Homosexuality and Natural Law -- A Concern

[Peter_Plato]

Another pipe dream. The fact that you have to contrive such outrageous situations to make utilitarianism look bad proves how solid a philosophy it is.

Abortion on demand. The existing convenience preferences of some outweigh all the future life interests of hundreds of millions. It looks bad because it is bad.

And make no mistake, you can make any moral code look bad by devising a sufficiently nutty thought experiment. Under most versions of Christian morality, for example, human life is sacred and cannot be sacrificed as a means of of, say, saving other lives, even under the Principle of Double Effect. Catholicism in particular holds that human embryos are among the lifeforms protected by this tenet. So if a maniacal tyrant threatened to exterminate all life on Earth unless a single embryo was killed, we would be forced to accept our extinction under Christian morality.

If Catholicism and Christian morality is true then extinction would not be the outcome. It is only in assuming that God does NOT run the show that the maniacal tyrant is even a threat.

If God does not run the show, then in the end it wouldn’t matter even if preference utilitarianism were adopted or maniacal tyrants made absurd threats - candle in the wind and all that. Morality itself only makes sense given the existence of God. Without God, it wouldn’t ultimately matter what preferences humans adopt because, in the end, reality will fizzle.

I think this is Pascal’s point. If you assume no God the moral consequences are dire if it turns out that God does exist because you will have lived a life without reference to its ultimate purpose (if you consistently follow the moral logic of no-God and no ultimate meaning.) If you assume a God, the moral consequences are that you have lived a life as if it had ultimate moral meaning. Better to assume God than no-God if you are going to consistently live out the implications of each position.

The prisons of the world are filled with individuals who consistently live out the position that their preferences do not ultimately matter to anyone but themselves. They are the true preference utilitarians. They decide based upon their own preferences you see, because considering the preferences of others takes a step beyond preference utility. Their thinking is, “Why should I take into consideration the preferences of others when I prefer to only consider my own AND I make a judgement that overall I will be happier not being affected by having to compromise my desires trying to make others happy.”

Such a view is arguably quite consistent with preference utilitarianism and just as plausible as yours. It is just that those who adopt it disagree with you concerning the means by which ultimate happiness will be obtained. For them, self-interest trumps empathy because they are made dissatisfied by constantly having to be concerned with the misery of others in the world. There is nothing in preference utilitarianism that would, in principle, make your view necessarily more moral than theirs if it turns out that selfishness results in higher levels of preference satisfaction.

The Principle of Double Effect draws a reasonable line in hard cases. Preference utility can’t even handle soft cases.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Which is why my point was that unless he has a legitimate test of that claim (rather than some assorted anecdotes) he cannot actually conclude his final point.

So, you are saying his conclusion does not follow unless the premises are true.

That was assumed, you see, because that is in the nature of how an argument works.

Your point is trivial.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You assume that a person’s happiness correlates directly with their reported happiness. Why should we believe that?

Because if someone can’t know their own happiness, then happiness isn’t really something anyone would care about.

It is also possible that people will lie. However, it is possible to quantify the frequency with which people lie on surveys. It is therefore possible to correct for any biases lying might introduce. For example see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_desirability_bias

 

[Peter_Plato]

Catholicism in particular holds that human embryos are among the lifeforms protected by this tenet. So if a maniacal tyrant threatened to exterminate all life on Earth unless a single embryo was killed, we would be forced to accept our extinction under Catholic morality.

There is something morally dignified in standing together in the face of a common enemy. Something very repugnant in sacrificing one for the sake of all.

In fact, it could be argued that the great travesty of the crucifixion is that the crowds were willing to sacrifice one man for the sake of the nation. In being willing to sacrifice that one man, the moral dignity of humanity was razed (irony intended) to the level of beasts - amoral beings, each concerned with only the survival of their own self-interest rather than the real common good which is the moral dignity and worth of every single human being.

Catholic morality assumes the eternal destiny of each human being, which is why extinction would not be the forced option under Catholic morality. It is only the forced option under atheistic morality, if atheistic morality is, indeed, true.

 

[edwest2]

Abortion on demand. The existing convenience preferences of some outweigh all the future life interests of hundreds of millions. It looks bad because it is bad.

If Catholicism and Christian morality is true then extinction would not be the outcome. It is only in assuming that God does NOT run the show that the maniacal tyrant is even a threat.

