Homosexuality and Natural Law -- A Concern

[polytropos]

Sure, but then in what sense does gay sex thwart procreation? It’s conceivable, in a given society, that the people who have gay sex are the same ones who procreate (heterosexually, of course), and that nobody who refrains from sodomy has children. In such a case, how can one argue that homosexual acts necessarily thwart procreation? (We must have the “necessarily” there because the premise is not supposed to be based on likelihoods).

In such a society, the homosexual acts do not lead to procreation; it is the homosexual acts together with a consummating heterosexual act that leads to procreation. The homosexual act itself is non-procreative in the same sense that a masturbatory act is non-procreative in the example I gave.

Here is (3) again:

1. Homosexual acts use the sexual organs in ways that thwart procreation.

The term “thwart” suggests the following reading of the premise: “If a homosexual act occurs, then procreation will not occur”. Your counterexample shows that to be false. You are right that in this case we would need the “necessarily,” and that we won’t get it. But I think this formulation is a bit strong anyway; this suggests to me that it might be better to frame the argument without the term “thwart”. I’ll think about how I would do this.

This is all a good point, but Premise #1 could be easily reworked without mentioning unitive-ness, if we just put it in the form of a necessary condition, as you suggest. Or we could mention the unitive condition – which means we have to explain how gay relationships aren’t unitive in the relevant sense (not an easy sell, perhaps).

This is definitely an area I have to think about a bit more. The procreative/unitive understanding is what the new natural lawyers propose. I tend to side with the old natural lawyers, but the old natural lawyers unfortunately have not published nearly as much work on the matter. I’m not really aware of any recent systematic treatment of sexual ethics from an old natural law perspective.

But I think that the procreative dimension itself is not sufficient, at least if it is interpreted as implying that any act that leads to some form of procreation is moral, while any act that does not is immoral. Then there is a minefield of issues one must navigate with things like premarital sex, infertile couples, etc. One could probably make due with the concept of procreation alone if one were to emphasize to a greater extent procreative-type acts rather than procreative tokens. An infertile couple is still essentially procreative in the same sense that a brain-dead patient is still essentially rational, whereas a homosexual couple is no more procreative than a doorknob. (I borrow this point from Bill Vallicella, who notices that there is a difference between infertility and not being fertile.)

None of this is very clear, but… I’ll think about it.

Or else, if social acceptance of homosexuality severs the link between homosexual activity and unhappiness, I guess my argument would fall apart (or, as you say, require an obscure understanding of happiness). But in that case, I must say, I would be theologically puzzled. I don’t know of any other type of sin that doesn’t usually make people more unhappy and dissatisfied, in the long run. I don’t know why God would create an action with a tendency toward happiness, and then forbid it.

I agree to some extent. But I think such an argument would still require a spirited attempt as severing the association of happiness with preference satisfaction and emotion.

I do think there are some sins that don’t make people unhappy and dissatisfied (in the modern sense). For example, pirating of music and movies is absolutely rampant today. I have many friends who pirate digital content with no qualms; I even used to do it until I realized what I was doing while reading an examination of conscience sheet. But of course: there is little feeling of consequence when one pirates. One obtains the desired content immediately. And one retains money to spare. I don’t think people who engage in such an activity generally start to feel unhappy.

 

[polytropos]

In such a society, the homosexual acts do not lead to procreation; it is the homosexual acts together with a consummating heterosexual act that leads to procreation. The homosexual act itself is non-procreative in the same sense that a masturbatory act is non-procreative in the example I gave.

I suppose what I am trying to say is that the homosexual act is extraneous to the procreation. By “extraneous” I don’t mean that it does not contribute to procreation at all, since it does in your example society. I decline to specify what I mean.

If sex is directed toward procreation, and if procreation is directed toward the rearing of children, then sex must also unite the spouses. But in the example you’ve given (as in the example I’ve given, where masturbation rather than a homosexual act prefaces the heterosexual consummation), the sex does not unite the spouses, and for that reason could be said not to be legitimately procreative, for the procreation itself (though it does occur eventually) is not directed toward its proper ends (the rearing of children by two united spouses).

This argument is neutral between new and old natural law; it derives the unitive requirement from the procreative.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

Dear friends,

I just have a brief thoughts about natural law. Without going into specifics, what is it actually? Is it man made or just silly rules fabricated by Churches, religions, philosophers, theologians, scholars, intellectuals, or other moralists or ethicists?

No it is not.

It is simply the laws of physics as it pertains to human behaviour.

The essence of it as I see it is as follows, and this is in conjunction with other true concepts of natural law, the Decalogue and so on. Man has altered it a bit, some more than others …

Always do something or somethingn-esse, which is Gods will. The -esse, esse refers to God. To not do Gods will is to do nothing.

