Homosexuality and Natural Law -- A Concern

[Peter_Plato]

Homosexuality may be in complete harmony with nature. Since such unions cannot reproduce, it could one of nature’s failsafe components against overpopulation. Much like a deer reabsorbing its fetus in low food years, natural disasters, infertility, pandemics, etc.

I have no concern as a straight male that gay people will throw something out of balance anymore than heterosexual people.

I take it that killing unproductive individuals or those that require inordinate amounts of resources could also be “in complete harmony with nature,” then? There is nothing “in nature” that would, in principle, support a claim that Hitler’s quest to eliminate inferior races was morally wrong. The meme of a “master race” or genetic superiority could also be one of nature’s fail safe components against overpopulation and genetic deterioration.

On the other hand, perhaps logic and a moral law that is superior to what happens in nature is, in itself, a fail safe component to guard us against mindlessly copying whatever occurs in nature or blindly using nature as a justification for any and all human behaviour. Happily, logic provides an antidote to mindlessly copying nature in the form of the naturalistic fallacy.

 

[Kurisu35712]

I said it plain enough. Your premise “God clearly made homosexual love fruitless” is false since God didn’t invent sex, just as God didn’t invent the iPad. How many times must I say it?

With that logic, God didn’t invent pinecones as a form of seed dispersal, he didn’t invent the pincers on a fire ant’s head, he didn’t invent the kidney which filters toxins from your body, etc. etc. Seeing as God created the universe, the rules that govern it, and all of the elements and molecules that make it up, it is incorrect to claim that God didn’t invent sex. If it’s an instinctive action performed by humans for the purpose of reproduction of human organisms, I would say if nothing else, the reason we have that instinct at all is because God gave it to us. It isn’t like humans invented sex either seeing as literally every other reproducing organism engages in it in some form. God didn’t invent an iPod obviously, since it isn’t an organism or a naturally formed object.

And that’s even before we get to my main criticism of any and all moralities which place pretty rules and pristine logic before the needs of people. God is love, not a logical argument. People are human beings, not machines.

What IS a moral system aside from something that places rules and logic before people? There is a profound difference between a person’s desires and a person’s needs, though many times they overlap. Perhaps you missed my earlier post regarding this, but sexual activity is not a human need. Or are you claiming that all of those men and women who took vows of perpetual virginity are not human? None of them died from choosing to never have sex, and that has been a legitimate lifestyle choice since before the ancient Greeks. Also, if you’re going to claim that because God is love, he cannot be logic or logical, as you seem to imply, you will have to explain why love should not be in some way logical. I would say far more people hurt themselves over what they THINK love is than do those who think with logic over sheer impulse. Nowhere in Scripture does God state that He wants us to be ruled by our passions, and I’m pretty sure He orders the exact opposite. Do not confuse lust, affection, and a passive tolerance of any and all behavior with love. Love is giving of oneself for the good of another, not ignoring the other person’s mistakes for fear of hurting their feelings. Jesus himself did not tell the woman accused of adultery that it was fine and that He would look the other way, she was told to go and sin no more.

So, for the third or forth time, answer my criticism. Let’s try putting it the other way around, since you are the one making the assertion. Prove to me that God made homosexuality and then prove to me that God made homosexual love.

God made homosexuals. Also pertinent to add that God made bisexuals. God loves homosexual people, bisexual people, heterosexual people, asexual people, and so on just as infinitely as he loves every other individual human who ever was, is, and is to come. What is often said regarding homosexuality is that it is a result of the fall of man, that like all our other imperfections that we encounter and bring about, and specifically it is a failing of humanity to fulfill love as God intended it to be. Whether or not one believes that claim often hinges on one’s religious beliefs.

I feel like constantly going back and forth about “love” is unproductive. How do you define love? How do you define what “love” means between two homosexuals, heterosexuals, best friends, siblings and so on?