If God does not run the show, then in the end it wouldn’t matter even if preference utilitarianism were adopted or maniacal tyrants made absurd threats - candle in the wind and all that. Morality itself only makes sense given the existence of God. Without God, it wouldn’t ultimately matter what preferences humans adopt because, in the end, reality will fizzle.

I think this is Pascal’s point. If you assume no God the moral consequences are dire if it turns out that God does exist because you will have lived a life without reference to its ultimate purpose (if you consistently follow the moral logic of no-God and no ultimate meaning.) If you assume a God, the moral consequences are that you have lived a life as if it had ultimate moral meaning. Better to assume God than no-God if you are going to consistently live out the implications of each position.

The prisons of the world are filled with individuals who consistently live out the position that their preferences do not ultimately matter to anyone but themselves. They are the true preference utilitarians. They decide based upon their own preferences you see, because considering the preferences of others takes a step beyond preference utility. Their thinking is, “Why should I take into consideration the preferences of others when I prefer to only consider my own AND I make a judgement that overall I will be happier not being affected by having to compromise my desires trying to make others happy.”

Such a view is arguably quite consistent with preference utilitarianism and just as plausible as yours. It is just that those who adopt it disagree with you concerning the means by which ultimate happiness will be obtained. For them, self-interest trumps empathy because they are made dissatisfied by constantly having to be concerned with the misery of others in the world. There is nothing in preference utilitarianism that would, in principle, make your view necessarily more moral than theirs if it turns out that selfishness results in higher levels of preference satisfaction.

The Principle of Double Effect draws a reasonable line in hard cases. Preference utility can’t even handle soft cases.

Natural law is obvious. When life becomes “I’ll make up my own rules for me, I don’t care what anyone thinks about my choices, and right and wrong is what I decide,” then you have anarchy. Millions of people going in a million different directions. When natural law is violated for selfish ends, it ignores fundamental truths. Actions have consequences. Some people think the end of life is death and nothing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ynotzap]

The question of needing an ultimate arbiter is apparent where we have so many ideas true and untrue, with the endeavor to find the truth (hopefully and sincerely) We do need an ultimate arbiter if we want a moral code that is based on truth and produces social order, harmony, justice, love and ultimate happiness. Letting billions of people who share in a common humanity, dependency, limitation in knowledge and human weakness and fallibility determine our moral code is inviting chaos. eg, Iraq’s social code is killing the opposition and many countries are doing the same which is the answer to their problems, and we know it isn’t.

there is a basic principle that determines the rightness or wrongness of our moral acts. What ever is objectively conducive to the well being of man is right, and what ever is not objectively conducive to his well-being is not. The emphasis is on “objectivity” reality apart and absolute from ourselves and subjectivity. there is overwhelming evidence that this is not the case. eg; situation ethics, whats right for you, may not be right for me etc. Truth becomes relative, instead of absolute. Our rational nature gives us a sense of good and evil. For Catholic Christians, and other Christians this arbiter is God, Jesus Christ, God-man. who determines our moral code and guaranties it because we recognize Him as the source of truth, and reality, the I Am Who Am A moral code designed to ultimately lead men to their ultimate happiness (the purpose of the moral code) is essential. A moral code without this anchor is like a ship without a rudder, being blown about by the winds of opinion.

 

[Oreoracle]

There is something morally dignified in standing together in the face of a common enemy. Something very repugnant in sacrificing one for the sake of all.

Actually, a person sacrificing themselves for the sake of many is considered honorable. That is why veterans of the military receive accolades for risking their lives and why the dead ones are remembered. The only difference is that the embryo isn’t choosing to sacrifice itself. But it’s not choosing to not sacrifice itself either, since it can’t choose at all.

Tell me, what good is the “moral dignity of every human being” if there are no human beings left because you let them become extinct over an embryo? You may as well talk about the moral dignity of gnomes, since there would be as many gnomes as humans.

Catholic morality assumes the eternal destiny of each human being, which is why extinction would not be the forced option under Catholic morality. It is only the forced option under atheistic morality, if atheistic morality is, indeed, true.

I don’t need to have faith for my morality to make sense.

