Homosexuality and Natural Law -- A Concern

[Prodigal_Son]

Continuation of last post…

“It’s wrong to use instruments/organs for some purpose they weren’t intended for” is obviously false. But “It’s wrong to use instruments for some purpose they were intended NOT to be used for” would appear to be true, if there are concretely bad consequences of using them for the non-intended purpose.

For example, using a stovetop to light a cigarette is wrong – it was definitely intended NOT to be used for that purpose.

So there’s a big difference between “not intended” and “intended not”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This seems like a highly obscure notion of “purpose”. Could you define it?

The telos (purpose) is that for the sake of which activity in an object occurs. Thus the telos of a cocooned caterpillar is a butterfly, the telos of an acorn is a tree, and so on. The telos is the “finished product”. Examples that don’t reach the telos – caterpillars that don’t become butterflies – are either defective in some way, or they are interfered with by some external force.

So Aristotle thought, for example, that a virtuous person could only be kept from happiness because of external events that get in her way.

When scientists use the word “purpose”, it has several asterisks attached to it (and some are philosophy savvy enough to note this). To say an animal has a purpose within an ecosystem is to say it is necessary for that animal to be there for the ecosystem to function as it does. No one is making any claims that the animal should be there or that the ecosystem should function as it does, however. No prescriptive or teleological claims are actually being made with such a usage of “purpose”. Nor is anyone saying that nature “cares” in any sense about what happens to the ecosystem.

Would the universe be no better or worse a place, if it had no ecosystems? Isn’t an ecosystem a good thing, independent of our opinions about it?

I’m not sure what this extra level of abstraction is really doing for us though. Can’t we just talk about what’s good for us (because, as you say, that is easy to tell just by looking in many cases) rather than guess about purposes based on theology? If they truly are identical, and the good is easier to recognize than purposes, then why not just work with the good?

This is a good point (although the notion of telos has nothing to do with theology). I could quite possibly make my argument simpler, if I took out any hint of teleology:

1. People should seek to be happy, since happiness is good.
2. People should try and make other people happy, since happiness is good.
3. Homosexual activity does not tend toward happiness, for oneself or others.
4. Homosexual activity should (prima facie) be avoided.

Now this argument is simpler, but it’s too simple. It’s utilitarian, and that bugs me, since I think utilitarianism is just bad philosophy. Also, it’s conclusion is wishy-washy. It seems to say that homosexual activity would be fine, in exactly those cases where it led to increased happiness. (In just the same way, utilitarians can never prove anything more than that we should “usually” not rape people.)

Let’s try this, Oreo. You give me an argument that rape is always wrong – which I imagine we both agree about. And then I’ll see if your argument can be used as a template for a stronger and simpler argument against homosexual acts – even if you don’t end up agreeing to the argument. At worst, we’ll be doing some interesting intellectual exercises.

You game?

Okay, rereading your premise, I see you specified that homosexual actions were the culprit. My apologies, but the claim still seems equally baffling.

Well, if you look simply at the lives of gay men, for example, they are more likely to be promiscuous and suicidal and addicted to drugs, etc, than the rest of the population. I’m sure that living with loving partners isn’t the problem in their lives – nor are hugs the problem, nor is intimate conversation, nor is quality time spent with other gay men. None of those things plausibly cause suffering.

So there are, as I see it, two possibilities: (1) This sort of self-destructive behavior is caused by societal stigma, or (2) This sort of self-destructive behavior is caused by homosexual activity of some sort.

Now I know the party line is #1, but I haven’t seen dramatic decreases in promiscuity/suicide/drug-addiction in places where homosexual activity is acceptable. So I think the jury’s still out. If #2 is the cause, then my argument works.

I’m open to saying that “the jury’s still out” on my argument. Are you open to saying that we don’t have proof that all the self-destructive behavior of gay men is caused by social stigma?

 

[Leibniz]

The argument against homosexuality you made in your original post does not seem to make any sense to me either, and so if that is the argument you are getting from people, then I can understand why you would disagree with them.

If Paul tells us that it is better to remain a virgin that to get married (which I take to be something that is true in certain particular times and places, rather than for all persons everywhere), then that right there would seem to “thwart” the purpose of sexual organs from the start. It makes no sense to claim that homosexuality is worse than lifetime virginity because homosexuality thwarts the true purpose of the sex organs.

