Homosexuality and Natural Law -- A Concern

[Kurisu35712]

I was hoping you’d say that as I think it proves my point - only by thinking in terms of machine parts do they differ. That’s the only difference, the meaning to the couple as a expression of their love is the same.

…

So, starting at that gold standard, why should a couple who love each other and wish to remain together for always be told they do not have the moral right and freedom to physically express their love?

I feel like this line of thinking goes along too closely with the idea of the “ghost in the machine” interpretation of the relationship between one’s body and soul. By no means do I think we should think of ourselves purely in terms of “machine parts,” but likewise I also don’t think we should consider ourselves as purely a spirit with a physical “shell.” I’m pretty sure that interpretation is at odds with Catholic theology anyway. The Catholic interpretation, to my knowledge, is that our body and soul are connected in a mysterious way, as our body needs our soul to be alive, yet also that our bodies will be raised and glorified at the last day. They are both integral to what makes up “ourselves.”

With the same reasoning that our body and soul are inextricably linked, I think we need to consider both the “soul” of the sexual relations (the meaning to the couple) and the physical components involved (the reproductive organs), and that the two cannot be truly separated while still retaining the meaning of “an expression of love between a couple.” Biologically, as someone mentioned earlier, male reproductive organs and female reproductive organs only form a truly complete reproductive system when joined together, resulting in the potential formation of new life.

I’m not going to argue that homosexual acts between a loving couple are not emotionally meaningful, because I would certainly think that they can be, but I wouldn’t agree that they are comparable to a heterosexual couple as far as unification goes, since the physical aspect of sexual act is unfulfilled in terms of reproduction or reproductive capability. Since there isn’t gender complimentarity, while the feelings may be similar or even the same, the biological unity of the two halves of the human reproductive system is absent, and because of that, homosexual acts, however sincere for the participants, cannot really be compared or equated with heterosexual intercourse.

tl;dr| That was pretty wordy, so overall, my position is that if you separate the physical parts of sex from the emotional and spiritual aspect, it isn’t sex anymore, regardless of whether or not the emotional aspect is still there. This post may have gotten a bit off topic. I tend to ramble.

 

[Amandil]

To this point, I agree completely. I personally think far too many people get married to people they shouldn’t or for reasons they shouldn’t, simply because they feel like it’s expected or it’s supposed to be that way. I would assert that marriage is a FAR more serious commitment than most people believe it to be, and that people should be encouraged to seriously consider marriage, rather than be taught that it’s a universal goal for people to have and that there HAS to be someone out there for you. For one, society’s pressing of “marriage or you must be some kind of failure” puts a lot of pressure on people who may be called to consecrated religious life, or just single life, both of which should be regarded with respect and dignity.

The lie is that various influences, both human and demonic, have convinced people that those certain emotional states of fear, excitement, and lust which are called “being in love”, are a sufficient and/or necessary cause for marriage. They are then taught that this state is suppose to last, and is thought as ought have lasted, forever. Thus when the feelings fade(as they most certainly do when a couple actually gets down to the day-to-day business of learning to live together), then they think that “the feeling is gone” and that since they no longer feel the same excitement then they are no longer obligated to each other despite their vows.

As great as a sin which divorce is between a couple, the sin is exacerbated when children are involved because of the rights due to them as children.

The reality is that the original purpose of marriage is for the preservation of chastity and the procreation of children. And what the culture promises of marriage in a superficial way God promises as an actual result and a much more genuine and fuller expression in an actual marriage according to His design.

 

[inocente]

Well, no, actually. The meaning to the couple is not exactly the same unless you assume the couple are blithely unconscious of the fact that the sexual act is the ordinary physical means by which the two become one flesh AND that oneness, in the case of heterosexual couples, means the two have the capacity to create a new human being which is an instantiation of the oneness that embodies all the dimensions of their unity.

I don’t think it can be truly said that the couple are “united” if they have no interest in creating a new life to manifest their unity in reality.

It is only when the theoretical couple engage in sex, with no thought of what their complete “oneness” ontologically entails, is the meaning to the couple no different than to the gay pair.