 

[edwest2]

Actually, a person sacrificing themselves for the sake of many is considered honorable. That is why veterans of the military receive accolades for risking their lives and why the dead ones are remembered. The only difference is that the embryo isn’t choosing to sacrifice itself. But it’s not choosing to not sacrifice itself either, since it can’t choose at all.

Tell me, what good is the “moral dignity of every human being” if there are no human beings left because you let them become extinct over an embryo? You may as well talk about the moral dignity of gnomes, since there would be as many gnomes as humans.

I don’t need to have faith for my morality to make sense.

Then society is reduced to anarchy or tribalism.

“If we cannot have common values, common truths, sufficient communication on the essentials of human life–how to live how to respond to the great challenges of human life–then true society becomes impossible.” Pope Benedict

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

The question of needing an ultimate arbiter is apparent where we have so many ideas true and untrue, with the endeavor to find the truth (hopefully and sincerely) We do need an ultimate arbiter if we want a moral code that is based on truth and produces social order, harmony, justice, love and ultimate happiness. Letting billions of people who share in a common humanity, dependency, limitation in knowledge and human weakness and fallibility determine our moral code is inviting chaos. eg, Iraq’s social code is killing the opposition and many countries are doing the same which is the answer to their problems, and we know it isn’t.

there is a basic principle that determines the rightness or wrongness of our moral acts. What ever is objectively conducive to the well being of man is right, and what ever is not objectively conducive to his well-being is not. The emphasis is on “objectivity” reality apart and absolute from ourselves and subjectivity. there is overwhelming evidence that this is not the case. eg; situation ethics, whats right for you, may not be right for me etc. Truth becomes relative, instead of absolute. Our rational nature gives us a sense of good and evil. For Catholic Christians, and other Christians this arbiter is God, Jesus Christ, God-man. who determines our moral code and guaranties it because we recognize Him as the source of truth, and reality, the I Am Who Am A moral code designed to ultimately lead men to their ultimate happiness (the purpose of the moral code) is essential. A moral code without this anchor is like a ship without a rudder, being blown about by the winds of opinion.

Exactly true. When it becomes “two consenting adults” or “Hey. What’s the big deal?” then people can rationalize behaviors that they think are good or right for them but are actually detrimental to society at large. They think they’re free, but the biggest problem facing Western society today is slavery to sex.

Go to the CDC web site. There is an STD epidemic going on right now. And with all due respect to our gay neighbors, an upward trend in HIV/AIDS, partly based on the idea that a treatment is available now. Condoms will not do the job, and have a failure rate.

But abstinence or self-control are instantly slammed as impossible. If you don’t have sex, you get a 100% guarantee of zero STDs.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Given that you currently have a thread going about what the nature of things means, I’m not sure how an act can be “unnatural”. Do you mean the world will explode or something?

Really now, you can’t be serious? Have you actually paid attention to what I have said?
From the nature of a substance, inanimate, animate, come all its natural powers, actions, etc. An unnatural condition or situation could indeed cause an explosion in a natural thing but only if the particular substance had a potency to explode and only if the proper external forces were applied.

The human person has no potentiality to explode. But that is not what you mean, is it? But if the human person does what is unnatural ( what is opposed to the will of God) all kinds of unpleasant things will happen, not the least of which could be the loss of his soul. Look what happened to Adam and Eve and many of those in the Old Testament and the New who were punished in various ways.

The procreation rule comes from Thomas. In his opinion it’s a moral good, so he adds it to his catalog of goods in his version of natural law philosophy, cranks the handle and the rules follow from there.

But he is merely discussing Natural Law which comes from God, he didn’t invent anything. He was just showing how reason demonstrates the truth of the Natural Law which was given by God to Moses in the form of the Ten Commandments. And by the way this view was universally held, even by the Reformers, until well into the 19th century. Does that not surprise you? So, good, stiff, old Tommy, doesn’t appear to be such a crank after all - except to the " mod moderns " who know absolutely everything, just ask them, just listen to them.

But that doesn’t demonstrate that Thomas is correct to call it a moral good.

It is always a moral good to obey God.

To do that, you need to show that scripture demands it AND that it is not one of the parts of scripture we routinely ignore, such as the prohibition on eating all kinds of things (Lev 11) or the injunction to put non-celibate gay men to death (Lev 20:13).