The argument against homosexual activity is that it produces a disordered style of living. Although I think the term “disordered” by the Church often confuses the issue and hurts more than helps when trying to explain things, the main idea here is that homosexual activity has ill effects both on the individual and society is large. I have zero doubt that this is true.

Human sexuality is a wonderful but dangerous thing, and outside of the sacramental marriage bond where two people are committed to raising children in the Church should God grant them the opportunity, sex always boils down to power and vanity, and always produces delusions and jealousies. This is why pornography is bad.

And when you write, “Some couples seriously intend to build unity through their sexual activity,” I find it hard to laugh out loud at the absurdity of that statement. It is completely at odds with human nature. What is romantic love really? It is usually an immature ego defense mechanism whereby persons escape into a fantasy of psychological union with another person which supposedly helps to complete them and expand their boundaries.

But it’s always built on vanity, 100% of the time. What story in the Bible approves of the kind of romantic love we see in Romeo & Juliet? None that I am aware of. Certain marriages produce children and inheritances and stable dynasties, but these are based on hard practical realities, not on romance.

Now you might argue, “Sure, but so what if a few individuals pursue a few silly romantic dreams? How does it really affect society at large?” Well in the case of homosexual lifestyles, it affects society a great deal, because homosexuality strikes at the core of traditional gender roles, especially masculinity.

Is there any doubt that traditional masculinity is under tremendous assault in our present culture? Is there any doubt that advocates of homosexual activity tend to be most against traditional masculinity?

This is largely a political issue, to be honest, and one that involves idolatry to the state. Although I know a lot of Catholics don’t want to hear this, religious culture suffers greatly when political power grows too centralized and bureaucratic, and this is the very anti-thesis of the Catholic ideal of subsidiarity where local families and communities assume as much political power as is practically possible.

In a society where homosexuality is praised, however, there is a devaluation of male authority on a local and family level, and much more power is demanded to be exercised by the distant state. It is in this type of top-heavy environment where homosexuality thrives, because without well-distributed authority, there is little need for masculinity in society at all. This is all connected to feminism and homosexuality, which seek to expand state power at the expense of local power, because local power consists of masculine leaders who are thought to be backwards and out of control.

The more you have promiscuous men who say things like “I’m a lover, not a fighter”, and the more you have women who say things like “I don’t need any man to be happy, and the police and the state give me all the protection I need,” and the more you have gay men say things like “I like being submissive to other men,” and the more you have gay women say things like “I can do anything a man can do better, because men add nothing to society,” then you start to have huge problems. All of these sentiments tend to produce people who want an expanded and centralized state bureaucracy, and who eschew traditional morality and local community control over lifestyles and morals. All of these things are bad.

 

[edwest2]

Perhaps this article will help clarify:

ncregister.com/daily-news/colo.-bishops-court-ruling-misinterprets-marriage/

Peace,
Ed

 

[Oreoracle]

The telos (purpose) is that for the sake of which activity in an object occurs. Thus the telos of a cocooned caterpillar is a butterfly, the telos of an acorn is a tree, and so on. The telos is the “finished product”.

Okay, so basically telos is what will happen to something without outside intervention. Gotcha.

Would the universe be no better or worse a place, if it had no ecosystems? Isn’t an ecosystem a good thing, independent of our opinions about it?

My point was that, insofar as scientists are speaking of science, no prescriptions are made within biology. Biology doesn’t side with certain lifeforms like humans side with sports teams. If a new species eventually emerged which supplanted humans, biology would be indifferent.

In fact, biology really doesn’t make the claim that life is good. It asserts that biodiversity contributes to the stability of life on Earth, but it doesn’t state that life should exist on Earth. That’s what humans do.

Now this argument is simpler, but it’s too simple. It’s utilitarian, and that bugs me, since I think utilitarianism is just bad philosophy.

As a utilitarian myself, I think you’ve oversimplified it quite a bit here. Utilitarians are well aware of the arguments used against them, and variations of the philosophy have formed to address them.

For example, you say that it leads to wishy-washy conclusions since very few actions are ever definitively ruled out. Firstly, I think this is actually an advantage of utilitarianism. If the court systems have taught us anything, it’s that having several rules leads to endless contradictions, and ad hoc means have to used to circumvent every conflict of the rules. Having one very flexible rule is quite powerful in comparison.

