Homosexual Acts are Not Against the Natural Law

[LisaA]

By that reasoning no one is born straight either.

Perhaps by that reasoning in that one is not born with mature sex organs nor the hormones that coincide with sexual maturity. On the other hand we are BORN male or female and thus ordered (designed) to have an opposite sex partner from a physical perspective. This is obvious from birth (with rare exceptions where a child is born with secondary sexual characteristics of both…very very rare).

It rather leads to the conclusion that something before or during sexual maturation is influential in what is found to be sexually attractive. Further most gays and Lesbians have been or continue to have attraction for both sexes albeit a stronger attraction to the same sex.

But if we are born any “way” it is to be paired with an opposite sex partner.

 

[Peter_Plato]

How do you understand the post #244?

This will be a long one.

Exactly! And if it has other purposes, and those purposes are not evil, and they are not solely present in heterosexual bonding… You see where I’m going with this?

The point being made by Crow is that sexual relations may have “other purposes” than procreation such as bonding and are legitimated by those other purposes.

Have you forgotten that all the fruits are bound together? The bonding of sexual relations occurs bound up with transfer of genetic material. Why would that be? What do you think the reason might be? Could it have something to do with procreative potential? Perhaps the homosexual man chooses the inappropriate bonding?

Point made by Rau that sexual bonding is essentially about transfer of genetic material in order to bring about a genetically new being – i.e., endowing the bond between the heterosexual couple with real physical existence by creating new and abiding genetic material through the bonding act itself which essentially involves the transfer of genetic material – which is essentially the purpose for the act of sex.

The bonding aspect of sexual relations occurs regardless of whether genetic material is actually mingled into a fertilized egg. If bonding can occur independently of actual procreation, then exactly how are they inseparable?

Comprehensive bonding – mind, body and soul – of the kind and nature involved in heterosexual bonding does not happen “independently” of actual procreation because where deliberate intent exists to create an artificial impediment to the transfer of genetic material then a deliberate obstacle is created to prevent the comprehensive union or bond which is the very nature of heterosexual relations.

The sexual union is by its very nature one that involves complementarity because the biological organs involved in the sex act are incomplete in either sex and require the other to fulfill the purpose for each. It is the combining of sex organs from male and female that sexual relations happen because only then is the actual function for reproductive organs fulfilled.

We do not condemn women for “spilling” their eggs, so is lesbianism somehow more acceptable than men with men? Your last response to my question about lesbianism didn’t really address them other than to say “women are different”. If the logic you apply to gay men does not apply to gay women, I suspect the “universal truth” you are subscribing to is Niether universal nor true. Simply dismissing women from the discussion does not strengthen your argument, it significantly weakens it.

This point is somewhat misconceived. The fact that a woman “spills her eggs” is irrelevant because bonding – from the perspective of the kind of comprehensive union involving the bonding of mind, body and soul of the married couple – cannot occur without intentionality.

It is ONLY with full assent from both partners – each of whom completely give their mind, body and soul to the other to complete the union – that a true marital union results.

The mere fact that one partner “spills their seed” into the other or that the other donates an egg is not what makes the marriage bond or relationship. What makes the bonding of the two a “marriage” is that both give themselves to the other fully and comprehensively – mind body and soul.

Continued…

 

[Peter_Plato]

… from last.

The above argument ignores completely the fact that women “spilling their eggs” is not a deliberate act on their part. It happens. That is all that can be said and, therefore, carries no moral opprobrium. Certainly, that is not true with males. So “women are different” is true in this case from a moral perspective where intentionality is a key feature of morality…

If the cases were truly equal and women could intentionally bring about the production of an egg or eggs by some speciifc act on their part and then casually disposed of those eggs, then the question of the moral implications would become a serious one.

The point to be taken from the above is that a marriage is a comprehensive union of mind, body and soul between a man and woman with the intention that their union be actualized in space and time by the creation of new life (lives) that embody the bond of love between them.

If the couple create life but do not nurture, sustain, care for or love the embodiment of their love, then their “bond” with each other could not have been comprehensive. It was undertaken under false pretenses and one or other have committed fraud with regard to the new life their apparent love has created. The comprehensive union or bond did not fulfill what each other and the child(ren) they have created were morally entitled to assume.

The fact that women “spill eggs” is neither here nor there with regard to an intention to love their married partner and resulting children. Eggs are not human beings. Males, however, produce and deliver sperm intentionally, which means males are held to a different accounting with regard to how males contribute genetic material within a married relationship.