Always be natural, practise naturaln-esse. Always act in accord with nature and interact with all nature in the natural way it was intended by God.

Never do harm, be harmless, harmlessn-esse. Common sense prevails here such as self-defence or defence of others, teaching and preaching, and sacrifices and so on. Use common sense.

Babies know and practise Gods law perfectly, naturally, instinctively and intuitively. As people get older they learn more about good and evil, and become more of this. Some more good or evil, it varies. But all start as perfect Love. Just my thoughts…

Adios…

Blessings & peace:thumbsup:

 

[ynotzap]

OK, I think we’re all agreed on that.

This is a statement of belief, but you don’t say why we are to believe it.

The only aspect relative to the thread, imho, is that people talk of making babies or of making love - the primary or only purpose as procreation or as confirming and experiencing the love they have for each other.

Which is more important then, procreation or love? Paul doesn’t mention making babies in 1 Cor 7. I’d suggest it must be love, since the act performed without love is mechanical, robotic, inhuman. We might say that any act performed without love is un-Christian.

So what I don’t understand is why the love of a man for another man, or a woman for another man, is automatically bracketed as lust, as if it can’t be love. To me it is highly iniquitous to tell someone that the love she feels isn’t real.

I also don’t understand why chastity has two meanings when applied to heterosexuals (moderation or exclusion) and only the latter for homosexuals.

So far no one has joined up the dots.

Ans. to first statement: Obviously because we believe and understand it to be true.

Ans. to second statement:We make no separation between procreation and love, they are essential factors in marriage.

Ans: to third statement: :Love is expressed in procreation. we don’t make an either or between love and procreation

Ans to four :
No one is saying love of a man for another man is lust, or love of a woman for a man is
lust.

Ans to five: to tell someone that the love she feels isn’t real is not iniquitous, it’s either an opinion, or a fact if it can be proven.

Chastity applies to all heterosexuals as well as homo-sexuals, married hetero-sexuals practice moderation, homo-sexuals to remain chaste practice abstinence, this was explain clearly in post l60 and in Gal 5:l6

Jesus Christ instituted the Sacrament of Marriage, and its very clear what He considered marriage, and what constituted adultery.

the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature"s participation of the eternal law. The temporal effects of the eternal law as showing itself in creatures is what we mean by the natural law. It is grounded in nature itself (rational creatures should act rationally) and manifests itself through nature or the constitution of things, or essence. the part of the Natural law governing rational creatures is the natural moral law, the eternal law is in God.

How do you explain lust? What makes human actions lustful? Is it common to all humans? Why did God include the 6 and 9th commandments in the Decalogue? Do they involve lustful acts?

Did Jesus include homo sexual marriages in His statements concerning marriage?

I don’t expect you to be convinced by my statement, or to convert you this is beyond my power. But I will stand by my faith, and my reasons to make an account of why I believe and understand. If you don’t understand my faith or reasons, then you can’t give what you don’t have and thats understandable

 

[inocente]

On the contrary, Article 6 is eminently logical. And no one would say rape and adultry are the same act. But what the Churchs says is that both violate the 6th Commandment.

I can’t believe you’re seriously arguing that an unmarried man raping an unmarried woman is adultery. I refuse to believe the Church is that daft, I think you’re on your own.

Apparently you failed to notice that the heading for paragraph 2357 is, Chastity and Homosexuality. So it is obvious that homosexuality is discussed under the topic of chastity. And paragraph 2359, under the same heading begins, " Homosexual persons are called to chastity…" So it is clear that the Church regards homosexual acts as sins against the virtue of chastity.

Que? Homosexuality is not under the heading of Offenses Against Chastity for the simple reason that being gay is not an offense according to the CCC.

But on a more substantive point, there is no reason for the CCC to say “Homosexual persons are called to chastity” when 2337 et al have already called everyone to chastity. The word is defined in 2337 as “the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being”. I don’t see how successful integration can mean one thing for straights and the dead opposite for gays.

*Don’t confuse my use of the term " goods " with Thomas’ use of the term. The Church has not " canonized " anyones philosophy. She uses the truth wherever it may be found. Whether or not the Church has in mind Aquinas’ Natural Law Theory when it mentions natural law, I have no idea. *

You appear to be admitting that Catholics who disagree with the Church on this may have done more research than you.

*But it should be obvious why procreation is regarded by the Church as one of the fundamental goods of marriage and why it regards sexual acts restricting or excluding procreation to be contrary to natural law and sins against God’s Moral Law. *

To repeat what I said in post #175:

“[Thomas’] choice of procreation as a fundamental good came from comparing human sexuality with other animals. He concluded that heterosexual sex is the mechanism designed by God to ensure the preservation of each species. For Thomas that’s the only reason why there are females - the male is necessary while the female is accidental. The female is passive, merely supplying a womb and matter for the offspring, while the male seed is the active principle which gives the offspring its form. Well reasoned but we now know it’s all wrong.”