And where did you get the Scriptures? From the Catholic Church. You need to realize that the Scriptures did not exist until toward the end of the 1st century and were pretty scarce for several hundred years after, and until the Council of Trent there was no definite, authorized Canon. So first came Tradition, the traditional teaching of the Apostles and Disciples of Christ. Only gradually was the Canon collected and finally approved. But even then not all Revealed truth was contained in the Scriptures - as St. John has told us. For Catholics then the Scriptures are subject to the Traditional teaching authority of the Church. Although I could debate the meaning of the scripture above it is not the point of this thread - we are not having a debate between Sola Scripture and Catholicism. I believe that particular debate is hundreds of years old and is going on here somewhere if you choose to find it.

Where’s the commandment?

You can find it for yourself in the Link below to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You will find all you need to know in Part III, Article 6 ( how appropriate ).

I know the Church doesn’t agree, although looking at polls it seems a lot of Catholics do.

We are all sinners, and perhaps Catholics are worse because we should know better and we have the Sacraments .

Telling teenagers that they displease God just by being how God made them can really mess them up for life.

You did notice I said " age appropriate " instruction - which is something public schools care nothing about by the way, they expose children as young as 5 to every perversity before they can hardly think. But to the point, it never hurt me or any of the kids I went to school with, so your fear is unfounded. And if you were worried you would certainly keep your kids out public schools.

You need a very strong basis before saying such a terrible thing to a minor, and I think you don’t have one. Reading scripture to her out of context before she is old enough to understand for herself is not a strong basis.

Do you think it is alright to tell her to go do whatever everyone else is doing? Honestly, that seems very odd.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

I’m not sure what we’re arguing about here. You seem to have been saying before that Paul wasn’t censuring homosexual activity. But now you say that “the idolators” (including those having gay sex) are “wicked”. OK, I’m fine with that. And then you say that we’re all wicked, and have no basis to judge other people’s souls. I’m fine with that.

But each **action **in the list of wrong actions in Romans 1 (including same-sex relations) is condemned. It is against the Law. Paul clearly believes that.

I’m not getting through.

Clearly Paul’s intent is not to enumerate sexual immorality, since he would have to be a raging homophobe to teach that consensual homosexual sex is more wicked and degrading than rape or child rape, which he doesn’t mention.

Clearly he is talking of the idolators and their activities, from the preceding sentences. So is he such a raging homophobe that he thinks every last idolator is gay? There is currently raging homophobia in America, where 35% think more than 1 in 4 Americans are gay, but could Paul really believe that everyone in Rome who is not a Jew or Christian is gay? No. He says the idolators exchanged and gave up what was natural to them, as would be the case, for instance, with heterosexuals taking part in depraved pagan ritual sex ceremonies.

Well, you tell me. If you can show me that celibate gay folks are more likely to be genuinely unhappy than sexually active gay folks, I’ll shut up.

You were talking of suicide rates, not happiness. I can’t find any reliable statistics on suicide, they all appear tainted. There are wild extrapolations which have become urban myth but have no factual basis. There are not even any accurate figures for the percentage of gays in the population. There are known causal factors such as bullying and what’s called suicide contagion in teenagers. The politicization of the subject leads to self-fulfilling prophecy from the straights who want to put gays down, the gays who want to be put down, the straights who want to raise up gays and so on.

I think philpapers just assembles papers published in other sources. After I’m more established in the field, I might try to publish it again. Most philosophers, though, think criticisms of divorce are complete bunk. Sad, but true.

Ah OK, though there are over 400 papers posted with divorce in the title.

 

[inocente]

And that would include the behaviour of those women who “exchanged natural relations for unnatural,” the men who “gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another” and commit “shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

Merely because hypocrites exist who continue to do what they condemn others for does not make “envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity” right and moral. Individuals who are “gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless” are not made righteous because hypocrites condemn them.

As Paul says, “Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them” which appears to be what you are advocating - approving “those who practice them.”

You’re still complicating things by imposing your own worldview on Paul rather than letting him teach you.

Paul is teaching people with no background in Christianity, with no bible, no CCC. They think they’ve made it now they are Christians. They don’t realize yet what it means to be part of the body of Christ. They don’t realize they have to change all their behavior. Paul opens by teaching that until they make a break with their past behavior they are morally no different from the non-Christians they look down on.