This brings us to Rau’s point…

The ACT is intrinsic to the bonding, and intrinsic to the act is the delivery of sperm. Can you not see a picture forming here? Why does THIS act both bond one person to another and transfer genetic material? The act intrinsically incorporates procreative potential.

The release of an egg is not a chosen act by a woman.

I am not making any universal argument. I am asking you to look at the male sexual act and see its full nature!

The role of male and female are radically different with regard to the comprehensive mind – body union of marriage. Egg delivery is not under the active control of any woman, but sperm delivery is under control of the man.

It does not appear you answered his question.
Are women morally treated in a different way because of this difference?
If not then the conclusion would be that the transfer of the genetic material is irrelevant.
If yes then the double standard does not make any logical sense.

What seems the point being contended here – by you? – is that women appear to be in a relevantly different moral position with regard to genetic material since egg delivery is not under their control.

Does that imply lesbian relationships are essentially different from gay relationships? I am not clear why that would be. If the purpose for marriage and sexual relationship (bonding) is the loving creation and caring for the well-being of new life through a comprehensive union of mind, body and soul – not just any new life but the actual embodiment (as children) of the love between the bonding man and woman, then what is being procreated into reality IS the instantiation of the comprehensive union of the couple AS a new life. That is precisely what makes the marriage relationship unique and different from all other relationships. It has the power to create new life essentially by actualizing in real physical form what is the comprehensive bond between a man and a woman.

Actually, he has.

Any act is made morally significant by the fact that it is an intentional act on the part of a moral agent.

WIthout moral agency there is no moral significance.

Women do not create or dispose of eggs by some intentional act on their part, well, aside from using artificial contraception.) Men can and do with regard to sperm. Hence, the moral difference.

I am not sure this can even be contested, but go ahead and try if you wish.

I am confused.
Are you saying that lesbian sexual act is not immoral because women do not control the egg release?
Are you saying it’s not immoral at all?
… or …
If it is immoral then based on what merit?

Not at all. Merely that egg release is morally irrelevant in the determination of the morality of a lesbian sexual act because egg release is entirely involuntary. The determination of whether a lesbian sexual relationship is moral or not needs to be addressed on other grounds since it cannot be determined on the basis of egg release. Merely because egg release is morally irrelevant does not by itself make lesbian sexual acts licit, because there may be other grounds for making a determination that they are not.

Are the lesbian sexual acts less immoral than gay male due to the fact that women do not control the egg release?
It appears to me that some posters here were implying that.

Gay sex does involve volition in terms of sperm release so sperm release does enter into consideration when determining whether gay sex is morally licit or not. However, a full determination regarding the rightness or wrongness of gay sex need not depend merely upon the volitional nature of sperm release. It may, however, be a factor BECAUSE it is volitional. On the other hand the involuntary nature of egg release is not a relevant factor with regard to the morality of two females using their sexuality in the manner that they do, but that does not mean lesbian relationship are thereby legitimated. The relationship as it pertains to sexual activity is still under their control.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That is precisely what makes the marriage relationship unique and different from all other relationships. It has the power to create new life essentially by actualizing in real physical form what is the comprehensive bond between a man and a woman.

Perhaps the clearest way to express this is that a sexual relationship is purposed towards creating, sustaining, nurturing and generally caring for new life, just as a plug and receptacle are integrally designed to “create” and sustain electrical flow.

If you take two plugs or two receptacles no electricity can be enabled. Similarly when two lesbian or two gay individuals “bond,” no life is created – the “bonding” is inherently lacking in quality and type. The physical dimension to comprehensive sexual bonding is literally impossible for two males or two females just as connecting two plugs or two receptacles does not enable electricity to flow because the required physical complementarity is missing.

Since marriage – a sexual union or bonding understood comprehensively rather than merely as an individual act – has as its telos or end the comprehensive mind, body and soul union or love of one man and one woman to such a degree that their love is instantiated in reality as new life created, nurtured, sustained and promoted through time, then the true human sexual bonding is uniquely between one man and one woman since no other “bonding” lives up to what a marital union essentially and uniquely is.

 

[Rau]

Regarding point 1, not only were gays and Lesbians interested in adopting, they (or their supporters) were able to get laws changed that put them on par with married couples as to adopting. As a result, many faith based adoption agencies were prevented from continuing to offer adoption services. I think this is wrong and not in the best interests of the child.

