or unnatural?

Is sex between men natural or unnatural?

Why is it unnatural between man and beast but natural between man and man?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kenofken

*Would you need to dedicate ALL your resources to fighting heterosexual sodomy and remmarriage to demonstrate sincerity? No. But you would have to make SOME material effort to do so. Not only is no one willing to do that, they derisively dismiss even the possibility of doing so. That demonstrates a contempt of natural law that I would expect from Christopher Hitchens or Anton LaVey. Why do you find even the concept of living by your own law to be such a horrible and impractical idea? *

The words “horrible” and “impractical” are yours, not ours. You cannot impose your subjective language on the rest of us. What we find horrible and impractical are abortion, divorce, and gay marriage, to name just a few. We fight against those things on all fronts, just as you fight for them. If we fail to fight with as much conviction as you would like to see, don’t you worry that we don’t have conviction. When we finally turn the world around by prayer and education so that most people can once again use common sense, you will see that conviction and energy needed to suppress the evils you defend.

 

[Santi2]

This post is thought-provoking and I have some more questions for people who are well versed in law.

Let’s consider these 3 situations:

1. Two gay men, or perhaps a small community of gay men (let’s say up to 10 people) live together. They are sexually active.
2. A small community of Franciscan brothers living together. They are sexually abstinent.
3. Two elderly brothers, WWII veterans with a failing health, are living together. They are sexually abstinent.

Do our current laws permit these 3 communities to take care of each other, including hospital visitation rights, the ability to make decisions for a sick community member, the ability to inherit upon someone’s death, etc? What do we have currently, on the legal side? Domestic partnerships, power of attorneys, etc? Frankly I do not care whether the gays are having sex with each other, or whether the Franciscan monks and the two elderly brothers are sexually abstinent. But do we have a legal system to allow them to take care of each other, and I mean a legal system that’s not privy to what goes on in these people’s bedrooms, a system that protects and empowers people without asking questions about their sexual practices? That’s what I would call equal protection under the law.

In the UK, 2 and 3 would fall within the ambit of next of kin rights.The Franciscan community, albeit comprising of unrelated individuals, will be treated by law as an entity with assumed next of kin personality.

Prior to law reform (Civil Partnership legislation), gay couples did not have the benefit of next of kin rights. But, it was not exclusive to same sex relationships. Cohabiting heterosexual couples also did not (and still do not) have next of kin rights over here. However, statutory provisions and common law provide some legal protection for individuals, albeit within tort (duty of care), property and trust laws rather than family law which would automatically grant next of kin recognition and rights extended to traditional marriages on matters such as joint treatment of pensions, tax allowances and maintenance rights etc.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

*Bestiality may indeed be immoral, but why is it immoral? To say that it is immoral because it violates natural law is to offer no reason whatsoever. Since natural law is the same thing as the Moral Law, to say that it is unnatural is just to repeat that you think it is immoral. You still haven’t said why it is immoral.

In my view, bestiality is immoral because it simply cannot be consenual. See? I’ve given a reason for my moral view rather than just saying that it is immoral because it is immoral.

Now, why is homosexuality immoral? *

Leela, forget immoral. It is unnatural! Or do you want to argue that bestiality is natural? What obligation does the state have to give out licenses for the performance of unnatural and perverse acts?

Please answer this!!!

 

[PassingThru]

Leela

*Bestiality may indeed be immoral, but why is it immoral? To say that it is immoral because it violates natural law is to offer no reason whatsoever. Since natural law is the same thing as the Moral Law, to say that it is unnatural is just to repeat that you think it is immoral. You still haven’t said why it is immoral.

In my view, bestiality is immoral because it simply cannot be consenual. See? I’ve given a reason for my moral view rather than just saying that it is immoral because it is immoral.

Now, why is homosexuality immoral? *

Leela, forget immoral. It is unnatural! Or do you want to argue that bestiality is natural? What obligation does the state have to give out licenses for the performance of unnatural and perverse acts?

Please answer this!!!

Stepping in here, but lets just say it is unnatural. The question is then, do we legislate it? If there are, or are not, laws on the books that prevent farmer Bob from having sex with his cow, do we care? And, will Bob change his mind and not have sex with the cow because of a law on the books somewhere? Will you or your children decide to then have sex with farm animals, due to the legality or illegality of livestock sex?

Now then, you next line of logic is probably that Bob will argue he can marry the cow. Well, luckily, there is far more to marriage than the natural/unnatural argument, so regardless of how unnatural it is to bugger a cow, it is largely irrelevant to making the case to marry the cow.

Many poeple think gay couples being together is fine if that is what they like. You obviously feel it is your place to decide, and say no as it is unnatural. But why should we take your opinion over others, and why is the unnatural aspect of it a deciding factor, when we are legally protected from doing all sorts of unnatural things?

 

[kenofken]

kenofken

The bestiality argument is the resort of people who have nothing substantive to offer in the debate. An animal is incapable of forming “consent” as is a human.

As a matter of fact, consent cannot be the sole criteria for whether a man has sex with a beast. You do not ask yourself whether the beast consents when he is killed and eaten, do you? Then why should you require his consent for sex?