Although procreation once appeared to be a fundamental good, we now know the reasoning was built on sand. It’s no longer at all obvious to many people, exactly the opposite in fact.

If you wish to argue that one or the other act does not fall under the 6th Commandment, you may, but then you must tell us where it should be. The Church has always treated all such acts under the 6th.

You switched into the royal we. There’s only one person in your self portrait. The CCC would only need reorganizing if your theory about rape being adultery was true. It isn’t.

*This is because, in some way, every illicit sexual act is a sin against the marriage bond. For it is only in a valid marriage between a man and a woman, that God has given the command to " increase and multiply. " And acts outside the marriage bond violate this command. Therefore all these acts fall under the 6th Commandment. Furthermore, to say that sexual acts unrelated to or exclusionary of procreation is tantemount to suggesting that God created sex as some kind of game, which I think mocks the creator and his purposes. Some how I don’t think God is into games.
*

I didn’t understand this, it seems highly circular, and the line about games would only mean anything to creationists, and maybe not then.

inocente;12197767:

As far as scripture is concerned, by far the clearest statement regarding “homosexual acts” is Leviticus 20:13, which is a command given by God himself:

“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

So I shall now argue that this modern relativist liberal weedy tolerance of gay men is in direct opposition to the word of God Almighty and will end badly.
Very good. It took you a long time to get there.

Just to be clear, do you mean you agree with God that all gay men should be put to death? If not, then on what basis do you agree with God on the first part of His command, but flout Him when it comes to the penalty?

 

[inocente]

A “Baptist” referring to Scripture as “weak”. That’s really all that I need to know about you.

To paraphrase you - A “Catholic” making scripture say anything they want. That’s really all that I need to know about you.

Do you think it’s clever to keep making these childish personal remarks? Do you think Catholics have a mandate to be juvenile, uncharitable and nasty? Do you describe the many America Catholics who agree with me on this as “Catholic”?

Please at least try to discuss the subject. Come on, there’s no need for this, it’s a very poor advertisement for Christ.

Yeah, I’m going to run this by a friend of mine who is a scholar on Thomas Aquinas. I’m quite certain that your words are a horrible mischaracterization.

It isn’t. See, for example:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=2793
iep.utm.edu/sexualit/#H9

*Child labor was fought against by the Church, so was slavery.

What you’re asserting is a gross distortion of the facts.*

I never said a word about the Church, I was responding to your lament on modernity.

So what you’re asserting is a gross distortion of the facts.

 

[josh987654321]

As far as scripture is concerned, by far the clearest statement regarding “homosexual acts” is Leviticus 20:13, which is a command given by God himself:

“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

So I shall now argue that this modern relativist liberal weedy tolerance of gay men is in direct opposition to the word of God Almighty and will end badly.

Hi inocente,

I haven’t read through all of this thread, however, just flicking through, I did come accross this post here, and I remember debating you once before and ‘Leviticus 20:13’ came up regarding this issue and when it did I didn’t have an answer for you, but I believe I do now.

I believe you have quoted Leviticus out of context.

When it comes to viewing the sexual acts of homosexuality -

Leviticus says this -
Law of Moses:

Leviticus 18:22

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

However, Leviticus also says the same about Adultery -
Law of Moses:

Leviticus 18:16

16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.

Leviticus 20:10

10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

Now I look at how Jesus fulfills the Old Testament (Matthew 5:17-20) in the New Testament -
A Woman Caught In Sin:

John 8:3-11

3 The Pharisees and the teachers of the Law of Moses brought in a woman who had been caught in bed with a man who wasn’t her husband. They made her stand in the middle of the crowd. 4 Then they said, “Teacher, this woman was caught sleeping with a man who isn’t her husband. 5 The Law of Moses teaches that a woman like this should be stoned to death! What do you say?”

6 They asked Jesus this question, because they wanted to test him and bring some charge against him. But Jesus simply bent over and started writing on the ground with his finger.

7 They kept on asking Jesus about the woman. Finally, he stood up and said, “If any of you have never sinned, then go ahead and throw the first stone at her!” 8 Once again he bent over and began writing on the ground. 9 The people left one by one, beginning with the oldest. Finally, Jesus and the woman were there alone.

10 Jesus stood up and asked her, “Where is everyone? Isn’t there anyone left to accuse you?”

11 “No sir,” the woman answered.

Then Jesus told her, “I am not going to accuse you either. You may go now, but don’t sin anymore.”

I believe that the sexual acts of homosexuality should be seen likewise.