Regarding #2, also white homosexual males in a partnership generally have two income earners, again as you said with a higher educational level, a higher income.

It is hard to imagine how, other things being equal, a same sex couple could be assessed to be just as suitable as conventional parents. Note - I said, other things being equal. I suppose it is “discriminatory”’ to think a mum and a dad have the edge in parenting and family formation over, say, 2 dads. It does seem to deny the unique qualities of each sex.

Perhaps the world is not this mad? Perhaps there is just a dreadful shortage of would-be adoptive parents?

 

[Thorolfr]

I suppose it is “discriminatory”’ to think a mum and a dad have the edge in parenting and family formation over, say, 2 dads. It does seem to deny the unique qualities of each sex.

That’s why I like the balance we have in my church where we have both a male pastor and a female pastor. I do think that they each bring unique qualities to our church and that both together add to our worship service. You Catholics don’t know what you’re missing only having male priests

 

[LisaA]

It is hard to imagine how, other things being equal, a same sex couple could be assessed to be just as suitable as conventional parents. Note - I said, other things being equal. I suppose it is “discriminatory”’ to think a mum and a dad have the edge in parenting and family formation over, say, 2 dads. It does seem to deny the unique qualities of each sex.

Perhaps the world is not this mad? Perhaps there is just a dreadful shortage of would-be adoptive parents?

Rau there is a perverted obsession with “equality” and “non-discrimination” in the secular world. It is a far more essential goal than truth, the best interest of the child, religious freedom or societal norms. The world IS mad and also obsessed with not offending anyone. So to tell a single gay man that he would not be as good at parenting a child as a married couple is considered being bigoted when it makes perfect sense to favor a married couple in the case of placing a child. In reality many faith based adoption organizations have been completely pushed out of this caring mission because they will not put gays and singles on the same par as a married couple.

No there is NOT a shortage of adoptive parents. In fact there are far more adoptive parents than children available for adoption, even in the case of a special needs child. The only situation where there are more children than adoptive parents is in the case of children who have been in the foster care system for the years it takes to obtain parental release or loss of rights. These are among the most fragile and needy children, often with a multitude of physical and psychological issues to deal with. Indeed there are fewer parents who feel confident in dealing with such children and clearly a tragedy.

 

[Jaaanosik]

…
It is ONLY with full assent from both partners – each of whom completely give their mind, body and soul to the other to complete the union – that a true marital union results.

The mere fact that one partner “spills their seed” into the other or that the other donates an egg is not what makes the marriage bond or relationship. What makes the bonding of the two a “marriage” is that both give themselves to the other fully and comprehensively – mind body and soul.

Continued…

NFP couples work hard that the ovum does not come to the date with sperms. Very important part of the woman’s body is not present. The woman is not giving herself completely.
A woman says, I want to give you myself fully but let’s just make sure I don’t give you my ovum.
In other words I am not sure your argument stands on a solid logic.

 

[edwest2]

This argument has no foundation at all…thankyou everyone for revealing all the holes in it.

This is based so much on modern individualistic thought…“I” was born this way; “I” have feelings; “I” have rights; “I” can do what ever “I” want. That is the world’s way of doing things…

For some, that is the case. But remember, for others it is not.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

That’s why I like the balance we have in my church where we have both a male pastor and a female pastor. I do think that they each bring unique qualities to our church and that both together add to our worship service. You Catholics don’t know what you’re missing only having male priests

We’ll stick with the teachings of our Church which have been clearly explained

Ed

 

[Rau]

That’s why I like the balance we have in my church where we have both a male pastor and a female pastor. I do think that they each bring unique qualities to our church and that both together add to our worship service. You Catholics don’t know what you’re missing only having male priests

I’m sure that’s right. C’est la vie!

 

[Jaaanosik]

… from last.

The point to be taken from the above is that a marriage is a comprehensive union of mind, body and soul between a man and woman with the intention that their union be actualized in space and time by the creation of new life (lives) that embody the bond of love between them.

If the couple create life but do not nurture, sustain, care for or love the embodiment of their love, then their “bond” with each other could not have been comprehensive. It was undertaken under false pretenses and one or other have committed fraud with regard to the new life their apparent love has created. The comprehensive union or bond did not fulfill what each other and the child(ren) they have created were morally entitled to assume.