In practice, most utilitarians are rule utilitarians. Rule utilitarianism advocates the following: 1) Observe how various behaviors affect happiness. 2) Prescribe rules that, if followed, would maximize happiness in most cases. 3) When the rules do not tend to maximize happiness, tweak them. In other words, you use rules, but the rules are not absolute. They are held accountable to the greatest happiness principle and must be adjusted as new data about happiness emerges. (I am also what is called a “preference utilitarian”; that is, I define happiness as preference satisfaction.)

Personally, I think the greatest happiness principle alone is sufficient for most simple cases, but when great uncertainty is involved, the prescribed rules should be used instead. I will illustrate with the rape example you brought up.

Let’s try this, Oreo. You give me an argument that rape is always wrong – which I imagine we both agree about. And then I’ll see if your argument can be used as a template for a stronger and simpler argument against homosexual acts – even if you don’t end up agreeing to the argument. At worst, we’ll be doing some interesting intellectual exercises.

You game?

Sure. Using the “naïve” version of utilitarianism you originally had in mind, you correctly predicted that I can’t say rape is wrong, on the basis of consequences, in absolutely every case. It is conceivable that the following could occur, for example: The victim has the evidence that has been left on her by her rapist tested for DNA, and during the inspection, it is discovered that she has a serious STD that the rapist didn’t give her, and it is discovered in time to treat it. More outlandish things have happened.

Now you will say that this is incredibly unlikely, and I agree. This is why, regardless of the potential payoff of rape, it’s unlikelihood makes naïve use of the greatest happiness principle risky. So we should resort to our provisional rules: Rape is usually detrimental to happiness, so I must assume beforehand that a particular case will be detrimental.

Well, if you look simply at the lives of gay men, for example, they are more likely to be promiscuous and suicidal and addicted to drugs, etc, than the rest of the population.

Correlations are flimsy things. For all we know, they may be more suicidal because of the stigma placed on them, for example. As for promiscuity, that isn’t necessarily wrong in itself by my reckoning. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that humans aren’t naturally monogamous.

So there are, as I see it, two possibilities: (1) This sort of self-destructive behavior is caused by societal stigma, or (2) This sort of self-destructive behavior is caused by homosexual activity of some sort.

Now I know the party line is #1, but I haven’t seen dramatic decreases in promiscuity/suicide/drug-addiction in places where homosexual activity is acceptable. So I think the jury’s still out. If #2 is the cause, then my argument works.

As a rule, I never use statistical correlation alone to infer causation. If it doesn’t make sense on an a priori basis that A would cause B, and A and B are correlated, that is a sign that something deeper is going on–a lurking variable perhaps. It’s possible that the reality of the situation is highly counterintuitive, but it’s unlikely. And frankly it doesn’t make any sense that gay sex would cause misery but homosexuality by itself wouldn’t.

And of course I’m open to saying that gay sex alone may be the culprit somehow, but it seems staggeringly unlikely to me. An example they use in statistics textbooks of suspicious correlations is the correlation between ice cream sales and drowning deaths (they are correlated because they both occur frequently during summertime). To me, saying gay sex causes misery is comparable to asserting that ice cream sales contribute to drowning.

 

[davidv]

Okay, so basically telos is what will happen to something without outside intervention. Gotcha.{snip}

I don’t think was an accurate account of the statement. Telos also can be interfered with by internal defects.

 

[Oreoracle]

I don’t think was an accurate account of the statement. Telos also can be interfered with by internal defects.

Suppose I were presented with an object with which humans are not familiar. How do I judge whether or not it is defective? It doesn’t matter whether the method is very practical, so long as it can be done in principle.

 

[davidv]

Suppose I were presented with an object with which humans are not familiar. How do I judge whether or not it is defective? It doesn’t matter whether the method is very practical, so long as it can be done in principle.

Research. If all the research fails to identify who created it and for what purpose, whether it is defective is not determinable.

 

[Oreoracle]

Research. If all the research fails to identify who created it and for what purpose, whether it is defective is not determinable.

So what happens if the object doesn’t have a creator? Is it purposeless? As Prodigal_Son said, he is using a definition that doesn’t require creators.

 

[wmw]

But that’s why I proposed the second argument. The second argument is about happiness and thriving. If – as you say – sodomy and masturbation involve various types of hidden and non-hidden harms, then they are directly opposed to happiness.

