Homosexuality and Natural Law -- A Concern

[Bradski]

There is no proper sexual function willed by God. Hundreds of millions of people are harmed by homophobia. They deserve better than a confused fence-sitting theology which purports to know what God wants, and which places that narrow ideology before their needs.

Dance upon injustice. Live and let live.

Muy bien…

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is no proper sexual function willed by God. Hundreds of millions of people are harmed by homophobia. **They deserve better **than a confused fence-sitting theology which purports to know what God wants, and which places that narrow ideology before their needs.

Dance upon injustice. Live and let live.

Since when does “better” entail a complete paucity regarding moral “goods?” One which collapses, essentially, into the incredibly unhelpful position of “do whatever you want” because God, apparently, doesn’t have a clue, so he leaves things entirely up to you. Clearly, since God wills “no proper sexual function,” the field is wide open for you to define whatever function for sex that fills your fancy.

Apparently, we can conclude that since God has not willed a proper sexual function, neither has he willed the function of eyes “to see,” the ears, “to hear,” or the brain “to think.” So for humans to all end up as blind, deaf, sterile, idiots is NOT determinably worse, in God’s eyes, to any other alternative.

 

[Peter_Plato]

All of us who say live and let live on this eventually get called insincere, dishonest, dumb and unChristian by one person or another. It seems that when it comes down to the wire, the only decent argument you guys have is peer pressure, while we are expected to work our way through a confused labyrinth of faulty a priori reasoning based on denial of evolution and evidence, verse mining from scripture, and a medieval take on reproduction as magic and of humans as machines.

There is no proper sexual function willed by God. Hundreds of millions of people are harmed by homophobia. They deserve better than a confused fence-sitting theology which purports to know what God wants, and which places that narrow ideology before their needs.

Dance upon injustice. Live and let live.

This diatribe depicts, almost perfectly, the philosophical and political “position” of Rabbit People or r/K selection theory applied to politics.

“Obviously, from avoiding conflict and competition, to single parenting, to low-loyalty to in-group, this r-selected Reproductive Strategy is the psychomotive origin of the Political Left, or as it is known in America, Political Liberalism. It produces a model of human which is cowardly, competition averse, promiscuous, supportive of single parenting, supportive of earlier sexualization of young, and which has no real embrace of loyalty, honor, decency, or any other pro-social trait designed to foster group cohesion and functionality, or success in group competition. Females will become manly, to provision and protect their young, which they raise alone, while men become effete castrati, designed for fleeing and fornication, and capable of little else of meaning. As we see in any society which begins to produce resources freely and copiously, it will gradually begin to trend “r” as time goes on, further highlighting this relationship of resource availability to political psychology, and reproductive strategy.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

It seems that when it comes down to the wire, the only decent argument you guys have is peer pressure, …

An interesting observation given that “peer pressure” is the principal MO of the left. Consider the attack on Brendan Eich, the words of Andrew Cuomo, even the casting of the word “homophobe” - the use of which you find no aversion - and we arrive at, surprisingly enough , a deluded pretension - on your part - that an argument is what you actually have presented. :tsktsk:

 

[Linusthe2nd]

All of us who say live and let live on this eventually get called insincere, dishonest, dumb and unChristian by one person or another.

I deny that this is universally true. However, let me add a few you missed, caving in to emotionalism and/or political correctness,

It seems that when it comes down to the wire, the only decent argument you guys have is peer pressure, while we are expected to work our way through a confused labyrinth of faulty a priori reasoning based on denial of evolution and evidence, verse mining from scripture, and a medieval take on reproduction as magic and of humans as machines.

Well, that is certainly untrue. You are stating a biased view, tinged with prejudice. Just look how you describe us - illogical, deniers of evolution ( has that been irrefutably established - sorry I missed the Headlines on that ), verse mining ( and if true, pray tell what do you do yourself? ), medievalists, believers in magic, etc. Yes, that certainly establishes your objectivity!!!

There is no proper sexual function willed by God.

I can’t believe you seriously belive that. He made them male and female didn’t he? That alone should disprove your statement to a reasonable person. And you certainly haven’t given any proof to support your statement - because there is none. God, being who he is, certainly willed that they have the obvious sexual functions, illustrated by their anatomy. Cultural and social attitudes do not determine the will of God.

Hundreds of millions of people are harmed by homophobia.