I for one, do not define love as an emotion. I feel like that is in a sense degrading the meaning of love. Love is not something that happens to you. Affection is something that happens to you. Attraction is something that happens to you. Often these emotional effects lead to “being in love”. But I would argue that that definition is not “love.” Love is a choice to be selfless. Love is choosing to sacrifice something of yourself for the good of someone whom you care about. Love is Jesus’ choosing to be executed despite His innocence so that each and every one of us, individually, could be saved from our sins, despite our sins, and be reunited with Him in Heaven. Love is a child’s parents waking up in the middle of the night 8 times despite needing to go to work in the morning to make sure their baby is safe and comfortable and able to get a good night’s sleep.

Love is also telling your alcoholic best friend that they need to get help to control their drinking problems, despite the fact that they may no longer want to be friends. Love is hiding a Jew in your attic for years so that the Nazi’s won’t take them to a concentration camp, despite the fact that doing so could very well get you arrested. And to many people, love is telling a person that, even though they really want to, they should not have sex with their partner because the choice to do so could result in being unable to enter Heaven when they die. Is the love two homosexuals feel for each other love? Yes. I would say so unequivocally. But is the physical attraction they feel for one another love? The Church tells us no. Sex and love are not synonymous.

 

[oldcelt]

I take it that killing unproductive individuals or those that require inordinate amounts of resources could also be “in complete harmony with nature,” then? There is nothing “in nature” that would, in principle, support a claim that Hitler’s quest to eliminate inferior races was morally wrong. The meme of a “master race” or genetic superiority could also be one of nature’s fail safe components against overpopulation and genetic deterioration.

On the other hand, perhaps logic and a moral law that is superior to what happens in nature is, in itself, a fail safe component to guard us against mindlessly copying whatever occurs in nature or blindly using nature as a justification for any and all human behaviour. Happily, logic provides an antidote to mindlessly copying nature in the form of the naturalistic fallacy.

Foolish argument. Hitler and his crew were not a natural event. Really think Peter before you make statements like that.
Nature has always taken lives…sometimes by the millions. Think of the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic. I am only guessing, but I expect to see something like that in my lifetime.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Foolish argument. Hitler and his crew were not a natural event. Really think Peter before you make statements like that.
Nature has always taken lives…sometimes by the millions. Think of the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic. I am only guessing, but I expect to see something like that in my lifetime.

Hitler and his crew acting to purify the gene pool is just as much a “natural event” as gay sex advocates promoting homosexual relationships, based upon your own criterion - occurrence in nature. Killing occurs in nature and is, thus, just as “natural” an event as homosexual sex.

You don’t get to arbitrarily distinguish one human act as a “natural event” but pass on another as “not a natural event.”

Your argument - verbatim - was:

Homosexuality may be in complete harmony with nature. Since such unions cannot reproduce, it could one of nature’s failsafe components against overpopulation. Much like a deer reabsorbing its fetus in low food years, natural disasters, infertility, pandemics, etc.

I have no concern as a straight male that gay people will throw something out of balance anymore than heterosexual people.

Parallel argument:

Getting rid of genetically inferior human beings may be in complete harmony with nature. Since genetically inferior individuals have a reduced ability to survive, killing them off or letting them die could be one of nature’s failsafe components against genetic devolution. Much like a cat eating the runt of a litter or a mother bird ejecting a weak hatchling from its nest, nature has ways of preventing the survival of genetically inferior individuals.

I have no concern as a genetically robust individual that Hitler’s crew did anything to throw something out of balance by killing genetically inferior humans anymore than he would by keeping alive genetically superior ones.

 

[oldcelt]

Hitler and his crew acting to purify the gene pool is just as much a “natural event” as gay sex advocates promoting homosexual relationships, based upon your own criterion - occurrence in nature. Killing occurs in nature and is, thus, just as “natural” an event as homosexual sex.

You don’t get to arbitrarily distinguish one human act as a “natural event” but pass on another as “not a natural event.”

Your argument - verbatim - was:

Homosexuality may be in complete harmony with nature. Since such unions cannot reproduce, it could one of nature’s failsafe components against overpopulation. Much like a deer reabsorbing its fetus in low food years, natural disasters, infertility, pandemics, etc.