An argument based on happiness is even worse. All will find it impossible to deem others objectively unhappy without themselves also agreeing. Happy comes from the same root word as happenstance. Happy essentially means, “I’m feeling good about my circumstances and good fortune”. It’s not something that one can say you are or are not about others.

 

[davidv]

So what happens if the object doesn’t have a creator?

I know of no such objects and only one being that qualifies.

Is it purposeless?

The one uncreated being that I know of appears to have a significant purpose.

As Prodigal_Son said, he is using a definition that doesn’t require creators.

Prodigal_Son will have to address this.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

An argument based on happiness is even worse. All will find it impossible to deem others objectively unhappy without themselves also agreeing. Happy comes from the same root word as happenstance. Happy essentially means, “I’m feeling good about my circumstances and good fortune”. It’s not something that one can say you are or are not about others.

I’m talking about the Greek word “eudaimonia” actually. It means something like “well-being”, but is usually translated “happiness”.

As for the root of the word “happy”, that root doesn’t really function much in the way we use the word today. Words outgrow their roots. You’re right that many people think of happiness as a feeling, but I specified that I don’t mean the type of happiness that is a mere feeling. If you like, substitute the word “flourishing” or “well being”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I rather like the argument, and I think it probably IS more useful in our current secular climate than the other. People tend to be more interested in the telos of the whole human being rather than the telos of individual parts.

This may be because you cannot understand the telos of a part without understanding the telos of the whole. It would be unclear why you shouldn’t use a piece of cheese as a doorstop unless you understood that cheese was for human nourishment. Once we understand what human happiness/flourishing is, then we can ask the question of how the genitals contribute to this happiness/flourishing – which is the question you proposed to answer by the procreation/unity duo.

That said, my only concern is the one of which you are already aware: The problem with establishing Premise #4 as a fact. I think you have a good start, here, I just think it bears much deeper digging to have an impact on the secular scene right now. People are so very resistant to believing that homosexual actions cause unhappiness that there will have to be rather compelling arguments for why it does so, as well as rather compelling arguments for a certain objective definition of happiness that is clearly incompatible with homosexual actions. I think the opponents are often misguided enough that one would have to come up with an objective standard of “thriving” and show that not only are active homosexuals not thriving, but they are not thriving precisely because of their homosexual acts.

That’s all absolutely correct. My hope isn’t to convince someone when I have the conversation, though: it’s only to plant a seed of doubt in their minds. Then, when they observe the world and see the negative results in the lives of various sexually active gay folks, they see the situation more objectively.

I want to see the situation objectively too. I’m open to being proven wrong about Premise #4. I think I’m right, but I could be wrong.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Prodigal_Son will have to address this.

This is good stuff – thanks, guys.

The question of determining defects in an object *can *be relativized to the creator of the object, and this could be done in an entirely secular fashion – so long as the existence of God could be proved rationally. Aquinas thought it could. (Mind you, this wasn’t the Christian God, necessarily. There’s nothing overtly Christian about the type of God that Aquinas thought could be proven from secular principles.)

But even if one establishes that an all-powerful, all-good Being created you with a purpose, you have no reason to fulfill this purpose unless the purpose conforms to your objective good: happiness.

Now suppose we don’t relativize the nature of a telos to any creator. In this case, it may nevertheless be possible to *recognize *a creature who is achieving its telos. This would be an art, not a science. But you know it when you see it. When I use a good drill, I know it is good because of how it drills into a block of wood. When I see a healthy person, I know that health is good because it constitutes a form of human thriving. It would be absolutely nonsensical to me for someone to say that health was a bad thing, despite the fact that I cannot give a discursive proof of why health is good.

And Oreo, when you said that you are a preference utilitarian, you are forced to give exactly this sort of defense of your position. When asked the question, “What is so important about satisfying human preferences?” you have to answer that you just recognize it as a good. There is no other answer.

Any system of ethics is founded on some sort of teleology, some sort of notion of objectively desirable ends.

 

[Oreoracle]

This is good stuff – thanks, guys.

The question of determining defects in an object *can *be relativized to the creator of the object, and this could be done in an entirely secular fashion – so long as the existence of God could be proved rationally. Aquinas thought it could. (Mind you, this wasn’t the Christian God, necessarily. There’s nothing overtly Christian about the type of God that Aquinas thought could be proven from secular principles.)

