Homosexual Acts are Not Against the Natural Law

[Prodigal_Son]

Can you clarify what you oppose? Sex Ed in schools, “safe sex” Ed, or something else?

I think we should tell kids how babies are made, and tell them that having sex often results in disease. That would take about 15 minutes. The rest is up to the parents.

If kids have those 15 minutes of information, they have all the *information *need to make decisions and learn from them. Of course, they need virtue, but that’s not the sort of thing we can teach in school – at least not by talking to teenagers about sex.

 

[Kount_C]

It seems to me that homosexual acts are not against the Natural Law.

The argument to the contrary usually goes as follows:

1. God created the universe and everything in it not haphazardly but with purpose.
2. We can discover God’s intention by analyzing his design of the universe and everything in it.
3. The male reproductive system and the female female reproductive system are designed for each other.
4. Therefore, God’s plan for human sexuality involves opposite sex relations.
5. The male reproductive system is not designed for another the male reproductive system. The same is true for the female reproductive systems.
6. Therefore, same sex relations are not part of God’s plan.

The problem is that this argument focuses on the external design of the body while ignoring the internal design. Although we don’t fully understand the causes of homosexuality at this time, it has become increasingly clear that some people are simply designed to have same-sex attraction. If so, then God was the designer.

Now why would God design some people for opposite-sex relationships in their exterior body but same-sex relationships in their interior life? I have no idea. But it doesn’t really matter. If God designed it that way, then who am I to judge?

So if we want to respect the Natural Law, then we have to accept same-sex relations because it seems to be the case that God himself designed some people that way on the inside even if not on the outside. To put it crudely, even if the exterior parts don’t fit, the interior ones sure do.

I don’t want to sound to crass. But I hear this all the time here at school, when I’m with younger class mates. Who claim it happens in nature.
I often recall the story about when I was 6 years old, and my cat “Fluffy” ate one of her dead kittens.

Generally people are lost for words at this point of the story; and the debate ends. I tell the story much more graphically in person.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I don’t agree because sometimes the consequences can be catastrophic and many young people especially think that they are invincible and make rash decisions. Using a condom might be considered immoral by the Catholic Church, but getting a disease like AIDS is much worse. If even one young person is saved by safe-sex education and is taught how to use condoms, it is worth it in my opinion.

But a person doesn’t generally learn by being told about dire consequences. I’m fine with telling them, but the way they LEARN is by seeing other people have the bad consequences happen to them.

And I’m not saying the problem with condoms is the Church’s opposition to them. The problem is that they HARM people. Sure, getting a disease is worse than using a condom. I agree. But Thor, condoms have increased the prevalence of sexual diseases! So my opposition to diseases is the reason I oppose condoms.

You want to save one person? I want to save the millions who are, every day, paying the price of the sexual revolution – with their lives.

More than 30 years ago, I grew up knowing very little about sex or sexually transmitted diseases. I did not learn anything about it in school nor did I get a birds-and-the-bees talk from my parents.

I think that’s awful. I really do. I don’t support leaving kids in the dark. But I also don’t think much information is needed, at least not at school. I guess you do need someone available to answer questions, though. That’s supposed to be what parents are for.

I’m sure that there were others like me back then and many naive young gay men (including almost all my friends from the 1980s) died from AIDS. I would never want to go back to the way it was back then in some parts of the country because I know from experience that ignorance can kill.

I’m so sorry to hear about your friends, Thor.

I guess I’m not sure, however, that they didn’t know what they were doing was dangerous. When I look back on 1970s and 1980s gay culture, I see a lot of self-destructive behaviors. Maybe your friends weren’t the ones doing hard drugs, but obviously those who were doing drugs weren’t really concerned with avoiding bad long-term consequences.

Did they know HOW dangerous sex would shortly become? No. But neither did anyone. Sex ed classes in the 1970s would not have mentioned AIDS.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It’s not the lack of condoms, it’s knowledge about how to use them properly and about how easy it is to contract STDs. Since some young people will have sexual relations despite the possible consequences, they should know about the risks and about safe sex.

But if some young people will have sex despite the possible consequences, doesn’t it follow that some young people won’t bother to use contraceptives despite the possible consequences? So, in order to protect those who refuse to be protected, we remove the consequences of sexual activity for those who are willing to be protected.

I speak as someone who, as a teenager, had “protected” sex with my girlfriend. I would not have done that in a million years if contraceptives hadn’t been available.

 

[Jaaanosik]

In the case of contraception, the aim of the agent and the object of the act coincide. But that is not always true: for instance, one might use contraception to regulate one’s cycles. Unless double effect comes into play, such an action is impermissible, on Catholic teaching.

No. The purpose is conceptually separate, but they sometimes coincide.

I’m confused. Do you claim that the telos of sex, during infertile periods, isn’t progeny? That sounds false. Do you claim that the purpose of a married couple, when having sex, is ever “not to get pregnant”? That would be a BIZARRE purpose. If that’s their purpose, why not play chess instead?