To read Romans, it’s important we know something of the historical background of Rome at the time, how Paul’s audience saw the world, what their situation was, what he wanted to teach them, rather then just wade in and confirm our preconceptions.

 

[inocente]

And telling teenagers that they are free to follow whatever inclination or whim enters their hormone laden brains can also “really mess them up for life.”

Your worst argument ever. You could use it to justify telling teenagers that they must not follow their whim to eat regular meals. Good grief!

Telling any minor that they displease God just by being how God made them is a very grave matter. It amounts to abuse and bullying unless there is a watertight reason for doing so.

Surely that is very basic morality.

 

[inocente]

Really now, you can’t be serious? Have you actually paid attention to what I have said?
From the nature of a substance, inanimate, animate, come all its natural powers, actions, etc. An unnatural condition or situation could indeed cause an explosion in a natural thing but only if the particular substance had a potency to explode and only if the proper external forces were applied.

The human person has no potentiality to explode. But that is not what you mean, is it? But if the human person does what is unnatural ( what is opposed to the will of God) all kinds of unpleasant things will happen, not the least of which could be the loss of his soul. Look what happened to Adam and Eve and many of those in the Old Testament and the New who were punished in various ways.

I can’t believe you took me seriously. I even put a on it.

It’s a bit off topic but you are using unnatural in the sense of “different from what is normal in a way that is seen as wrong, disturbing, etc.”. In other words it’s your subjective opinion.

*But he is merely discussing Natural Law which comes from God, he didn’t invent anything. He was just showing how reason demonstrates the truth of the Natural Law which was given by God to Moses in the form of the Ten Commandments. And by the way this view was universally held, even by the Reformers, until well into the 19th century. Does that not surprise you? So, good, stiff, old Tommy, doesn’t appear to be such a crank after all - except to the " mod moderns " who know absolutely everything, just ask them, just listen to them. *

That sounds as if you don’t know that natural law is a type of moral theory just as is utilitarianism or deontology, although they seem to be more popular in university classes.

There are various versions, I’ve not read this in full but it seems to give a good summary:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/

It is always a moral good to obey God.

If God tells you that it is morally good for you to tell others what they must do to obey him then by the golden rule you must allow him to tell others what you must do to obey him.

And where did you get the Scriptures? From the Catholic Church. You need to realize that the Scriptures did not exist until toward the end of the 1st century and were pretty scarce for several hundred years after, and until the Council of Trent there was no definite, authorized Canon. So first came Tradition, the traditional teaching of the Apostles and Disciples of Christ. Only gradually was the Canon collected and finally approved. But even then not all Revealed truth was contained in the Scriptures - as St. John has told us. For Catholics then the Scriptures are subject to the Traditional teaching authority of the Church. Although I could debate the meaning of the scripture above it is not the point of this thread - we are not having a debate between Sola Scripture and Catholicism. I believe that particular debate is hundreds of years old and is going on here somewhere if you choose to find it.

You have left the building bro. I am saying that if you wish others to follow yon natural law philosophy, you must show that it really does come from God, which in turn requires by your own lights that it can be derived from public (rather than private) Revelation, i.e. scripture. Then, to do that, you need to show that scripture demands it AND that it is not one of the parts of scripture we routinely ignore, such as the prohibition on eating all kinds of things (Lev 11) or the injunction to put non-celibate gay men to death (Lev 20:13).

You can find it for yourself in the Link below to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You will find all you need to know in Part III, Article 6 ( how appropriate ).

You sidestepped. You said to me “Surely you aren’t saying the scriptures condon sex which intends to avoid the production of children, or in which that result would be impossible?” and I asked where is the commandment.

You did notice I said " age appropriate " instruction - which is something public schools care nothing about by the way, they expose children as young as 5 to every perversity before they can hardly think. But to the point, it never hurt me or any of the kids I went to school with, so your fear is unfounded. And if you were worried you would certainly keep your kids out public schools.

It’s not an especially good justification to say that other people rape and pillage so why shouldn’t you.

I think you brush aside the utter terror of a child being told that she displeases God just by being how God made her, and has a cross to bear all her life, she can never be true to herself or God will punish her for eternity just for being how God made her.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I can’t believe you took me seriously. I even put a on it.

Sorry if I was mistaken.