I am interested in the case where a creator isn’t being used to account for the purposes and defects. Consider this scenario: I am confronted with a foreign object with which no human is familiar. Upon examination of the object, I find that it serves a certain purpose rather well. In fact, I begin to suspect that that might be the purpose of the object. But how do I know that this particular object doesn’t have a larger purpose, and this particular use that I have in mind only arises because the object is actually defective?

An example of this sort of thing appeared in the case of the Scopes Monkey Trial. The example was meant to rebut the irreducible complexity argument of intelligent design, but it works here too. People who are familiar with mousetraps know perfectly well what they are made to do, but imagine that you have never seen such a thing and you found a damaged mousetrap with some pieces missing. You might find that it would make a perfectly good tie-clip, and you may suspect that that’s its purpose. So it could be difficult to distinguish purposes from accidental uses due to defects.

Personally, I do not make teleological assumptions for objects I don’t know to have been created for a purpose. If someone discovers a random widget in the woods and two different people find uses for it, I don’t consider it important to decide which use is the “correct” one. The potential uses can be judged on their own merits, no teleology needed.

And Oreo, when you said that you are a preference utilitarian, you are forced to give exactly this sort of defense of your position. When asked the question, “What is so important about satisfying human preferences?” you have to answer that you just recognize it as a good. There is no other answer.

I assert that this is true of all moral codes. Everyone has their axioms. For example, in divine command theory, it is axiomatic that whatever God dictates is good. There is no defense of that position. You either buy into it or you don’t. There are various ways of rephrasing the assumption. You could avoid stating it as an axiom and simply define God to be good, but that amounts to the same thing.

Now I do have a rationale for my position, though I don’t consider it a proof. You could keep asking “well why does that matter?” until I eventually can’t answer a question, just as I could do if I questioned your morality.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Good – this was pretty much precisely how I was going to respond to Hopey, myself.

See my reply to KindredSoul above. I take it for granted that gay sex can be shown to be wrong without recourse to any religious premises. Thus, I am in the tradition of Aquinas and Robert George, for example, both of whom make secular arguments on this subject.

Nevertheless, I’m enjoying your comparison between marriage and the Trinity.

There is nothing wrong with an argument taking its strength from BOTH secular and religious premises.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think this starting point makes this argument flawed. In my view, natural law applies to persons, not the individual parts of persons.

Also, it can be argued that procreation is not the sole purpose of the sexual organs. In fact it is the ordered use of the sexual organs in the marital embrace that is ordered toward the unity of the spouses.

This leaves the argument open to many red herrings related to the varies parts of the body and their appropriate use.

Well, no, actually.

One of the purposes of the circulatory system is to supply oxygen to cells and remove waste carbon dioxide from cells. It does this in conjunction with the respiratory system that hands off oxygen to red blood cells and receives carbon dioxide from them. In effect, it is two different systems in one body that work together for a specific function.

That function has an undeniable purpose - to keep a human individual alive by supplying an absolutely necessary element to every cell in the body for the life of the individual.

If one or both of the systems is compromised, then O/CO2 transference does not occur and the “end” or telos of keeping a biological life form alive has been thwarted.

It is not a “red herring” to claim smoking is morally wrong because it compromises or thwarts the purpose of respiration/circulation. Neither is it a red herring to claim tobacco companies were morally wrong to hide that knowledge from the public.

The reproductive system in humans is not two coordinated systems working together, as described above, but two “parts” of one system distributed between two complementary individuals. The telos is unity (physical, emotional, spiritual, social, intellectual) towards procreation because the end result - a new human being - is best served not merely by a physical union, but a continued unity on all levels between the original complementary pair such that the “good” of the new procreated human being(s) is promoted for the long term.

It just so happens that the unity (on all levels) of the male and female individuals in the pair also meets the end good (telos) of both of them because it is in their nature to be made “happy” (in the Aristotelian sense of eudaimonia - fulfillment of “what” each are as sexual beings by their very nature) and complete by their unity (on all levels) through time.

It also, just so happens, that the unity of male-female pairs - as tending to the end good of any offspring and the couples themselves - also serves the end good of the social order.

There is no red herring here, just a failure to understand the scope of the argument.