The fact that women “spill eggs” is neither here nor there with regard to an intention to love their married partner and resulting children. Eggs are not human beings. Males, however, produce and deliver sperm intentionally, which means males are held to a different accounting with regard to how males contribute genetic material within a married relationship.

This brings us to Rau’s point…

The role of male and female are radically different with regard to the comprehensive mind – body union of marriage. Egg delivery is not under the active control of any woman, but sperm delivery is under control of the man.

What seems the point being contended here – by you? – is that women appear to be in a relevantly different moral position with regard to genetic material since egg delivery is not under their control.

**Does that imply lesbian relationships are essentially different from gay relationships? I am not clear why that would be. **If the purpose for marriage and sexual relationship (bonding) is the loving creation and caring for the well-being of new life through a comprehensive union of mind, body and soul – not just any new life but the actual embodiment (as children) of the love between the bonding man and woman, then what is being procreated into reality IS the instantiation of the comprehensive union of the couple AS a new life. That is precisely what makes the marriage relationship unique and different from all other relationships. It has the power to create new life essentially by actualizing in real physical form what is the comprehensive bond between a man and a woman.

Not at all. Merely that egg release is morally irrelevant in the determination of the morality of a lesbian sexual act because egg release is entirely involuntary. The determination of whether a lesbian sexual relationship is moral or not needs to be addressed on other grounds since it cannot be determined on the basis of egg release. Merely because egg release is morally irrelevant does not by itself make lesbian sexual acts licit, because there may be other grounds for making a determination that they are not.

Gay sex does involve volition in terms of sperm release so sperm release does enter into consideration when determining whether gay sex is morally licit or not. However, a full determination regarding the rightness or wrongness of gay sex need not depend merely upon the volitional nature of sperm release. It may, however, be a factor BECAUSE it is volitional. On the other hand the involuntary nature of egg release is not a relevant factor with regard to the morality of two females using their sexuality in the manner that they do, but that does not mean lesbian relationship are thereby legitimated. The relationship as it pertains to sexual activity is still under their control.

Then I am still confused why the transfer of the genetic material was brought up if it is irrelevant to the morality of the homosexual acts.
I’d like to understand why somebody would use such an argument if it’s not related to the issue.
If nobody can explain it then it should be dropped.

 

[Rau]

Then I am still confused why the transfer of the genetic material was brought up if it is irrelevant to the morality of the homosexual acts.
I’d like to understand why somebody would use such an argument if it’s not related to the issue.
If nobody can explain it then it should be dropped.

As I said, it was not brought up in the context of morality, but in the context of our human design. Others argued that some persons are designed by God with the intention that they engage in same sex acts. Others argued that the real point of sex is “bonding” “full stop”. Sex assists bonding, so 2 men having sex is properly ordered.

These explanations or justifications of reality make no sense to me for the reasons I have set out in several posts.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Then I am still confused why the transfer of the genetic material was brought up if it is irrelevant to the morality of the homosexual acts.
I’d like to understand why somebody would use such an argument if it’s not related to the issue.
If nobody can explain it then it should be dropped.

The transfer of genetic material isn’t IRRELEVANT. The transfer is ENTIRELY relevant because the existence of a new human being depends upon it but the manner in which genetic material is presented or made available may or may not be relevant depending upon the control mechanisms available to each of the individuals involved. Hence, making eggs available may not be morally relevant in the same way that making sperm available is because one is not accomplished in the same manner as the other. That is the only point to be made in that regard.

It isn’t that transfer of genetic material is NOT relevant, it is that the manner in which genetic material is made available by each party differs with regard to moral agency, therefore the relevancy is not the same between male and female.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That’s why I like the balance we have in my church where we have both a male pastor and a female pastor. I do think that they each bring unique qualities to our church and that both together add to our worship service. You Catholics don’t know what you’re missing only having male priests

So your claim is that God ought to have incarnated in the form of a man and in the form of a woman and not having done so means something has been left amiss from the very beginning?

God should be reprimanded, then, for becoming the man Jesus and not also a woman?

That would mean God also miscalculated in making only male Levites priests; Jesus miscalculated in choosing all-male Apostles; and the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit has, likewise, shown complete lack of foresight by ordaining only male priests for the past 2000 years. :ehh:

And a realization that this is a problem has, coincidentally, only now fully and accurately come to light just as the times and cultural climate induces women to capriciously abort their own babies (thus abdicating motherhood) and the human race is rapidly shedding or trivializing gender roles (thus abdicating both motherhood and fatherhood.)