I have no concern as a straight male that gay people will throw something out of balance anymore than heterosexual people.

Parallel argument:

Getting rid of genetically inferior human beings may be in complete harmony with nature. Since genetically inferior individuals have a reduced ability to survive, killing them off or letting them die could be one of nature’s failsafe components against genetic devolution. Much like a cat eating the runt of a litter or a mother bird ejecting a weak hatchling from its nest, nature has ways of preventing the survival of genetically inferior individuals.

I have no concern as a genetically robust individual that Hitler’s crew did anything to throw something out of balance by killing genetically inferior humans anymore than he would by keeping alive genetically superior ones.

What you offered this time was a parallel argument…the Hitler thing was not. Well done.

 

[inocente]

God made everything, and God made many things subject to defect. It is atheism to say that God did not invent sex, since it implies either that God is not omnipotent or that God does not care about human beings. Hence either God created homosexuality (as a good thing) or allowed homosexuality (as a defect).

I’ve never before seen anyone use God as a divination machine like that. Strip God of everything other than a couple of properties in order to force him to give whatever answer you want, all you have to do is feed in the right question.

Are you really painting God into a corner like that? Wouldn’t your god machine break the second commandment? Jer 14:14.

A deus machina to generate deus ex machina in a world invented by a machine for machines. No, I don’t believe anyone could be that joyless. If it’s not prying, would you say you are born again?

 

[inocente]

The Scriptures are pretty clear, God has written his Law on every heart. I don’t think that is what the Taliban teach . And of course God believes in " Live and Let Live " also. He forces no one, neither do I, neither does the Church. So, though every heart knows the truth ( or can learn it ), not every heart responds.

That’s not at all what Paul says.

Let’s read it together, slowly, to get what Paul actually says rather than what you think he should have said. I found a Catholic-friendly translation so you can savor each word :

“When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.” - biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202&version=NRSVACE (my emphases)

 

[inocente]

Et tu, Brute?

The company I keep is a bad influence. :coffeeread:

The problem with ambiguous statements is that they can be trivially true but when the terms are spelled out clearly their truth value is severely curtailed.

The injunction (if taken as such) to “live” in “Live and let live,” must mean, if it is to mean anything, something like, “Live a fully human life.” That would assume that since humans are rational and moral agents, “live…” entails living a rational and moral existence. In which case, the statement can be taken roughly to mean: ”Live a rational and morally good human life and let others do the same."

The non-trivial implications begin to raise their ugly heads when “Live…” is taken to mean whatever the hearer wants it to mean. Thus, to some, the injunction "live…” could mean, “live whatever kind of existence - human, inhuman or otherwise - that you want and allow others to do the same.”

You’ve not noticed a basic tenet of freedom. Live and let live means you must allow each to decide for themselves what live means.

*To a Viking marauder, your “moral principle” version of the injunction essentially gives him the freedom to rape and pillage and allow his fellow compatriots (and everyone else) to do everything and anything up to and including raping and pillaging. He is following “live and let live” to the letter precisely because his definition of “live” entails a certain kind of existence - the life of a Viking warrior.

Again the problem with such an ambiguous and open-ended statement taken as a moral principle is that it will endorse every kind of life and standard of behaviour engaged in by human beings. As a moral principle, at best, it is totally unhelpful because it will endorse every lifestyle, at worst it is downright pernicious because it will endorse every lifestyle.

In short, if you wish to use a principle that sanctions murder, raping and all kinds of abuse as the principle upon which to base approval of a gay lifestyle, be my guest, but be prepared because you have, ipso facto, endorsed any and every other lifestyle imaginable by human beings.

If you wish to ride the “Live and Let Live” bus again (pardon me while I get off at this stop) I am letting you know it has no brakes and will end up in a tangled fiery heap at the bottom of the first steep hill it attempts to maneuver. Keep in mind that I did try to warn you. From here on it is at your own risk that you “ride again.”