“One redding herring does not a summer make.” - Harry Stotle

 

[Peter_Plato]

Also, it can be argued that procreation is not the sole purpose of the sexual organs. In fact it is the ordered use of the sexual organs in the marital embrace that is ordered toward the unity of the spouses.

Properly understood, the argument is that the unity of the spouses (physical, emotional, spiritual, social, intellectual) properly orders the use of sexual organs towards procreation BECAUSE each resulting child is the embodiment of their unity on all those levels. The child IS the physical, emotional, spiritual, social and intellectual unity of the spouses embodied in new form. That is the entire point of why (purpose) the reproductive system is distributed between two individuals and not merely integrated into one.

 

[inocente]

I certainly agree. Straight people who commit sodomy are no less guilty of “the homosexual sin” than gay people are.

All the heterosexuals who do oral sex, far far more of them than gays, drive a coach and horses through your natural law argument yet they get away with it. That is what Romans 1 is all about, Paul isn’t condemning gays, his argument is that “you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgement on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things”.

You seem to assume that all harms associated with homosexuality are caused by discrimination. Do you have evidence for this assumption?

There’s a mountain of evidence that unjust discrimination causes harm, for instance by men against women, by whites against blacks. I’m not aware of any evidence that homosexuality of itself is harmful, i.e. once discrimination is removed.

It doesn’t matter if he’s talking about all gay people. He clearly indicates that the lust for homosexual activity is an undesirable trait – which would apply equally to all people.

No Paul doesn’t. Please throw away your preconceptions and read him slowly, line by line. Ignore the chapter divisions, Paul didn’t make them. Immediately after saying “these people were filled with every kind of wickedness” he writes “Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others” as quoted above. Paul is making an argument about the hypocrisy of condemning others for what we do ourselves. He doesn’t break off in the middle to blurt out an irrelevant aside about gays.

I agree. Gay children are clearly not the sort of people Paul is talking about.

Apparently in Rome at the time the “general age of betrothal for women of the upper classes was fourteen, but for patricians as early as twelve.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_of_age#Ancient_Rome

So you’re fine telling the 15-year old lesbian girl in the pew next to you that you think Paul is saying she is “filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice” etc.

On this note, there is a VERY simple argument against gay marriage, an argument that hardly anyone is using:

1. Every child deserves a mom.
2. Legalizing gay marriage involves intentionally depriving children of moms.
3. Therefore, we should not legalize gay marriage.

I don’t understand why we aren’t marching in the streets with signs to that effect.

The obvious strategy for your opponent is to point out that in many places an individual, including LGBT, can adopt and there are far more heterosexual individuals than LGBT. There are also far more heterosexual single-parent families anyway. Yet, your opponent says, you never marched to stop that. For decades and decades you never marched to stop that, so are you really concerned about the children?

 

[opusAquinas]

Meditate on this:

1. What does being thrown out of paradise mean?
2. What does concupiscence mean?
3. What does the tendency to sin mean?
4. What does the seven deadly sins mean? What is pride, lust, anger etc.?

Let me break it down for you: go to a hospital. See all those people suffering and dying? That’s the result of sin - death entered the world. OK? Now go look at your friends and neighbors and look at yourself in the mirror? See all the tendency for the lustful desires, pridefulness, anger, jealousy etc. That’s because of the stain of Original Sin. Think how few people can love? Think how many people struggle to like themselves let alone other people. People can barely love anyone… some women can love Jesus -that’s why supporters of the early church were women but I digress…

Gay desires is a DISORDER due to Original Sin. Oral sex is permitted I think in the Catholic Church so long as the act culminates in procreation. I assume anal sex is as well… Sex is permitted between a married man and woman. The homosexual act is a sin. We hate the sin not the sinner.

Telelogically: sex is an act of love between husband and wife which leads to procreation.

Everything else “fetishes” etc etc etc homosexuality… is a disorder that come from the stain of Original Sin.

Anyone who does not clearly see this: this itself is the result of Original Sin where we can see the natural law but prefer justifying ourselves to feel good for defying God.

***Abortion and the homosexual act are evil. *** justify it all you want to feel good about yourselves as secularists do. But they are adamant that it is ok because no harm comes from it… silly again ironically this is the stain of Original Sin… where they refuse to see the harm.

Oh and does God permit these people into heaven who profess Jesus Christ as Lord… maybe He does… how merciful is God.