Perhaps the inference to be made is that your church has come to feel the need for a male and female pastor precisely because the congregation has completely lost due regard for the legitimate roles of mother and father within families and has now, as a result, projected those roles onto the priesthood as if being mother and father was the express and intended purpose of the priesthood – rather than those of mothers and fathers – to begin with.

It is ironic that you, a promoter of same sex marriage, can – without a trace of ill-humour – suggest that both a male and female are desirable for heading a church while at the same time denying that both are optimal where heading a family comprised of mother, father and children is the endeavor.

 

[Thorolfr]

So your claim is that God ought to have incarnated in the form of a man and in the form of a woman and not having done so means something has been left amiss from the very beginning?

I think that both men and women were created in God’s image and that God could just as easily have been incarnated as a woman. As it says in Genesis 1:27 “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”

But, of course, Paul would probably disagree, since he says in 1 Corinthians 11:7: “For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man.” So in Paul’s view, women would seem to be inferior since they are not created in God’s image but rather in man’s image. In that respect, he was perhaps a product of his own patriarchal culture.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But, of course, Paul would probably disagree, since he says in 1 Corinthians 11:7: “For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man.”

Except that’s not what 11:7 says. It says, “For it is not helpful for a man to have his head covered, since the likeness and glory of God is already in him; but woman is the glory of man.” (My own translation, though you can find variants of this translation in many Bibles).

Whatever that means, it does not mean that woman is made in the likeness of man, nor that woman is a reflection of man.

 

[meltzerboy]

So your claim is that God ought to have incarnated in the form of a man and in the form of a woman and not having done so means something has been left amiss from the very beginning?

God should be reprimanded, then, for becoming the man Jesus and not also a woman?

That would mean God also miscalculated in making only male Levites priests; Jesus miscalculated in choosing all-male Apostles; and the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit has, likewise, shown complete lack of foresight by ordaining only male priests for the past 2000 years. :ehh:

And a realization that this is a problem has, coincidentally, only now fully and accurately come to light just as the times and cultural climate induces women to capriciously abort their own babies (thus abdicating motherhood) and the human race is rapidly shedding or trivializing gender roles (thus abdicating both motherhood and fatherhood.)

Perhaps the inference to be made is that your church has come to feel the need for a male and female pastor precisely because the congregation has completely lost due regard for the legitimate roles of mother and father within families and has now, as a result, projected those roles onto the priesthood as if being mother and father was the express and intended purpose of the priesthood – rather than those of mothers and fathers – to begin with.

It is ironic that you, a promoter of same sex marriage, can – without a trace of ill-humour – suggest that both a male and female are desirable for heading a church while at the same time denying that both are optimal where heading a family comprised of mother, father and children is the endeavor.

Peter Plato, you make a good point in your last paragraph. However, Thorolfr also makes a good point in noting the patriarchal culture of ancient times that must have had at least some influence on both Jewish and Christian theology.

 

[LisaA]

I think that both men and women were created in God’s image and that God could just as easily have been incarnated as a woman. As it says in Genesis 1:27 “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”

.

And God made them male and female saying be fruitful and multiply. Impossible for a same sex couple isn’t it?

 

[LisaA]

NFP couples work hard that the ovum does not come to the date with sperms. Very important part of the woman’s body is not present. The woman is not giving herself completely.
A woman says, I want to give you myself fully but let’s just make sure I don’t give you my ovum.
In other words I am not sure your argument stands on a solid logic.

The over riding concept is that in every marital embrace the couple to be open to life, that means no chemicals suppressing ovulation or barriers preventing concept etc. The couple may determine the point in time at which they are most likely to conceive, or not conceive but in every instance God is in control as to whether or not the woman conceives a child. There is nothing blocking the complete self giving when NFP is used properly. Further as has been stated repeatedly, without benefit of medical intervention a woman has no control over the release of the ovum. Nor does she know when this is taking place.

I don’t know why this concept seems very difficult to grasp. It seems like this has been explained at length. Obviously there are differences in the actual bodily functions between males and females, and males have much more control over the release of sperm but given the woman can neither determine or know the timing of ovulation, if she and her husband do not engage in sexual relations on certain days…or DO engage in order to conceive, she is not maipulating her body or her fertility.