You would have to assume like-mindedness to conclude “no difference,” but that begs the question of whether the unitive aspect of their relationship was completely present for the heterosexual couple to begin with. I would argue that it wasn’t and the proof is that, like you, they see their unity as merely being like the unity of the gay pair, which is lacking precisely the quality of a truly conjugal marriage which views creating a new human being that shares or takes his/her nature from both of them, as an integral aspect of what it means to be a married couple.

That is, a truly “married” couple would positively will their unity to bring about the existence of new human beings who are the embodiment of their spiritual, psychological, intellectual, emotional, social and physical oneness. Absent that integral desire for their relationship, I would argue that the couple are not demonstrating the unitive aspect of what a complete marriage truly involves.

One difficulty I have with this is Paul’s extended treatment of marriage in 1 Cor 7. His concern is that “The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

Paul argues that the couple will not have the self-control to deprive each other and expressly forbids it - they must yield their bodies to each other. Yet the procreation rule requires the homosexual couple to never yield their bodies, and still somehow not be tempted by Satan. It requires a standard far above that expected of heterosexuals, and a disunity for their bond at that.

Plus, Paul’s argument never mentions procreation.

A more fundamental issue is that live and let live says if we start from the position that we are all created equal then we do not have the right to judge one person’s experience of love as less valuable or less authentic than our own.

But as you argue above, the procreation rule (or unitive principle if you prefer, I don’t know what to call it) says different.

Thomas defines the natural law as “nothing else than the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law”. So which is more fundamental to God - the procreation rule or live and let live?

 

[inocente]

To this point, I agree completely. I personally think far too many people get married to people they shouldn’t or for reasons they shouldn’t, simply because they feel like it’s expected or it’s supposed to be that way. I would assert that marriage is a FAR more serious commitment than most people believe it to be, and that people should be encouraged to seriously consider marriage, rather than be taught that it’s a universal goal for people to have and that there HAS to be someone out there for you. For one, society’s pressing of “marriage or you must be some kind of failure” puts a lot of pressure on people who may be called to consecrated religious life, or just single life, both of which should be regarded with respect and dignity.

I agree completely.

Please let me know if I’m interpreting this correctly or not. I do agree that everyone deserves the same rights as human beings, regardless of any individual factors. But the way the whole “live and let live” philosophy often comes across is that anything is permissible so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else or infringe upon their own personal rights, and I think that this is where people that take issue with it find it disagreeable. Depending on the reason, they may be right or they may be wrong, but in the context of sexual relationships, I would say that there is not an inalienable right to be able to have sex with any consenting partner. There isn’t necessarily a “sexual activity right” included in that list.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that sexual acts between two consenting legal aged parties should be actively punished based on the genders of the participants. In that sense, live and let live, as people will make choices regardless, and that it is their free will to do so. That being said, the philosophy that seems to be presented is one that encourages not tolerance out of respect for free will, but one that pushes active acceptance of people’s sexual choices and encourages sexual activity between two people who want to. It strikes me as encouraging a lack of self discipline and a lack of self control, almost as if the idea is that it is inevitable that two people who want to will have sex. As if the participants can’t control their actions in that case, and instead of being taught discipline and respect for sexual relations, people are seemingly taught that their physical desires will overcome their self-control anyway, so they shouldn’t bother.

Obviously that characterization takes the matter to a bit of an extreme, but overall, the underlying feeling of the way sexuality is treated in modern society is that your sexual urges can’t be controlled forever, so you should be responsible and use a condom since you’re going to do it anyway.

Perhaps it you start instead from Hobbes. This is maybe where the tension starts.

To rehearse what I understand him to say: He imagines a primitive state where there is a “warre of every man against every man”, we are lawless, completely free, nothing can be unfair or unjust, we each have a right to do whatever we please to survive. The only moral law is anything goes.

But that’s a miserable condition, so we join together. Society is defined by cooperation. We each give up some rights for our common good.

Society does not give us rights then, instead it takes some away (the right to rape and pillage and so on) for our common good. Hobbes’ natural laws for this cooperative are “That men perform their covenants made”; “That every man acknowledge another for his equal by nature”; and so on.

