Homosexuality and Natural Law -- A Concern

[Peter_Plato]

As I said, this is very technical, I’ve no expertise, and if you are not a qualified doctor or microbiologist then I don’t see that much purpose is served in discussing this. Apart from questioning credibility, the reports you linked seem quite old, I’ve no way of knowing whether the tests in the field have changed since, whether different territories use different tests or protocols, how the results are statistically verified and so on.

The point, I suspect, that ought to be taken from the Perth Group’s contention is somewhat akin to the part the Higgs-Boson particle plays in physics.

It was considered a ‘theoretical’ particle until a particle that fit its theoretical characteristics was “discovered” using the Large Hadron Collider in 2012. Still, physicists are hesitant to insist that a single such particle exists, admitting that there may be several particles that match the characteristics.

In the medical research community, HIV is “theoretical” in the same sense that the Higgs Boson was prior to 2012. Such a virus would explain - above other explanations via Koch’s Postulates - better (perhaps) than other known existing possibilities, but the actual existence of the HIV virus remains theoretical because it has never been isolated. Other viruses do present themselves under electron microscopy. This one doesn’t. It is suggested that HIV “morphs” quickly, but the issue of isolation still exists.

The argument for a single HIV type virus remains abductive - it is the best explanation to date for the observable symptoms - T-Cell destruction, retro viral activity, etc., but that does not constitute “scientific” proof in the sense that, for example, physicists would require to accept the existence of the Higgs Boson particle.

The medical community is under pressure to “do something” about AIDS so their best option is to act “as if” HIV is a virus and treat it as such. Given some success, this approach has been vindicated to some extent, but that does not amount to scientific certainty regardless of the political pressure to accept it as such.

The Perth Group has a point.

Is this relevant to the OP, and if so how?

You tell me. You raised the issue.

By far the highest death rate from AIDS is amongst straight men and women in Sub-Saharan Africa, and over 2 million children there are infected. So if AIDS is a judgment from God, as you appear to be claiming, it would not be against sodomites, but African kids.

If AIDS in Africa is the result of a number of conditions unrelated to HIV, then the reason for AIDS (acquired immune deficiency) among “sodomites” in North America would not be the same as for straight men, women and children in Africa.

The point being that accepting HIV as a “workable” or “theoretical” cause for AIDS in Africa does not prove that it necessarily is because the evidence, to date, is insufficient. That does not mean a reasonable abductive case cannot be made for treatment “as if” HIV is the cause, but, as far as the science goes, researchers need to keep an open mind, just as physicists do. That means being true to their methodology.

 

[inocente]

Yes, more people are killed from accidents than from sodomy.

But how does that play into moral relativism?

The purpose of getting into a car is to get from one place to another.

You’re apparently arguing that one is immoral due to the death rate in your locality, and that the other is not immoral because even though it has a higher death rate, you find a car convenient. Is that your argument?

The purpose (and the disastrous effect) of sodomy is so vile it can hardly be described in vivid detail by civilized people.

A couple of days ago you said “Moral relativism is based on subjective experiences”, and now you’re explicitly referring to subjective opinions. I find seeing octopus or snails on a plate vile. Muslims find scantily clad tourists vile. The Taliban find women who are not in burkas vile. Some people think Catholics practice cannibalism (catholic.com/quickquestions/can-the-cannibalism-charge-be-true) and find that vile. Ban everything that anyone thinks is vile. Or live and let live.

earstohear.net/Separation/sodomy.html

Did you read this or didn’t you?

A bit of it, but I’m not interested in reading reactionary American blogs and old anonymous emails. As usual the far greater number of heterosexuals who engage in these practices are apparently immune to these diseases .

Is any of this relevant to the OP?

 

[inocente]

The point, I suspect, that ought to be taken from the Perth Group’s contention is somewhat akin to the part the Higgs-Boson particle plays in physics.

Armchair theorizing is against the pledge taken by medicos to place the health of their patient first.

You tell me. You raised the issue.

No, it was another poster who started talking about AIDS. Is it relevant to the OP?