It’s a bit off topic but you are using unnatural in the sense of “different from what is normal in a way that is seen as wrong, disturbing, etc.”. In other words it’s your subjective opinion.

No. It is the teaching of the Church that the Ten Commandments are a part of the Natural Law, but in the moral sphere. In other words, morality is based on the way God has created our human psychology.

That sounds as if you don’t know that natural law is a type of moral theory just as is utilitarianism or deontology, although they seem to be more popular in university classes.

As I just said, the moral law is an extension of the Natural Law. I can’t help what " popular " universidy classes teach. They do not determine what the natural law means in the moral sphere, God does.

There are various versions, I’ve not read this in full but it seems to give a good summary:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/

Again, I can’t help that.

If God tells you that it is morally good for you to tell others what they must do to obey him then by the golden rule you must allow him to tell others what you must do to obey him.

I don’t know that the golden rule has anything to do with it, but yes God tells us all what we must do to please me. I don’t see the meaning of your distinction here. Everyone is morally obliged to follow the Natural, Moral Law.

You have left the building bro. I am saying that if you wish others to follow yon natural law philosophy, you must show that it really does come from God, which in turn requires by your own lights that it can be derived from public (rather than private) Revelation, i.e. scripture. Then, to do that, you need to show that scripture demands it AND that it is not one of the parts of scripture we routinely ignore, such as the prohibition on eating all kinds of things (Lev 11) or the injunction to put non-celibate gay men to death (Lev 20:13).

I have given you the answer, look it up. I want you to see what the Church says. But as far as certain laws the Old Testament contained, Christ said some were laws of men which no longer applied.

You sidestepped. You said to me “Surely you aren’t saying the scriptures condon sex which intends to avoid the production of children, or in which that result would be impossible?” and I asked where is the commandment.

I didn’t sidstep the issue. I wanted you to go to the proper section of the Catechism and read it for yourself. Just look at the bottom of this page and you will find a link to the Catechism. It won’t bite you .

It’s not an especially good justification to say that other people rape and pillage so why shouldn’t you.

What in the world are you talking about? Here is what I said, " You did notice I said " age appropriate " instruction - which is something public schools care nothing about by the way, they expose children as young as 5 to every perversity before they can hardly think. But to the point, it never hurt me or any of the kids I went to school with, so your fear is unfounded. And if you were worried you would certainly keep your kids out public schools. " Please explain how your response is realated to what I said.

think you brush aside the utter terror of a child being told that she displeases God just by being how God made her, and has a cross to bear all her life, she can never be true to herself or God will punish her for eternity just for being how God made her.

The Scripture you mentined is read at Mass on a regular four year cycle along with much of the Scriptures. So far I haven’t seen any one, young or old, faint away in the pews. Of course the accompanying sermon does not get into gory details. Would you rather the young girl you have in mind loose her soul because the Church neglected to inform her what God expected of us? A very strange attitude.

Linus2nd

 

[sw85]

The problem with your ethical system is that it finds traction only because it lives off the vapors of more robust existing ethical systems. Its purchase is parasitic on the existence of better moral systems to form the consciences of individuals who might subscribe to it. Absent those, preference utilitarianism has no means to prevent itself from spinning out of control.

Which, really, is the (historical) problem with liberalism generally. It depends for its continued functioning on virtues which it does not itself cultivate, and which it, indeed, seeks actively to undermine.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m not getting through.

Clearly Paul’s intent is not to enumerate sexual immorality, since he would have to be a raging homophobe to teach that consensual homosexual sex is more wicked and degrading than rape or child rape, which he doesn’t mention.

Clearly he is talking of the idolators and their activities, from the preceding sentences. So is he such a raging homophobe that he thinks every last idolator is gay? There is currently raging homophobia in America, where 35% think more than 1 in 4 Americans are gay, but could Paul really believe that everyone in Rome who is not a Jew or Christian is gay? No. He says the idolators exchanged and gave up what was natural to them, as would be the case, for instance, with heterosexuals taking part in depraved pagan ritual sex ceremonies.

Clearly your ability to judge “the worst argument ever” has been put into question by the above “argument.”

Your assumption, which we have no reason to believe, is that only gay individuals will engage in gay sex. Just because - even if true - only 2-3% of human beings have a decidedly gay orientation does not mean only 2-3% of human beings will ever engage in gay sex.