Why are you surprised?
Talk to married couples. Sometimes they want to get pregnant sometimes they want to have sex and not to get pregnant.
This is true even for couples practicing NFP. Why they would bother with it if they wanted to get pregnant all the time?
The Church allowed that and that’s the reason they blessed the NFP.
Now I am shocked that you did not know that.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Why are you surprised?
Talk to married couples. Sometimes they want to get pregnant sometimes they want to have sex and not to get pregnant.
This is true even for couples practicing NFP. Why they would bother with it if they wanted to get pregnant all the time?
The Church allowed that and that’s the reason they blessed the NFP.
Now I am shocked that you did not know that.

You’re missing my point. I agree that married couples often have sex without wanting to get pregnant. I often make love to my wife without wanting her to get pregnant. The relevant question is this, though: what do I do in order to not get pregnant?

“Having sex” is not a possible answer. No one ever has sex **in order to **not get pregnant. But people often DO take contraceptives or put on condoms in order to not get pregnant.

Please listen to what I’m saying. You don’t have to agree with the consequence that I draw from it, but what I said in the previous paragraph is obviously true.

 

[Lucy107]

I can understand being concerned about real human beings, but I find it difficult to have the same concern for “potential human beings”.

How about you try to place yourself in the position of the woman, who, since no contraceptive is 100% reliable, faces the prospects of an unwanted pregnancy?

A friend told me that her gynecologist told her, after she expressed her concern since no contraceptive is 100% reliable, that she needs to decide in advance what she is going to do in the case she gets pregnant (whether to abort, or whether to carry the child to term and then keep it or give it up for adoption), or she won’t be able to enjoy sex.

What kind of life - or enjoyment - is that if she lives in the constant knowledge that she will either end up with a child she did not want, or have to have an abortion?

 

[Lucy107]

You’re missing my point. I agree that married couples often have sex without wanting to get pregnant. I often make love to my wife without wanting her to get pregnant. The relevant question is this, though: what do I do in order to not get pregnant?

Then your actions are inconsistent with your intentions.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Then your actions are inconsistent with your intentions.

I never said that I intend not to make my wife pregnant. I said that I lack the intent to make her pregnant, and that I want (NOT “intend”) her not to get pregnant. I’m not sure what you’re objecting to.

 

[LisaA]

It’s not the lack of condoms, it’s knowledge about how to use them properly and about how easy it is to contract STDs. Since some young people will have sexual relations despite the possible consequences, they should know about the risks and about safe sex. Being ignorant about these issues is not going to prevent them from having sexual relations, but it will probably make it less likely that they will do so in the safest way possible no matter how unwise some people might consider this to be.

Baloney. That might have been true forty years ago but it certainly isn’t anymore. Further there is NO SUCH THING AS SAFE SEX. This is a complete myth. Of course there are safer practices…how about being married and monogamous for one? Or are people such uncontrolled animals they cannot possible withstand the pressure? I received sex education as it was back in the 1970s. It mostly consisted of “if you can’t be good be careful” and the dispensing of birth control pills, no questions asked, no parental permission needed by Planned Parenthood. There was no caution about the risks of STDs or the long term impact of strong doses of hormones into young bodies…it was just “don’t get pregnant but if that happens you can get an abortion…” So needless to say I think many of my fellow students availed themselves of the free ABC and proceeded apace.

Today’s sex education is far more graphic and tuned to techniques, including S&M, anal and oral sex as “alternatives” to regular intercourse…as if the STDs were not even more easily transmitted through that kind of contact.

Condoms are available and we know how to use 'em but many go without. As to the gay cohort, they fought tooth and nail against ANY restrictions on their hedonistic lifestyle with bathhouses, knot holes and other perversions that spread AIDS far and wide…then of course Reagan was blamed for the epidemic…but I digress. The point is that you can tell people all you want about “safe” sex or how not to get STDs or pregnant but it hasn’t helped at all. STDs are at epic proportions…up to 80% of some groups of young sexually active people have HPV for example, there is a massive increase in oral cancers from…guess what? Oral sex…

Much as you might rail against Catholic teaching, in the end it proves to be the Truth. We would not have the pathologies associated with the Sexual Revolution if people were told the truth about these absolutely unsafe practices and encouraged to keep their pants zipped.

 

[truetofaith]

I don’t agree because sometimes the consequences can be catastrophic and many young people especially think that they are invincible and make rash decisions. Using a condom might be considered immoral by the Catholic Church, but getting a disease like AIDS is much worse. If even one young person is saved by safe-sex education and is taught how to use condoms, it is worth it in my opinion.

More than 30 years ago, I grew up knowing very little about sex or sexually transmitted diseases. I did not learn anything about it in school nor did I get a birds-and-the-bees talk from my parents. I’m sure that there were others like me back then and many naive young gay men (including almost all my friends from the 1980s) died from AIDS. I would never want to go back to the way it was back then in some parts of the country because I know from experience that ignorance can kill.

The sex diseases are terrible & so is un-married teen pregnancy…but giving kids in school or at home contraceptives, doesn’t give them any reason to abstain from sex until they’re married.
The fact that they are committing sin will be ignored by the fact they are ‘safe’ from disease, getting a girl pregnant and are home free from any responsibility!