To tell people the proper function of human sexuality is not homophobia. Nor is it homophobia to refuse to give in to political correctness.

They deserve better than a confused fence-sitting theology which purports to know what God wants, and which places that narrow ideology before their needs.

It is not " fence sitting " to tell people that it is the will of God that they should live the way he intended them to live. " Narrow, " perhaps, but so is the road to heaven.

As human beings, we have no legitimate needs that are contrary to God’s law.

Dance upon injustice. Live and let live.

Yes, those who teach people that they can violate God’s law with impunity are " dancing upon injustice. " There is no greater injustice than to tell people that it is good to violate God’s law.

Linus2nd

 

[Kurisu35712]

All of us who say live and let live on this eventually get called insincere, dishonest, dumb and unChristian by one person or another. It seems that when it comes down to the wire, the only decent argument you guys have is peer pressure, while we are expected to work our way through a confused labyrinth of faulty a priori reasoning based on denial of evolution and evidence, verse mining from scripture, and a medieval take on reproduction as magic and of humans as machines.

There is no proper sexual function willed by God. Hundreds of millions of people are harmed by homophobia. They deserve better than a confused fence-sitting theology which purports to know what God wants, and which places that narrow ideology before their needs.

Dance upon injustice. Live and let live.

Part of this thread’s purpose is to try to establish a series of logical proofs for the reasoning behind the Catholic Church’s teachings on homosexual activity (not to be confused with homosexuality, referring to same-sex attraction, which is different). One is action, one is a presumably unchangeable facet of a person’s self.

Also, I would say that to claim the natural law argument against homosexual behavior is denial of evolution is false. If going strictly by evolutionary principles, homosexual actions are evolutionarily disadvantageous. If every human couple were homosexual, there would be no more human children, and no generations past the current hypothetical one would be born. Homosexual acts in humans cannot be used for reproduction; only heterosexual acts are capable of creating offspring. My overall point being, if Adam and Eve had been homosexual, they would still have been able to have children together. However, if Adam was a man and Eve was actually Evan, there would be no human life past the two of them.

For the record, I am not a creationist, so I try to avoid denying evolution as a general rule.

Furthermore, the purpose of the original proof was, if I’m not mistaken, to provide a framework for a natural law argument, without relying on scriptural references as evidence. One argument being that the reason scriptural sources claim homosexual actions are immoral are based on natural law to begin with.

Also I hope the humans being machines comment wasn’t a reference to any of my posts. I had intended to make the point that humans aren’t just machines, but given how wordy I tend to get, I totally understand if I was unclear. Also I haven’t read my posts in a few days, so I can’t remember exactly what I said. My apologies if I just read myself into that.

I agree that homophobia causing harm to even one person is one person too many. But I wouldn’t say that the Church’s stance is sitting on the fence on the issue. Either the Church is right and homosexual acts are immoral (again for clarification, not being homosexual), or the opposition is right and God doesn’t care one way or another. But remaining abstinent one’s whole life isn’t bad or unhealthy, just difficult, and if the possibility is that a lack of chastity can endanger one’s soul, the Church has a duty to at the very least inform people of what is right and wrong, based on the evidence we have. Sex isn’t really a need, it’s a really strong urge.

 

[inocente]

I was looking at the news threads and noticed that Pope Francis has just listed his top ten secrets to happiness.

What at the top of the Pope’s list?

1. Live and let live.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I was looking at the news threads and noticed that Pope Francis has just listed his top ten secrets to happiness.

What at the top of the Pope’s list?

1. Live and let live.

The fact that the NCR took this “list” and ran with it does not bode well as a defense of your position. The NCR is a notoriously dissident “catholic” publication that is rated poorly by those who have a clear view of Catholic orthodoxy.

You can’t seriously be suggesting - even if this is part of the Pope’s general view of “happiness” - that he has intended it to have the force of a moral principle or take the place of all moral principles - which seems to be your take on “live and let live.”

I suggest you reread my post 265 for perspective on the reasonable “reach” that “live and let live” ought to be given.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The fact that the NCR took this “list” and ran with it does not bode well as a defense of your position. The NCR is a notoriously dissident “catholic” publication that is rated poorly by those who have a clear view of Catholic orthodoxy.

Whatever the virtues of the NCR, the list is genuine. Other outlets confirm it.