*If AIDS in Africa is the result of a number of conditions unrelated to HIV, then the reason for AIDS (acquired immune deficiency) among “sodomites” in North America would not be the same as for straight men, women and children in Africa.

The point being that accepting HIV as a “workable” or “theoretical” cause for AIDS in Africa does not prove that it necessarily is because the evidence, to date, is insufficient. That does not mean a reasonable abductive case cannot be made for treatment “as if” HIV is the cause, but, as far as the science goes, researchers need to keep an open mind, just as physicists do. That means being true to their methodology.*

As I think no one on this thread is an authority on immunology, I’ll continue to take my information from well respected health sources rather than minority interest groups.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

A bit of it, but I’m not interested in reading reactionary American blogs and old anonymous emails. As usual the far greater number of heterosexuals who engage in these practices are apparently immune to these diseases .

Is any of this relevant to the OP?

Yes. “The wages of sin is death.” Ask those hundred of thousands of heterosexual and homosexual sodomites who died of AIDS when you get to the other side. Ask them if they thought they should have followed the natural law. Or ask them if they were too stupid to follow it.

 

[OurLadysServant]

The catechism states that any sexual act outside of a sacramental marriage between a husband and wife is a mortal sin that permanently seperate a person from God, so of try were to die unrepentant and without confessing, that they would end up in hell for all eternity.
The situations you’ve mentioned are mortal sin, because sexual acts are only permitted by God between a husband and wife for the creation of children. So masturbation is also a mortal sin according to the catechism.

Any sexual act or deliberate homosexuality is serious mortal son because God only created inter course for a married mother and father to create children. So it’s completely sinful to engage in any acts at all outside of this.

The standard natural law argument against homosexual activity runs something like this:

1. The purpose of the sexual organs is procreation.
2. It is wrong to use an organ in a way that thwarts its purpose.
3. Homosexual acts use the sexual organs in ways that thwart procreation.
4. Therefore, homosexual acts are wrong.

I hope I have clearly and fairly expressed the argument, and I’m open to revisions.

The problem with this argument, as I see it, is that Premise 3 is false. Sodomy could be used to thwart procreation, but it could be used in other ways too. For example, it’s conceivable to participate in homosexual acts, but only ejaculate with one’s opposite sex spouse. It is hard to understand how this would be thwarting procreation – however otherwise objectionable the course of action is!

Now, despite the flaw in this particular argument, I believe its conclusion is true – both because of the my own instinctive moral sense, and because of the revelation of Scripture and Tradition.

There is another natural law argument against homosexual acts, one that I’m not sure I’ve heard anyone but myself give. It heralds back to the first dawn of natural law theory, with Aristotle. Here it is:

1. Human beings have a distinctive telos, or purpose.
2. Any type of action that tends toward the thwarting of one’s telos (or other people’s telos) is wrong.
3. The telos of a human being is happiness.
4. Homosexual actions tend to lead to unhappiness in oneself or others.
5. Therefore, homosexual actions are wrong.

Now, let me right off the bat respond to a few objections:

Objection 1: Premise #4 is false, or questionable.

I have sympathy with this objection. The jury’s still out on whether homosexual actions tend to lead to unhappiness. But if you read through histories about this stuff, even in pre-Christian cultures, authors generally connect homosexual activity (at least among men) with hedonism, and the modern link between homosexual activity and promiscuity suggests a similar connection.

Now, you might say “different people have different ideas of happiness”. But what does that matter? Happiness is a real thing. It is possible to thrive as a human being. And quite honestly, if I saw all the sexually active gay people I know thriving, I wouldn’t oppose homosexual activity at all. But I don’t see them thriving.

Objection 2: This argument is utilitarian.

It’s not, though. The argument does not evaluate individual actions on the basis of their actual or expected results. The argument evaluates action types on the basis of one result: happiness. The argument is consequentialist, in some broad sense, but not utilitarian. I follow Aristotle and Aquinas in believing that good actions tend to have good consequences, and bad actions tend to have bad consequences. (Thus, I reject Kant entirely).