“What profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his immortal soul.”

 

[Jaaanosik]

You’re missing my point. I agree that married couples often have sex without wanting to get pregnant. I often make love to my wife without wanting her to get pregnant. The relevant question is this, though: what do I do in order to not get pregnant?

“Having sex” is not a possible answer. No one ever has sex **in order to **not get pregnant. But people often DO take contraceptives or put on condoms in order to not get pregnant.

Please listen to what I’m saying. You don’t have to agree with the consequence that I draw from it, but what I said in the previous paragraph is obviously true.

I understand what you are saying but it appears to me it’s not so simple as you say it is.

I’ll give you an example. Hearing, we got it for survival (listening to dangers around us) and for communication.
If a person is driving in a car listening to loud music for pleasure that person can miss a horn of another car from the blind spot and an accident might happen.
Putting on headphones at home listening to music for pleasure alone … that person can miss burglar coming to his house.
The point is that the fundamental attribute of hearing is not being used for what it’s supposed to be used. The chance of using hearing for the survival is sometimes limited to zero percent when listening for pleasure.
People listen to music for pleasure and the Church does not say it’s a sin.
Do you see where this is going?
Are you going to stop listening to music to be consistent with logic that you apply to marital acts?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I understand what you are saying but it appears to me it’s not so simple as you say it is.

I’ll give you an example. Hearing, we got it for survival (listening to dangers around us) and for communication.
If a person is driving in a car listening to loud music for pleasure that person can miss a horn of another car from the blind spot and an accident might happen.
Putting on headphones at home listening to music for pleasure alone … that person can miss burglar coming to his house.
The point is that the fundamental attribute of hearing is not being used for what it’s supposed to be used. The chance of using hearing for the survival is sometimes limited to zero percent when listening for pleasure.
People listen to music for pleasure and the Church does not say it’s a sin.
Do you see where this is going?
Are you going to stop listening to music to be consistent with logic that you apply to marital acts?

Huh? How do you see contraception as similar to listening to music? Because they both could have bad consequences?

 

[Jaaanosik]

I never said that I intend not to make my wife pregnant. I said that I lack the intent to make her pregnant, and that I want (NOT “intend”) her not to get pregnant. I’m not sure what you’re objecting to.

I can not help myself but it appears to me twisted and schizophrenic.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Huh? How do you see contraception as similar to listening to music? Because they both could have bad consequences?

No, this is about telos of hearing …

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I can not help myself but it appears to me twisted and schizophrenic.

How is it twisted to do something without wanting a certain possible consequence to arise from it?

I tell my children to empty the dishwasher every day, even though I don’t want them to get upset with me. Are you saying that, since I know they might get upset with me, my action is schizophrenic?

No, this is about telos of hearing …

And what is that telos?

 

[Jaaanosik]

How is it twisted to do something without wanting a certain possible consequence to arise from it?

I tell my children to empty the dishwasher every day, even though I don’t want them to get upset with me. Are you saying that, since I know they might get upset with me, my action is schizophrenic?

And what is that telos?

Please, read my post again.

 

[Jaaanosik]

How is it twisted to do something without wanting a certain possible consequence to arise from it?

I tell my children to empty the dishwasher every day, even though I don’t want them to get upset with me. Are you saying that, since I know they might get upset with me, my action is schizophrenic?

And what is that telos?

I would not care if my kids would get upset. If they did it would be good because I would use it for education. I would explain to them why they have to do it.
If they don’t get upset it means they’ve already been educated.

If you don’t want them to get upset then don’t tell them to do it at all.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Please, read my post again.

The telos of hearing not survival, except by presumption.

Hearing is a modality which permits sentient beings to come to experience (or know) and perhaps appreciate the significance of objects, other beings and events in the world around them.

You might claim that the purpose for all of that is merely survival, but that just seems short sighted since survival is not possible beyond the short term. It might still legitimately be asked, “What is the purpose or telos of survival?”

Survival for what? At that point, we begin to seriously take up the question of telos – at that precise point where most human beings seem to abandon rationality in favour of mere sentience.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The telos of hearing not survival, except by presumption.

Hearing is a modality which permits sentient beings to come to experience (or know) and perhaps appreciate the significance of objects, other beings and events in the world around them.

You might claim that the purpose for all of that is merely survival, but that just seems short sighted since survival is not possible beyond the short term. It might still legitimately be asked, “What is the purpose or telos of survival?”

Survival for what? At that point, we begin to seriously take up the question of telos – at that precise point where most human beings seem to abandon rationality in favour of mere sentience.

This is from one professor about the Natural law: “While St. Thomas does define the natural law as “the participation of the rational creature in the eternal law” this does not mean that it is simply reason or logic. Rather, it is reason’s ability to understand our human nature and its inclination as designed by the Creator. ** These interdependent inclinations are (from most fundamental to most excellent) are: existence/life, the procreation and education of offspring, living in society, and the pursuit of truth.**”

The existence/life is the most fundamental inclination, goodness of a human being/human nature.
Telos of hearing is to support that. This is how the hearing relates to the Natural law - it supports the most fundamental inclination/goodness.