Paul’s claim is that sin makes the sinner increasingly incapable of making wise prudential judgements. Addiction to sin, like every other addiction, takes away the power to make good decisions and live them out. Addiction to sexual sin is a powerful inducement towards getting sexual pleasure from whatever sources are available.

It is entirely conceivable that engaging in sex in such a way that a person becomes addicted to pleasure, that person will become more and more indiscriminate about choices of partners and the kind of sex they choose.

Paul’s words, in fact, demonstrate that he is clearly speaking of those who follow their passions - not their orientation. He is not speaking of “gay” individuals, but anyone who abdicates reason and becomes indiscriminate in following passions. That does not describe “gay” individuals, but anyone of any orientation who becomes morally stupid because of addiction to sexual sin. That could be far more than 2-3% if normative social inhibitors erode away and a proclivity to sin becomes entrenched in a post-Christian culture.

Speaking of reading into Paul what you want to see there, your experience with social behaviours comes from a post-Christian culture that hasn’t yet entirely abandoned normative Christian behaviours. Paul didn’t live in such a world. He lived in a pagan world where sexuality was not so controlled. Having a homosexual orientation is not the only reason individuals engage in gay sex. Being morally corrupted and addicted to pleasure may be another cause of engagement. That cause could create decidedly more ominous consequences and numbers than you seem willing to acknowledge.

This may, in fact, be an byproduct of accepting gay orientation as normative if that involves a failure to recognize that accepting gay individuals does not mean we ought to accept engagement in all sexual behaviours indiscriminately. Acceptance of indiscriminate sex may not increase the number of gay individuals but it may explode the number of individuals addicted to sex of all kinds, which is the reason Paul’s words about “following passions” ought to be heeded.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Your worst argument ever. You could use it to justify telling teenagers that they must not follow their whim to eat regular meals. Good grief!

Telling any minor that they displease God just by being how God made them is a very grave matter. It amounts to abuse and bullying unless there is a watertight reason for doing so.

Surely that is very basic morality.

This is nonsense.

The logic of describing eating “regular meals” as a whim highlights that you have no inclination to use words unambiguously. Do you understand what a whim is and how a whim is distinct from a reasoned prudential decision?

So your argument is that God made teenagers to follow indiscriminately every whim that comes into their brains? ADHD does not describe a condition, as far as you are concerned, but rather an ideal. Is that what you are getting at?

So it amounts to abuse to attempt to dissuade teenagers from jealousy, envy, dishonesty, sexual misconduct, and a litany of other urges that enter into the hearts of humans because all of these “whims” and desires are from God merely because they make their appearance?

Not sure what you mean by watertight but I suspect it entails a very idiosyncratic and self-interested notion of morality.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Which, really, is the (historical) problem with liberalism generally. It depends for its continued functioning on virtues which it does not itself cultivate, and which it, indeed, seeks actively to undermine.

I agree. When you strip liberalism of its pretensions and inquire into what its ends are as an ethical system it amounts to “Let me do what I want.” Yet there is no integral method by which to arbitrate the wants of some against the wants of others without resorting to some other ethical system which defines “the good” more judiciously. Liberalism doesn’t define “the good” as an end at all. As such it is more an amoral system than an ethical one with its fundamental guiding principle being, “Allow me to to be amoral if I want and I promise I won’t harm anyone.” It isn’t an ethical system at all, but the kind of whiny bartering a hormone driven adolescent would engage in.

 

[edwest2]

I agree. When you strip liberalism of its pretensions and inquire into what its ends are as an ethical system it amounts to “Let me do what I want.” Yet there is no integral method by which to arbitrate the wants of some against the wants of others without resorting to some other ethical system which defines “the good” more judiciously. Liberalism doesn’t define “the good” as an end at all. As such it is more an amoral system than an ethical one with its fundamental guiding principle being, “Allow me to to be amoral if I want and I promise I won’t harm anyone.” It isn’t an ethical system at all, but the kind of whiny bartering a hormone driven adolescent would engage in.

That’s a very good analysis. Liberalism must triumph.

William F. Buckley — ‘Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.’

Amoral behavior, which is usually presented as benign, is often overlooked. If people do not have a guide, a yardstick if you will, to measure their behavior and choices against, then we have radical individualism. This leads to social fragmentation and even isolation.

Peace,
Ed