Also, any seven year old can see as ludicrous the notion that a man might marry a man.

First you deny the natural law; then you introduce a natural law to refute bestiality. You say for sex to be legitimate, there must only be consent. Then you argue that it would be unnatural for a man to have sex with a beast because the beast cannot consent.

So which is it? Is sex with a beast natural or unnatural?

Is sex between men natural or unnatural?

Why is it unnatural between man and beast but natural between man and man?

I’ll admit that I haven’t spent a lot of time pondering the natural law legalities of bestiality:shrug: I’m quite content with my own species and do very well for a non-wealthy modestly attractive guy of 40. The original topic has less to do with sex per se than marriage. Marriage has everything to do with consent because it is a contract and therefore dependent on full human sentience. Even if I concede that natural law is everything you say it is, it’s sort of a moot point.

We’re dedicating all this time to the vagaries of bestiality, which interests perhaps several tenths of one percent of humanity, if even that. You’re not willing to even take on the massive, flagrant, daily violations of natural law comitted by the vast majority of (human) violators who don’t happen to be gay or zoophiles. You’re turning a blind eye to the 95% of the problem and massing your army to go after the 5% or so of gay humans and the infitessimally small number of people interested in other species.

 

[bluelake]

I agree with the OP. We should care about gay marriage (from a Spiritual standpoint, I oppose it. From a legal standpoint, I support it), but instead of rallying so much against gay marriage, why don’t Catholics start focusing on our own silent killer—the divorce/annulment rates.

marion,
If you are going to attend Catholic classes about their doctrine you will soon find out why the Lord frowns on the sin of homosexuality. See Rom.1:26-32
I do not judge them either, but as a christian we should be a witness to their lifestyle.

God bless,
bluelake

 

[kenofken]

kenofken

Would you need to dedicate ALL your resources to fighting heterosexual sodomy and remmarriage to demonstrate sincerity? No. But you would have to make SOME material effort to do so. Not only is no one willing to do that, they derisively dismiss even the possibility of doing so. That demonstrates a contempt of natural law that I would expect from Christopher Hitchens or Anton LaVey. Why do you find even the concept of living by your own law to be such a horrible and impractical idea?

The words “horrible” and “impractical” are yours, not ours. You cannot impose your subjective language on the rest of us. What we find horrible and impractical are abortion, divorce, and gay marriage, to name just a few. We fight against those things on all fronts, just as you fight for them. If we fail to fight with as much conviction as you would like to see, don’t you worry that we don’t have conviction. When we finally turn the world around by prayer and education so that most people can once again use common sense, you will see that conviction and energy needed to suppress the evils you defend.

If you had and REAL conviction about the non-gay violations of natural law, you surely could do SOMETHING material about them. You mean to tell me in all of Western Christendom these days has a few bucks to set up a lobbying group? Nobody can write a letter to their senator on the matter or add even a nominal platform to the Prop 8 charter calling for legislative remedies to this? No bishop anywhere in the country can expend the two dozen calories or so it would take to publicly call out legislators on the issue in a press conference or letter? Nobody these days has all the resources they’d like to dedicate to anything, but if natural law was really intrisically important to you, and not just situationally important, you could come up with at least a token effort.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

marion,
If you are going to attend Catholic classes about their doctrine you will soon find out why the Lord frowns on the sin of homosexuality. See Rom.1:26-32
I do not judge them either, but as a christian we should be a witness to their lifestyle.

God bless,
bluelake

Do you think they will listen if our witness is: “we’re going to craft legislation so you have to live by our moral code”

 

[CradleCath]

Since this argument is being held in the Philosophy forum, I thought I’d give some views on homosexuality by the ancient Philosophers:

So, how do we know what the laws of nature are? The law of nature is not the law of the jungle, but the counsels of reason by which man is able to distinguish between right and wrong and attain his natural fulfillment as a person. All men, regardless of religion or culture, possess the potential to discern the laws of nature. This common rationality is the basis of human equality.

Aristotle, who Thomas Jefferson cites as one of the sources of the Declaration, states that what is naturally right has the “same power everywhere and is not subject to what one thinks of it or not.” If sodomy is against the natural law, we can expect reasonable men always and everywhere to condemn such acts. Contrary to professor Martha Nussbaum’s testimony in Evans v. Romer that “prior to Christian tradition, there is no evidence that natural law theories regarded same sex erotic attachments as immoral – unnatural, or improper,”** we find almost unanimous worldwide agreement that homosexual relations are unnatural. **

In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle himself refers to homosexuality as a form of “brutality” (1138b30) – a vice so beneath human nature that those who engage in it are like beasts. A list of some of the other deeds Aristotle considers brutish, or “beyond the limits of vice,” indicates the horror that should be evoked by such an act: “for instance, the female who is said to rip open pregnant women and devour the infants… the case of the man who offered his mother as a sacrifice to the gods and ate of her… [cases of] chewing coal or earth.” Aristotle defines homosexuality as a form of brutishness that is “the result of disease or of habit.” Indeed, Aristotle argues that many cases of homosexuality are the result of childhood sexual abuse. Whatever its origin, the Philosopher cautions that mere lack of self-control does not cause homosexuality, but that the condition is due to sickness or a “morbid” psychological condition. In this sense, it seems Aristotle considers homosexuality to be a sort of addiction.