The morality of a fair and just society is one which does not impose on our liberty by taking away any more rights than is necessary for it to function, and which imposes those restrictions equally on all. And then instead of our miserably solitary state, “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!” as the psalmist puts it.

So that’s a moral theory behind live and let live. If I explained it right, you’ll see that from that angle, the morality of restricting what consenting citizens do in private is only just if applies equally to all citizens and aids the functioning of society.

 

[inocente]

I feel like this line of thinking goes along too closely with the idea of the “ghost in the machine” interpretation of the relationship between one’s body and soul. By no means do I think we should think of ourselves purely in terms of “machine parts,” but likewise I also don’t think we should consider ourselves as purely a spirit with a physical “shell.” I’m pretty sure that interpretation is at odds with Catholic theology anyway. The Catholic interpretation, to my knowledge, is that our body and soul are connected in a mysterious way, as our body needs our soul to be alive, yet also that our bodies will be raised and glorified at the last day. They are both integral to what makes up “ourselves.”

With the same reasoning that our body and soul are inextricably linked, I think we need to consider both the “soul” of the sexual relations (the meaning to the couple) and the physical components involved (the reproductive organs), and that the two cannot be truly separated while still retaining the meaning of “an expression of love between a couple.” Biologically, as someone mentioned earlier, male reproductive organs and female reproductive organs only form a truly complete reproductive system when joined together, resulting in the potential formation of new life.

I’m not going to argue that homosexual acts between a loving couple are not emotionally meaningful, because I would certainly think that they can be, but I wouldn’t agree that they are comparable to a heterosexual couple as far as unification goes, since the physical aspect of sexual act is unfulfilled in terms of reproduction or reproductive capability. Since there isn’t gender complimentarity, while the feelings may be similar or even the same, the biological unity of the two halves of the human reproductive system is absent, and because of that, homosexual acts, however sincere for the participants, cannot really be compared or equated with heterosexual intercourse.

tl;dr| That was pretty wordy, so overall, my position is that if you separate the physical parts of sex from the emotional and spiritual aspect, it isn’t sex anymore, regardless of whether or not the emotional aspect is still there. This post may have gotten a bit off topic. I tend to ramble.

Me too.

I understand what you’re saying but it could be argued instead that when sex is purely about making babies, as when charting the best date and time to conceive and so on, it becomes mechanical. Whereas when it is purely about making love, it is spontaneous.

Whatever, I’m uncertain of the morality of this type of claim. Can I ever legitimately claim that my experience of God is superior to yours? Or more concretely, I might know all there is to know about Beethoven’s Ninth, and I might claim those insights make my experience superior to yours, but you listen to it for the first time and it blows your socks off, you feel things I never did. I’m not sure subjective experiences can be compared in that way.

But in any event, the gay couple are gay, they can’t choose to be straight. So even if their experience is in some way inferior to the straight couple’s, surely in itself that’s no reason to deny them the experience?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Thomas defines the natural law as “nothing else than the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law”. So which is more fundamental to God - the procreation rule or live and let live?

The “live and let live” rule is not a moral principle, but rather a general kind of rule of thumb that runs or leads up to the moral law. Its applicability ends precisely at the point where the moral law takes over.

The point of the moral law is that we - the entire human population - are obligated to it, which is precisely why the moral law justifies interference with the actions of others. It is the point at which “live and let live” no longer has applicability because someone who trespasses against the moral law has interfered with the right of others to access a moral “good” which is necessary for happiness. In other words, acts are immoral if they positively deprive others of goods necessary for happiness. We do not “let others live” if what they do causes harm (deprives victims of goods necessary for happiness.)

In this case, submission to the moral law is absolutely necessary for all members of the human family to live in harmony and achieve a natural state of happiness. Misplaced views of happiness, in fact, are what engender disharmony and unhappiness. I would claim that a “gay” point of view is actually such a misplaced view of happiness.

One more point:

The natural moral order is just that - the means to achieve a natural state of happiness. However, God has made it possible to transcend the natural human state by sharing in his own divine life (sanctification.)

Again, I would argue that a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for sanctification is being a morally good human being. In a sense, that goal is within our reach, but being a morally good human being is not sufficient for sanctification - it is merely the state of “readiness” to receive a supernatural gift.