An advantage to my argument: It compares very favorably to Romans 1, the Bible’s only extended treatment of homosexuality. In Romans 1, we see people exchanging true happiness for a shadow of that happiness: idolatry and lust. In order for this to happen, their “hearts” had to be “darkened” – they had to lose sight of what real happiness was. Romans 1 says that their passions were “unnatural”, but it does not say this with respect to their genitals, but with respect to their intellect. They were like drug users who didn’t understand that the costs of drug use outweigh the pleasures of drug use.

I’d love some constructive criticism. **Please **don’t use this thread as a place to denigrate gay people.

 

[OurLadysServant]

The catechism states that any sexual act outside of a sacramental marriage between a husband and wife is a mortal sin that permanently seperate a person from God, so if that person were to die unrepentant and without confessing, that they would end up in hell for all eternity.
The situations you’ve mentioned are mortal sin, because sexual acts are only permitted by God between a husband and wife, it’s adultery for any type of physical contact outside of catholic marriage for the creation of children. So masturbation is also a mortal sin according to the catechism.

Any sexual act outside of marriage between husband and wife or deliberate homosexuality is serious mortal sin because God only created inter course for a married mother and father to create children. So it’s completely mortal sin to engage in any acts at all outside of this.

The standard natural law argument against homosexual activity runs something like this:

1. The purpose of the sexual organs is procreation.
2. It is wrong to use an organ in a way that thwarts its purpose.
3. Homosexual acts use the sexual organs in ways that thwart procreation.
4. Therefore, homosexual acts are wrong.

I hope I have clearly and fairly expressed the argument, and I’m open to revisions.

The problem with this argument, as I see it, is that Premise 3 is false. Sodomy could be used to thwart procreation, but it could be used in other ways too. For example, it’s conceivable to participate in homosexual acts, but only ejaculate with one’s opposite sex spouse. It is hard to understand how this would be thwarting procreation – however otherwise objectionable the course of action is!

Now, despite the flaw in this particular argument, I believe its conclusion is true – both because of the my own instinctive moral sense, and because of the revelation of Scripture and Tradition.

There is another natural law argument against homosexual acts, one that I’m not sure I’ve heard anyone but myself give. It heralds back to the first dawn of natural law theory, with Aristotle. Here it is:

1. Human beings have a distinctive telos, or purpose.
2. Any type of action that tends toward the thwarting of one’s telos (or other people’s telos) is wrong.
3. The telos of a human being is happiness.
4. Homosexual actions tend to lead to unhappiness in oneself or others.
5. Therefore, homosexual actions are wrong.

Now, let me right off the bat respond to a few objections:

Objection 1: Premise #4 is false, or questionable.

I have sympathy with this objection. The jury’s still out on whether homosexual actions tend to lead to unhappiness. But if you read through histories about this stuff, even in pre-Christian cultures, authors generally connect homosexual activity (at least among men) with hedonism, and the modern link between homosexual activity and promiscuity suggests a similar connection.

Now, you might say “different people have different ideas of happiness”. But what does that matter? Happiness is a real thing. It is possible to thrive as a human being. And quite honestly, if I saw all the sexually active gay people I know thriving, I wouldn’t oppose homosexual activity at all. But I don’t see them thriving.

Objection 2: This argument is utilitarian.

It’s not, though. The argument does not evaluate individual actions on the basis of their actual or expected results. The argument evaluates action types on the basis of one result: happiness. The argument is consequentialist, in some broad sense, but not utilitarian. I follow Aristotle and Aquinas in believing that good actions tend to have good consequences, and bad actions tend to have bad consequences. (Thus, I reject Kant entirely).

An advantage to my argument: It compares very favorably to Romans 1, the Bible’s only extended treatment of homosexuality. In Romans 1, we see people exchanging true happiness for a shadow of that happiness: idolatry and lust. In order for this to happen, their “hearts” had to be “darkened” – they had to lose sight of what real happiness was. Romans 1 says that their passions were “unnatural”, but it does not say this with respect to their genitals, but with respect to their intellect. They were like drug users who didn’t understand that the costs of drug use outweigh the pleasures of drug use.

I’d love some constructive criticism. **Please **don’t use this thread as a place to denigrate gay people.