You can’t seriously be suggesting - even if this is part of the Pope’s general view of “happiness” - that he has intended it to have the force of a moral principle or take the place of all moral principles - which seems to be your take on “live and let live.”

I think inocente was mostly making a joke. Pope Francis obviously doesn’t think “live and let live” entails being silent about the nature of sin.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Whatever the virtues of the NCR, the list is genuine. Other outlets confirm it.

I think inocente was mostly making a joke. Pope Francis obviously doesn’t think “live and let live” entails being silent about the nature of sin.

The word “mostly” is of unknown quality where inocente is concerned. Pressing into service seemingly innocuous phrases and facts is his stock-in-trade, but we’ll see where this goes.

Keep in mind his response to my post where he attempted to define “live and let live” as a moral principle.

He said,

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

 

[inocente]

The word “mostly” is of unknown quality where inocente is concerned. Pressing into service seemingly innocuous phrases and facts is his stock-in-trade, but we’ll see where this goes.

As I said, all you’ve got is personal remarks and denial of evidence.

The whole world is carrying the story of the Pope’s #1 moral principle live and let live. For starters:

Catholic News Service - catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1403144.htm
El Colombiano - elcolombiano.com/BancoConocimiento/D/diez_consejos_del_papa_francisco_para_la_felicidad/diez_consejos_del_papa_francisco_para_la_felicidad.asp
La Universia (Argentinia) - noticias.universia.com.ar/en-portada/noticia/2014/07/29/1101355/consejos-papa-francisco-alcanzar-felicidad.html
Independent (UK) - independent.co.uk/news/people/pope-francis-issues-top-10-tips-for-happiness-9639488.html
CBC (Canada) - cbc.ca/news/world/pope-francis-s-10-happiness-tips-turn-off-the-tv-and-don-t-try-to-convert-others-1.2723770

I love it when a plan comes together.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think inocente was mostly making a joke. Pope Francis obviously doesn’t think “live and let live” entails being silent about the nature of sin.

Pope Francis does not, but whether inocente does is another question - one which he can (and likely will) answer for himself.

 

[inocente]

The word “mostly” is of unknown quality where inocente is concerned. Pressing into service seemingly innocuous phrases and facts is his stock-in-trade, but we’ll see where this goes.

As I said, all you’ve got is personal remarks and denial of evidence.

The whole world is carrying the story of the Pope’s #1 moral principle live and let live. For starters:

Catholic News Service - catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1403144.htm
El Colombiano - elcolombiano.com/BancoConocimiento/D/diez_consejos_del_papa_francisco_para_la_felicidad/diez_consejos_del_papa_francisco_para_la_felicidad.asp
La Universia (Argentinia) - noticias.universia.com.ar/en-portada/noticia/2014/07/29/1101355/consejos-papa-francisco-alcanzar-felicidad.html
Independent (UK) - independent.co.uk/news/people/pope-francis-issues-top-10-tips-for-happiness-9639488.html
CBC (Canada) - cbc.ca/news/world/pope-francis-s-10-happiness-tips-turn-off-the-tv-and-don-t-try-to-convert-others-1.2723770

I love it when a plan comes together.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think inocente was mostly making a joke. Pope Francis obviously doesn’t think “live and let live” entails being silent about the nature of sin.

No sooner said…

As I said, all you’ve got is personal remarks and denial of evidence.

The whole world is carrying the story of the Pope’s #1 moral principle live and let live.

I love it when a plan comes together.

Number 1 “moral” principle, eh?

Don’t you think that is reading a tad bit INTO his words?

No, of course you don’t.

This, then, means, to you that the #1 moral principle overrides all others, correct?

So we ought to allow murderers and rapists to “live,” yes?

And before you (inocente) spin this into inferring that I mean we ought to kill all murderers and rapists, I am taking the meaning of “live” in precisely the same sense as in the phrase “live and let live.” In case this still isn’t clear enough, “live,” in this sense means “allow to carry on” or “do in life as you will and allow others to do as they will.”

If you take “live and let live” as the #1 moral principle, then, logically, it outweighs all other moral principles including those which hold others morally accountable for their actions. As a prime moral principle, it would then nullify its opposite - to wit, we ought NOT hold others accountable for their actions - we ought to let them (murderers and rapists) "live,“ defined as: ”allow them to do as they will.”