Sanctification occurs when human beings are submissive to the formative hand of God empowered by grace. It is essentially submission to the “potter’s hand” but infused with power from “on high.” It is nothing we can achieve on our own, but requires a natural state of readiness - living a good moral life - which we can achieve on our own.

We can, on our own, be moral. This state is achievable because it is a natural state that utilizes natural human powers and is, therefore, within natural reach. Original sin has compromised our natural ability, which has made it necessary for God to “save” us from the state of sin by an infusion of actual graces, that bring us “up to snuff.”

The thing is, however, God is under no compulsion to permit naturally moral beings to have a share in eternal life. To share eternal - non-temporal perfect existence - is not a “given” that comes with merely being morally good, it is an “add on” so to speak.

Merely because a person is morally good, does not make the person, ipso facto, worthy of eternity or sharing God’s own life. It is a necessary precursor, but insufficient.

Jesus didn’t say “You must be morally good,” he said, “You must be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” Meaning that God’s own perfection is shared with human beings, if it is received in a manner that transforms the morally good being, via grace, into a perfect one. That involves submission to grace and the will of God that transforms us from natural beings into beings capable of receiving God’s own life. The incarnation of God once again in human flesh.

The reason marriage is the normal state designed by God to further his plan for salvation is that it models the life of the Trinity and involves both the necessity to live a moral life respecting and fostering the natural “good” for others, but also that it involves the practice of submission, which prepares us for reception of grace by first submitting to moral obligation and then to God’s transformative will.

The problem with “live and let live” is that it sees as an end in itself that which is only a limited baseline of respect for others. It is only fully operative, however, given a cohort of morally good beings. Where some are prone to acting immorally, “live and let live” must give way to the moral law, which is prior

“Live and let live” = soil in its natural, fertile state
Original sin = soil riddled with stones and weeds
Moral life = cleared, tilled and prepared fertile soil
Life of grace = God planting and raising good fruit

Submission to moral obligation is us doing our part to make our beings ontologically receptive (submissive) to God’s transformative grace which leads to eternal life.

 

[Peter_Plato]

But in any event, the gay couple are gay, they can’t choose to be straight. So even if their experience is in some way inferior to the straight couple’s, surely in itself that’s no reason to deny them the experience?

Given an understanding of original sin and how God’s grace operates, it may be true that the gay couple cannot, on their own, “choose to be straight.” This is ignoring completely that they are not “on their own.” None of us are. That is the point of God’s grace as a supernatural gift that empowers us to overcome all failings.

Since grace is freely offered to all, then the power to overcome is available to all.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I understand what you’re saying but it could be argued instead that when sex is purely about making babies, as when charting the best date and time to conceive and so on, it becomes mechanical. Whereas when it is purely about making love, it is spontaneous.

Sex need not ever be “purely about making babies” as a mechanical process, unless one loses sight of what is being made when a baby comes into existence. Every human act becomes merely a mechanical act when it is reduced to merely a mechanical act, but within the meaningful context of the larger perspective, even mechanical acts are imbued with value. Hammering nails into wood is a mechanical act, but if the end result will be a home for a family, a place where human beings will be cherished, loved and embark on a life journey, the mechanical act resonates with vibrancy. Spontaneity is not the only criteria for meaning. Careful planning, disciplined pursuit and attention to minute details have as much to offer as spontaneity with regard to meaning.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

inocente,

God clearly made homosexual love fruitless, despite the fact that gay people want kids as much as anyone else. To me, there are only two possible reasons for His making gay love fruitless:

(1) He didn’t think that sexuality is a proper manifestation of the love between two men or two women, so He made it fruitless as an indication that we shouldn’t do it.

or

(2) God hates gay people.

Those are the only options, so far as I can tell. Can you think of a third option?

 

[GBouck]

Speaking of a “third option”, in case no one has posted this yet, here’s an AMAZING and beautiful video on the Catholic Church’s teachings on homosexuality. It’s 35 minutes long but worth every minute!

It’s called “The Third Way”

vimeo.com/93079367

Everyone needs to see this!

Gabe

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Fr. of Jazz,

My general response to your comments is as follows. . . .
(I’m guessing I’m preaching to the choir here, but I’m also interested if you disagree.)