I sincerely doubt that the Pope will be joining you, but I leave that up to him (and not you) to decide for himself.*

Legalism. You would turn morality into a contract, and police it with control freaks. The main problem being that the average raping and pillaging Viking cares naught for contracts.

And neither does Christ. Satan uses contracts, the Pharisees stick to the letter of the law, and Jesus fights against them with the spirit of the law.

The Pope did not need to write out pages of small print, he trusts us to know what he means, and methinks you also know full well the spirit of live and let live, you’re just waving your arms around in a desperate attempt to get your legal firm off the ground. :takeoff:

 

[inocente]

The problem with your premise concerning “God giving each of us a conscience,” is that you assume God also formed, whether properly or improperly, every conscience.

So “your head does not get to dictate what is written on other people’s hearts” means YOU don’t get to dictate to the Taliban what is on their hearts. Their hearts - according to your “God gives each of us a conscience” - are as right and good as your heart. God, then, endorses the Taliban’s actions as much as he endorses yours. So, “live and let the Taliban live” and stop trying to dictate to them “what is written on their hearts.”

Yup. I am glad I got off at the last stop. Do you now see the wreck that is coming for your “live and let live” “God giving each of us our conscience” excursion down Blindguide Hill?

Tell it to the Pope. Tell it to Jesus. Shirley it’s blindingly obvious that the golden rule does not authorize the Taliban and neither does live and let live as they are both reciprocal principles.

Read my post #307 and explain precisely where I denied the Pope “had said them.”
Peter Plato;12221325:

even if this is part of the Pope’s general view of “happiness”

:curtsey:

 

[inocente]

With that logic, God didn’t invent pinecones as a form of seed dispersal, he didn’t invent the pincers on a fire ant’s head, he didn’t invent the kidney which filters toxins from your body, etc. etc. Seeing as God created the universe, the rules that govern it, and all of the elements and molecules that make it up, it is incorrect to claim that God didn’t invent sex. If it’s an instinctive action performed by humans for the purpose of reproduction of human organisms, I would say if nothing else, the reason we have that instinct at all is because God gave it to us. It isn’t like humans invented sex either seeing as literally every other reproducing organism engages in it in some form. God didn’t invent an iPod obviously, since it isn’t an organism or a naturally formed object.

You are playing with words bro. Neither did God invent rape or bubonic plague. I’ve never heard of anyone worshiping God the Inventor.

What IS a moral system aside from something that places rules and logic before people?

npatrol:

Let me stop you there. What is the purpose of a moral system? Is it to enforce an ideology at whatever cost? Is it to help a set of rules thrive? Is it to please God? What pleases God? Does a system which dehumanizes people please God? Or a system which helps God’s people thrive? What’s your answer?

(Don’t let me sway you, but here’s a psalm.)

I feel like constantly going back and forth about “love” is unproductive. How do you define love? How do you define what “love” means between two homosexuals, heterosexuals, best friends, siblings and so on?

The appropriate sense here is a pair bond, meaning a strong, lifelong monogamous affinity between two persons. Scientific terminology can be precise without dehumanizing.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’ve never before seen anyone use God as a divination machine like that. Strip God of everything other than a couple of properties in order to force him to give whatever answer you want, all you have to do is feed in the right question.

It’s called logic. I highly recommend it, since God gave it to us for our eternal salvation.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You are playing with words bro. Neither did God invent rape or bubonic plague. I’ve never heard of anyone worshiping God the Inventor.

Rape is a perversion of a good action. The bubonic plague is a defect.

If you would like to say that homosexual activity is a perversion or a defect, you are welcome to say either. God certainly created good things which are subject to perversion/defect.

(Note: I am using “perversion” in the technical sense, not as a derogatory term).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That’s not at all what Paul says.