Clearly, this is what the Pope is endorsing - well, according to inocente, (and perhaps NCR,) at least.

 

[inocente]

Prodigal was a bit more astute than a certain other poster.

Although I suppose it’s just possible that the Pope was reading through this thread and when he got to live and let live thought “that’s the answer, rock on!”

Anyway, you can only imagine my glee when I saw the news. Well, glee[sup]3[/sup].

 

[Peter_Plato]

As I said, all you’ve got is personal remarks and denial of evidence.
…
I love it when a plan comes together.

What I am denying is that the Pope intended this list to be a list of “moral” principles in the sense of being obligatory on every moral being.

These are the practical things you to do to find happiness. They are where freedom takes over from the moral law, but they do not override the moral law.

In a very real sense, they assume the moral law and good moral agency are in play.

You “live and let live” because good moral agents have a right to creatively determine their destiny. However, good moral agents do not have a right to harm others or infringe on their obligations as moral agents, and neither do we have an obligation to allow bad moral agents to harm others. So, “live and let live” cannot be obligatory in all instances - which is what makes a moral principle an imperative where moral agents are concerned.

It is obligatory that we do not kill or harm others for no justifiable reason, therefore “live and let live” is NOT obligatory BECAUSE it is NOT obligatory to allow some to kill or harm others for no justifiable reason.

Simple syllogism:
Moral principles are those which are obligatory for all moral agents.
Live and let live is not obligatory for all moral agents.
Therefore, live and let live is not a defensible moral principle.

Show us the evidence, inocente, that Pope Francis was actually expounding a list of “moral” and, therefore, obligatory principles

Clearly, his list was a practical list and not an imperative one. Otherwise stated as, “If you want to be happy, then do x, y and z.” It wasn’t: “You are morally obliged to do x, y and z.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

As I said, all you’ve got is personal remarks and denial of evidence.
…
I love it when a plan comes together.

What I am denying is that the Pope intended this list to be a list of “moral” principles in the sense of being obligatory for every moral being.

These are the practical things you to do to find happiness. They are where freedom takes over from the moral law, but they do not override the moral law.

In a very real sense, they assume that the moral law and good moral agency are in play.

You “live and let live” because good moral agents have a right to creatively determine their destiny. However, good moral agents do not have a right to harm others or infringe on their obligations as moral agents, and neither do we have an obligation to allow bad moral agents to harm others. So, “live and let live” cannot be obligatory in all instances - which is what makes a moral principle an imperative where moral agents are concerned.

It is obligatory that we do not kill or harm others for no justifiable reason, therefore “live and let live” is NOT obligatory BECAUSE it is NOT obligatory to allow some to kill or harm others for no justifiable reason.

Simple syllogism:
Moral principles are those which are obligatory for all moral agents.
“Live and let live” is not obligatory for all moral agents.
Therefore, “live and let live” is not a defensible moral principle.

Show us the evidence, inocente, that Pope Francis was actually expounding a list of “moral” and, therefore, obligatory principles

Clearly, his list was a practical list and not an imperative one. Otherwise stated as, “If you want to be happy, then do x, y and z.” It wasn’t: “You are morally obliged to do x, y and z.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Prodigal was a bit more astute than a certain other poster.

Although I suppose it’s just possible that the Pope was reading through this thread and when he got to live and let live thought “that’s the answer, rock on!”

Anyway, you can only imagine my glee when I saw the news. Well, glee[sup]3[/sup].

You are now playing mind games - slipping in confused ambiguities under the guise of meaningful and valid points.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Prodigal was a bit more astute than a certain other poster.

I do have to agree with you, on this.

as·tute
əˈsto͞ot/
adjective
having or showing an ability to accurately assess situations or people and turn this to one’s advantage.
“an astute businessman”
synonyms: shrewd, sharp, acute, adroit, quick, clever, crafty, intelligent, bright, smart, canny, intuitive, perceptive, insightful, incisive, sagacious, wise;

In other words, “giving inocente a generous amount of rope.”

 

[inocente]

You are now playing mind games - slipping in confused ambiguities under the guise of meaningful and valid points.

That’s a slightly offbeat definition of humor but more or less accurate.

Just realized that from now on I can write “as Pope Francis says, live and let live”.

Glee[sup]4[/sup]

Can’t help thinking we’ve strayed a bit off topic here .