I agree.

Now we might make an argument against sodomy that stopped at the purposes of body parts. This would be an interesting argument, for academic purposes. But it would not be capable of convincing anyone, certainly not those who are heavily tempted to sodomy (or entrenched within a life predicated on the activity). I myself take it for granted, then, that our arguments in this respect ought to refer directly to happiness, since it is *that *kind of argument that can genuinely change a person’s actions.

I think you’re not following Aristotle through here. Every choice, in his school of ethics, is in view of it making us happy by gaining something fulfilling or by avoiding something harmful thus preserving happiness. And exercising a power against its nature is an activity that will not contribute to our authentic fulfillment and happiness. Indeed it will be detrimental to one’s total human thriving and flourishing.

So the character of the act itself is directly related to happiness.

Not true. It’s wrong for a man, on his own (that was the case I meant to describe), to stimulate his genitals with the purpose of sexual pleasure, even if he does not orgasm. Why? Because he is masturbating.

(1) OK, but is this philosophy or a statement of RC moral teaching? “It is wrong for a man . . .” Aren’t we engaged in philosophical reasoning?
(2) So “afterwards” in your counterexample means a week later, not immediately subsequent? But then you’re making my point. The emphasis should be on the act itself that is incapable of procreating and uniting, not whether the person is incapable of procreating or uniting because engaged in masturbation or gay sex at some time or other.

Also in some cases within the context of lovemaking, especially as some older men, self-stimulation short of orgasm as foreplay is part of the overall process climaxing in the proper way.

That’s a difficult premise to defend, again, unless you already agree with Catholic ethics. What sort of secular evidence is there that masturbating on one’s own (without ejaculating) decreases the bond between a man and a woman who later make love? Maybe there is some evidence on this, I suppose. I certainly *hope *it could be demonstrated.

But the philosophical argument isn’t that it necessarily decreases the bond between a couple. It is only that the act in and of itself is not unitive (or procreative); and being against the nature of the organs will not contribute to happiness.

Certainly porn habits can affect a marriage.

I’ve nixed “thwart.”

Of course not – nor does it mean that your argument is unsound. But the goal of an argument is to convince.

The goal of the argument is to be valid and convince.

But this clears up many things. I am all for being convincing. And if you are engaged in the effort to work out a more convincing argument without prejudice to the validity an argument based on the finality of the sex organs and certain acts themselves in relation to happiness, I am completely for that. I gather that this is the case.

I used it because it makes the argument as good as it can be, in my eyes. Not very convincing, but as plausible as possible. If you have another word to suggest, I’m all ears.

To my mind “thwart” carries the connotation of impeding the use of. I don’t think that same sex acts–apart from disease–are a detriment to the sex organs functioning.

In this type of argument I would focus on the acts themselves in view of the purpose of physical intimacy. The male and female sex organs are meant for each other such that their use together can bring about the bonding of the couple and procreation . . . in a secure environment for the offspring. Masturbation and homosexual acts with the sex organs in and of themselves are incapable of procreating and/or uniting by touch with a real other.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I’m really glad you brought this up. It would make the original argument much better, I think. Of course, it is a thorny philosophical problem what sorts of uses are abuses – and this, I think, can only be settled by appealing to happiness. There are clear cases: It is abusive to intentionally and needlessly amputate your arm, but it isn’t abusive to use your arm as a substitute tape measure. But the marginal cases are problematic, and that’s why I feel we would have to use happiness as an heuristic.

But for Aristotle and Aquinas, again, every act is in view of producing happiness; and if the act is disordered, it will not . . . even though it may produce temporary elation or pleasure.

Further even arguments based on happiness are subject to the same philosophical deconstruction that you site for discussion of the acts themselves, and consequently are likely subject to the same inability to convince.