Likewise,** Plato **clearly condemns homosexuality in his Laws (636c). In that text, a nameless Athenian interlocutor states that “there is an ancient law concerning sexual pleasures…a law laid down even in nature…it should be understood that the pleasure is given according to nature, it seems, when the female united with the nature of males for procreation. Males coming together with males, and females with females, seems against nature; and the daring of those who first did it seems to have arisen from lack of self-restraint with regard to pleasure.” While the Athenian’s argument may lack the refinement of Aristotle’s his opposition to homosexuality is clear.

lifeissues.net/writers/tay/tay_14unhappyunion.html

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kenofken

We’re dedicating all this time to the vagaries of bestiality, which interests perhaps several tenths of one percent of humanity, if even that. You’re not willing to even take on the massive, flagrant, daily violations of natural law comitted by the vast majority of (human) violators who don’t happen to be gay or zoophiles. **You’re turning a blind eye to the 95% of the problem and massing your army to go after the 5% or so of gay humans and the infitessimally small number of people interested in other species. **

Do you not realize how silly that sounds? You can’t have seen me in action on the abortion threads.
*
Nobody these days has all the resources they’d like to dedicate to anything, but if natural law was really intrisically important to you, and not just situationally important, you could come up with at least a token effort. *

Since you don’t know me personally, I think you are out of bounds to judge whether my efforts are token.

But I see again what you are up to. You have run out of ammunition on gay marriage, so you want to change the subject. Why not be honest about that, then go and start a new thread so that you don’t have to keep changing the subject?

One thing is for certain, as to the question asked in this thread, both gays and Catholics care deeply about gay marriage, so what more is there to say?

 

[CradleCath]

A little bit more on Natural Law, as some here seem to be ignorant of it:

As discussed last week, ]the Constitution is based upon the “Laws of Nature.” If the counsels of the natural law are not valid, the Constitution is not valid. In spite of the fact that the natural law teaching is essential to interpreting the Constitution, its premises are often misunderstood, and even more rarely employed, by most judges and legislators.

Natural law commentators have traditionally opposed homosexuality because it violates the first precept of the natural law, the law of self-preservation. The basis of this law is that life is good and is the necessary condition for the enjoyment of every other good.

Nature provides for the self-preservation of the human species by endowing men and women with an **instinctual attraction for one another. **Homosexual relations are “unnatural” because such acts frustrate Nature’s intention that the human species perpetuate itself.1 Obviously, if most people chose to exclusively engage in homosexual relations humans would become extinct. **Nature also discourages homosexuality in that homosexual practices generally cause or are associated with a variety of physical and mental disorders. The fact that the median age of death for homosexuals is less than 50 years of age also indicates the human body was not made to engage in sodomy.2 Similarly, the mind and soul suffer from such acts as suggested by abnormally high suicide rates among homosexuals.3 **

The public benefits of the natural law are attained via a natural order of loves interior to each person. Accordingly, most people never formally take into account the first natural law as a motive for doing anything, much less making love. As the court’s recent emphasis on the “right to privacy” reminds us, decisions regarding sexuality and procreation are very personal. Analogously, people do not marry and have children because they recognize a state interest in “furthering the link between procreation and childrearing.” In modern America, we marry for love, and love is understood to be an intensely private affair.

Love, however, also has a public benefit: children. Nature, it seems, loves children.** For this reason, Nature uses the most powerful of human loves – the passions that unite husbands and wives and parents and children – to ensure that human beings remain in existence.** Left to their own devices, lovers inevitably seek to consummate their relationship by giving their entire selves, including their bodies, to one another. The children that result, unlike the offspring of other animals, require a great deal of care and education. So much attention, in fact, that the public welfare, not to mention the children themselves, suffer greatly when lovers do not take responsibility for their offspring. Reason, supported by just law, discerns that parental responsibility should be clearly established by confining sexual relations to an exclusive relationship between husband and wife. The basis of this rule is that every sexual act between a
fertile man and woman has the potential to conceive a child. **

Fortunately, Nature also provides parents, especially mothers, with an innate and lasting love for their children.** In addition, erotic love has a unitive aspect that strengthens the bond between husband and wife during the trials that arise while raising children.

lifeissues.net/writers/tay/tay_14unhappyunion.html

The following is my opinion. As one sees here Natural Law provides for an INNATE love of parents for their children. That is, of course, is one of the primary reasons that the Church fights so hard for the unborn. The Moral Law (Natural Law) tells us that killing another creature who is exactly like us…or has the potential to become exactly like us…is wrong…unless we do so in self-defense or in the defense of another innocent. Abortion is absolutely unthinkable to me & I can’t understand ANY defense of it, nor can I relate to ANY reason given in this argument so far that two men (two women) should be allowed to be “married”.

The fact that many here have lost sight of the **reality **of Natural Law, tells us just how corrupt our society has become.