Let’s read it together, slowly, to get what Paul actually says rather than what you think he should have said. I found a Catholic-friendly translation so you can savor each word :

"When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all." - biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202&version=NRSVACE (my emphases)

Brother, you are still having trouble understanding. Paul is saying that all have the " Natural Law " written on their hearts. But believers have the same law " written in stone " by the hand of God, so that they have no excuse. Therefore they will be doubly condemned if they disobey the law while condemning the Gentiles who have not been given the written Law. It is the same Law you see. But since Gentiles do not have the advantage of God’s written Word, though they will be likewise condemned, their judgment will not be as severe. And if they obey the Natural Law, they will receive a greater reward.

And that is why Paul preached, so all would have instruction necessary for salvation. He is telling the believers not to condemn the Gentiles, because they have not the advantage of the believers. He is not saying that the Geintiles should not be instructed, because Paul was sent to the Gentiles to instruct them to all the truth.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

It’s called logic. I highly recommend it, since God gave it to us for our eternal salvation.

Hardly. I said what I think it is.

Rape is a perversion of a good action. The bubonic plague is a defect.

If you would like to say that homosexual activity is a perversion or a defect, you are welcome to say either. God certainly created good things which are subject to perversion/defect.

(Note: I am using “perversion” in the technical sense, not as a derogatory term).

No, it is nether a perversion or a defect.

Nor is rape normally called a perversion, nor is bubonic plague a defect, it is bizarre to call a bacterial infection a defect. There is no logic here. There is nothing even remotely akin to logic here, just compartmentalizing things to validate a worldview. It might make you feel warm and fuzzy about yourself, but it’s not logic.

 

[inocente]

Brother, you are still having trouble understanding. Paul is saying that all have the " Natural Law " written on their hearts. But believers have the same law " written in stone " by the hand of God, so that they have no excuse. Therefore they will be doubly condemned if they disobey the law while condemning the Gentiles who have not been given the written Law. It is the same Law you see. But since Gentiles do not have the advantage of God’s written Word, though they will be likewise condemned, their judgment will not be as severe. And if they obey the Natural Law, they will receive a greater reward.

And that is why Paul preached, so all would have instruction necessary for salvation. He is telling the believers not to condemn the Gentiles, because they have not the advantage of the believers. He is not saying that the Geintiles should not be instructed, because Paul was sent to the Gentiles to instruct them to all the truth.

We are going in circles again. To save us spending several days doing so:

I ask what is the natural law, you say homosexual “activity” is naughty, I say that’s not what’s written on every heart, and you say oh yes it is but not everyone listens to their heart. I say but their conscience also bears witness, you say but their conscience is badly formed, I say how do you know, and you say because Linus knows best. I say Linus is not the Shepherd but just another sheep, you say ah but the law is written on every heart. Etc.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Nor is rape normally called a perversion

The desire for consensual sex is the desire to possess and be possessed. The desire for rape is the desire to dominate, which is a perversion of the desire to possess.

… nor is bubonic plague a defect, it is bizarre to call a bacterial infection a defect.

I don’t insist on the term “defect”. The bubonic plague is a bad thing, a disease. If God intended the Bubonic plague, for its own sake, God would be cruel.

At any rate, I am done with this conversation, since you do not seem to take the idea of God as an omnipotent Creator seriously. Your version of Christianity is so subtle as to be utterly incomprehensible. You remind me of 18th century “theistic” philosophers who said that God created the world, and then proceeded to explain the positive and negative aspects of the world as if God couldn’t have anything to do with them.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You’ve not noticed a basic tenet of freedom. Live and let live means you must allow each to decide for themselves what live means.

Legalism. You would turn morality into a contract, and police it with control freaks. The main problem being that the average raping and pillaging Viking cares naught for contracts.

And neither does Christ. Satan uses contracts, **the Pharisees stick to the letter of the law, **and Jesus fights against them with the spirit of the law.

You quoted Paul:

“When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.” - biblegateway.com/passage…ersion=NRSVACE (my emphases)
 
If the law is “written on their hearts” and that law “requires” what is there written, it would seem no different from the Pharisees who “stick to the letter of the law.”

Paul, recall, was also a Pharisee and trained by a learned one.