Check out this quote from Newman:

I know that even the unaided reason, when correctly exercised, leads to a belief in God, in the immortality of the soul, and in a future retribution; but I am considering the faculty of reason actually and historically; and in this point of view, I do not think I am wrong in saying that its tendency is towards a simple unbelief in matters of religion. No truth, however sacred, can stand against it, in the long run; . . . .
Experience proves surely that the Bible does not answer a purpose for which it was never intended. It may be accidentally the means of the conversion of individuals; but a book, after all, cannot make a stand against the wild living intellect of man, and in this day it begins to testify, as regards its own structure and contents, to the power of that universal solvent [atheist secularistic reason], which is so successfully acting upon religious establishments.
[John Henry Cardinal Newman, *Apologia Pro Vita Sua, Chapter 5]

I’m not quite this pessimistic. But in some circles it could well be the case.

Again, this is an excellent point. In the sexual ethics seminar I attended several years ago, I remember bringing up the point that sex CANNOT be casual. Even liberal Americans believe this, since they believe (for example) that even apparently “voluntary” sex with children is abuse. If sex could be casual, then one could argue that a child could agree to sex, just like a child can agree to eating a sandwich (a casual activity).

But this doesn’t conclusively prove the point against sodomy, since one could claim that the act of sodomy is meaningful and unitive, despite not being procreative.

If you are affirming that the arguments based on the acts in se being incapable of procreation and uniting by touch with a real other are valid, but not generally convincing to people invested in that behavior, that’s no doubt true. I’d say it does conclusively prove it (in moral discourse–not mathematically), but generally it will not convince people living a gay lifestyle.

But as noted above, will even an argument based on happiness withstand that “universal solvent” of truth and religion?

Still working through what can be the most convincing arguments and engaging gays with them can’t possibly do anything but good.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Speaking of a “third option”, in case no one has posted this yet, here’s an AMAZING and beautiful video on the Catholic Church’s teachings on homosexuality. It’s 35 minutes long but worth every minute!

It’s called “The Third Way”

vimeo.com/93079367

Everyone needs to see this!

Gabe

Yes, that was excellent. Everyone here should watch it. There were only two things wrong with it. One needs to be careful using the word " desire " because there can be innocent desires, like the desire to have a good friend and evil desires. And I wish they had not used Christopher West as one of their experts, I think he goes over the line in his presentations ( which we were spared in the video ).

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Perhaps you should move back to Kansas to regain it.

Something for you to watch. vimeo.com/93079367

Linus2nd

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Yes, that was excellent. Everyone here should watch it. There were only two things wrong with it. One needs to be careful using the word " desire " because there can be innocent desires, like the desire to have a good friend and evil desires.

There can be evil active desires, but there cannot be evil *passive *desires. I certainly agree that the word “desire” is problematic; it’s one of the most dangerously ambiguous words in the English language.

I just wrote a blog post about this very issue, if you’re interested:

mercyst.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/why-desire-is-a-bad-word/

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There can be evil active desires, but there cannot be evil *passive *desires. I certainly agree that the word “desire” is problematic; it’s one of the most dangerously ambiguous words in the English language.

I just wrote a blog post about this very issue, if you’re interested:

mercyst.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/why-desire-is-a-bad-word/

I read your blog but won’t comment here. I will just say that I think the video left the impression that " desire " was rather neutral. We absolutely cannot desire a forbidden pleasure, to give even intellectual consent to such a desire would be sinful. I would be to relish the forbidden fruit. Of course there is a beginning stage when we first are aware of the desire. It is then we must expell/crush it. We do this by turning our attention to other things, praying, rolling in the briar patch ( St. Benedict et al ), etc. We flee the forbidden desire as soon as we are aware of it.

Linus2nd

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I read your blog but won’t comment here. I will just say that I think the video left the impression that " desire " was rather neutral. We absolutely cannot desire a forbidden pleasure, to give even intellectual consent to such a desire would be sinful. I would be to relish the forbidden fruit. Of course there is a beginning stage when we first are aware of the desire. It is then we must expell/crush it. We do this by turning our attention to other things, praying, rolling in the briar patch ( St. Benedict et al ), etc. We flee the forbidden desire as soon as we are aware of it.

Sure, that’s right. But since we can’t control the desire, the desire isn’t wrong – i.e., not sinful. The devil wants us to think the passive desire (the temptation, or passion) itself is sinful. That’s true of any passion, like the temptation to steal or the temptation to commit adultery or the temptation to gossip. The devil wants us to think merely wanting these things (without willing them) is wrong.

 

[inocente]

The “live and let live” rule is not a moral principle, but rather a general kind of rule of thumb that runs or leads up to the moral law. Its applicability ends precisely at the point where the moral law takes over.

A moral is defined as concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior. There is no distinction.

The point of the moral law is that we - the entire human population - are obligated to it, which is precisely why the moral law justifies interference with the actions of others. It is the point at which “live and let live” no longer has applicability because someone who trespasses against the moral law has interfered with the right of others to access a moral “good” which is necessary for happiness. In other words, acts are immoral if they positively deprive others of goods necessary for happiness. We do not “let others live” if what they do causes harm (deprives victims of goods necessary for happiness.)

Your last sentence suggests you kill people who get in your way .

But see my post #263. You need to show that homosexuals deprive you of “goods necessary for happiness”, that you are their victims, that society will stop functioning. I do not think you can.

*Merely because a person is morally good, does not make the person, ipso facto, worthy of eternity or sharing God’s own life. It is a necessary precursor, but insufficient.

Jesus didn’t say “You must be morally good,” he said, “You must be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” Meaning that God’s own perfection is shared with human beings, if it is received in a manner that transforms the morally good being, via grace, into a perfect one. That involves submission to grace and the will of God that transforms us from natural beings into beings capable of receiving God’s own life. The incarnation of God once again in human flesh.*

To me this isn’t a argument for anything very much though, since people come to different understandings of what is good or perfect. What harm can two consenting adults expressing their mutual love in private do to you or to God?

I’m reminded of the quote “if there are no dogs in heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went”. If consenting adults expressing their mutual love don’t get to heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. I do not want to get to heaven at their expense, and I do not believe God forces me to make such choices.

*The reason marriage is the normal state designed by God to further his plan for salvation is that it models the life of the Trinity and involves both the necessity to live a moral life respecting and fostering the natural “good” for others, but also that it involves the practice of submission, which prepares us for reception of grace by first submitting to moral obligation and then to God’s transformative will.

The problem with “live and let live” is that it sees as an end in itself that which is only a limited baseline of respect for others. It is only fully operative, however, given a cohort of morally good beings. Where some are prone to acting immorally, “live and let live” must give way to the moral law, which is prior

“Live and let live” = soil in its natural, fertile state
Original sin = soil riddled with stones and weeds
Moral life = cleared, tilled and prepared fertile soil
Life of grace = God planting and raising good fruit

Submission to moral obligation is us doing our part to make our beings ontologically receptive (submissive) to God’s transformative grace which leads to eternal life.*

You realize this is a very complicated argument with many potential pitfalls? Even if we allow your two tier morality (by which it would seem that Christ’s new command “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another” would meet the same fate as “live and let live”).

But Baptists usually believe in original innocence anyway, so straight away that argument falls on rocky ground.

 

[inocente]

Given an understanding of original sin and how God’s grace operates, it may be true that the gay couple cannot, on their own, “choose to be straight.” This is ignoring completely that they are not “on their own.” None of us are. That is the point of God’s grace as a supernatural gift that empowers us to overcome all failings.

Since grace is freely offered to all, then the power to overcome is available to all.

I can’t choose to be gay, so I don’t see how anyone else can choose to be straight. I’ve not seen any evidence that being gay is a disease, defect or disorder that can be cured. Maybe being left-handed can be cured with God’s grace. But why would God see it as something to be cured anyway?

 

[inocente]

Sex need not ever be “purely about making babies” as a mechanical process, unless one loses sight of what is being made when a baby comes into existence. Every human act becomes merely a mechanical act when it is reduced to merely a mechanical act, but within the meaningful context of the larger perspective, even mechanical acts are imbued with value. Hammering nails into wood is a mechanical act, but if the end result will be a home for a family, a place where human beings will be cherished, loved and embark on a life journey, the mechanical act resonates with vibrancy. Spontaneity is not the only criteria for meaning. Careful planning, disciplined pursuit and attention to minute details have as much to offer as spontaneity with regard to meaning.

But the point was that the procreation rule argues that sex is purely about making babies, and therefore cannot be the only, or even the prime, principle without making us less than human.