You also ignore Jesus’ words:

Matthew 5:18-20Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)

For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

We are going in circles again. To save us spending several days doing so:

I ask what is the natural law, you say homosexual “activity” is naughty, I say that’s not what’s written on every heart, and you say oh yes it is but not everyone listens to their heart. I say but their conscience also bears witness, you say but their conscience is badly formed, I say how do you know, and you say because Linus knows best. I say Linus is not the Shepherd but just another sheep, you say ah but the law is written on every heart. Etc.

To be clear, it is you who keep going in circles because the above argument applies as much to you as Linus.

You say Taliban “activity” is naughty, I say that’s not what’s written on every heart, and you say oh yes it is but not everyone listens to their heart. I say but their conscience also bears witness, you say but their conscience is badly formed, I say how do you know, and you say because inocente knows best. I say inocente is not the Shepherd but just another sheep, you say ah but the law is written on every heart. Etc.

Do you see the cause of this perpetual motion? It is YOU who want to argue both sides at the same time. But, as hard as you try, "you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.” You can’t have “the law written in their heart requires…,” but then invoke “that every heart can do what it wills” as if there is no consistent law that requires anything from homosexuals, but everything from the Taliban, just because you want to defend homosexuals but not the Taliban.

I’ve said it before: consistency is just not a hallmark of your thinking.

To wit:

You’ve not noticed a basic tenet of freedom. Live and let live means you must allow each to decide for themselves what live means.
-inocente

Explain, again, why YOU must not allow the Taliban to decide for themselves what “live” means as a “basic tenet of freedom?”

 

[inocente]

At any rate, I am done with this conversation, since you do not seem to take the idea of God as an omnipotent Creator seriously. Your version of Christianity is so subtle as to be utterly incomprehensible. You remind me of 18th century “theistic” philosophers who said that God created the world, and then proceeded to explain the positive and negative aspects of the world as if God couldn’t have anything to do with them.

Yes, I was thinking of unsubscribing the thread, since it has not presented much of a challenge for some days and your notion of god as a machine to do your bidding is too far away from conventional Christianity for me to respond to meaningfully.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Legalism. You would turn morality into a contract, and police it with control freaks. The main problem being that the average raping and pillaging Viking cares naught for contracts.

Since raping and pillaging Vikings “care naught for contracts,” they would seem indistinguishable from Jesus, who also does not. As you say…

And neither does Christ. Satan uses contracts, the Pharisees stick to the letter of the law, and Jesus fights against them with the spirit of the law.

Unlike Satan and the Pharisees - and very like Jesus - the Vikings fight against the “letter of the law” with the “spirit of the law” written on THEIR hearts

The Pope did not need to write out pages of small print, he trusts us to know what he means, and methinks you also know full well the spirit of live and let live, you’re just waving your arms around in a desperate attempt to get your legal firm off the ground. :takeoff:

This has nothing to do with legalities, but rather with the robust Viking spirit, so stop “waving your arms around in a desperate attempt” to get your legal case against the Viking “spirit” off the ground.

The Vikings, like Jesus, apparently, also "knew full well the spirit of live and let live, they are quite willing to let others live as they want because those “others” provided suitable subjects to rape and pillage. They didn’t demand everyone live as Vikings precisely because that, indeed, would ‘cramp their lifestyle’ as Vikings. They didn’t want everyone mimicking the Viking lifestyle, it wouldn’t be sustainable that way. Neither evangelization nor conversion was not part of the Viking creed. They were quite happy allowing other cultures to co-exist BECAUSE those cultures provided a suitable foil for the Viking lifestyle, which positively required that others live different lifestyles in order to be raped and pillaged.

The Vikings positively endorsed “live and let live” (except, of course, when they needed to rape and pillage those they, otherwise, allowed to be free to live and let live.)

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, I was thinking of unsubscribing the thread, since it has not presented much of a challenge for some days and your notion of god as a machine to do your bidding is too far away from conventional Christianity for me to respond to meaningfully.

White is black, black is white.

Float like a bee, sting like a butterfly.