I believe Homosexuals are no different to any one of us, I believe not one person doesn’t have an immoral desire of some kind, and I believe the morality of the act doesn’t change simply because of our desire for it, because I think that would be like giving into our every desire and saying “If God didn’t want me to do this, than he wouldn’t have given me the desire to do it.”

I believe people can see that our sexual organs are designed to be used a certain way, I’m no biologist or anything, but for me, one quick study of the human anatomy, the sexual compatibility and complementarity between a man and a woman that produces new life, I see the puzzle fitting together clearly. However I also believe there are many men and women who refuse to see this, because I believe they are afraid, because truth makes demands, truth implies obligations, truth implies commitment and because once we acknowledge the truth, living with the status quo becomes harder. However, as the light uncovers our sins, love and mercy is also there ready to cover them.

Jesus to St Faustina -

"My mercy is greater than your sins and those of the entire world. Who can measure the extent of my goodness? For you I descended from heaven to earth; for you I allowed myself to be nailed to the cross; for you I let my Sacred Heart be pierced with a lance, thus opening wide the source of mercy for you. Come, then, with trust to draw graces from this fountain. I never reject a contrite heart." (Diary, 1485).

"Oh, if sinners knew My mercy, they would not perish in such great numbers. Tell sinful souls not to be afraid to approach Me; speak to them of My great mercy" (Diary, 1396).

I remember reading something from C.S. Lewis where he said that the biggest stumbling block for people admitting an objective moral law, is that they also have to admit that they have failed to keep it.

Thus when it comes to homosexuality, I believe ‘acting’ on it is wrong, because I believe it means to use our bodies organs in a manner in which they are not designed to be used for and when it comes to same sex attraction, I believe there is not one man or woman who does not suffer from an immoral desire and that our desires are not who we are because we make that choice.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[inocente]

Then there is a minefield of issues one must navigate with things like premarital sex, infertile couples, etc. One could probably make due with the concept of procreation alone if one were to emphasize to a greater extent procreative-type acts rather than procreative tokens. An infertile couple is still essentially procreative in the same sense that a brain-dead patient is still essentially rational, whereas a homosexual couple is no more procreative than a doorknob.

Hi poly. You’ll realize that this sounds a bit like looking around for excuses to hang on to the procreation principle.

I mean, suppose following some worldwide calamity generated by naughty philosophers, all procreation had to be via in vitro. It would seem difficult to maintain that some acts are essentially procreative when there’s never any possibility of fertilization.

 

[inocente]

Ans. to first statement: Obviously because we believe and understand it to be true.

A little circular.

*Ans. to second statement:We make no separation between procreation and love, they are essential factors in marriage.

Ans: to third statement: :Love is expressed in procreation. we don’t make an either or between love and procreation*

Then I see no reason to worry about procreation, you may as well go with love or as poly says, the act must be unitive.

Chastity applies to all heterosexuals as well as homo-sexuals, married hetero-sexuals practice moderation, homo-sexuals to remain chaste practice abstinence, this was explain clearly in post l60 and in Gal 5:l6

Though neither provides any reasoning why chastity has one meaning for straights and another for gays.

*Jesus Christ instituted the Sacrament of Marriage, and its very clear what He considered marriage, and what constituted adultery.

the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature"s participation of the eternal law. The temporal effects of the eternal law as showing itself in creatures is what we mean by the natural law. It is grounded in nature itself (rational creatures should act rationally) and manifests itself through nature or the constitution of things, or essence. the part of the Natural law governing rational creatures is the natural moral law, the eternal law is in God.*

There is no law written on my heart, nor does my conscience bear witness, that the love of a man for a man is inferior or less natural than the love of a man for a woman. Love is love.

*How do you explain lust? What makes human actions lustful? Is it common to all humans? Why did God include the 6 and 9th commandments in the Decalogue? Do they involve lustful acts?

Did Jesus include homo sexual marriages in His statements concerning marriage?

I don’t expect you to be convinced by my statement, or to convert you this is beyond my power. But I will stand by my faith, and my reasons to make an account of why I believe and understand. If you don’t understand my faith or reasons, then you can’t give what you don’t have and thats understandable *

Agreed. We are only discussing here, it’s very rare for anyone to have their mind changed.

 

[inocente]

Hi inocente

Hi josh.

I believe that the sexual acts of homosexuality should be seen likewise.

I like your answer. But there are three problems. The first is that Jesus doesn’t say only those without sin can punish a thief, a murderer or a rapist for instance, so you’d have to say why you lump adultery and gay sex together and not those. That’s the main issue. The second is that Lev 20 is very specific about where it applies to everyone (e.g. verse 9) and where it applies to a man or a woman. Verse 10 only appears to apply to a man having adultery with another man’s wife, implying it’s not a big deal if he’s married but she isn’t. 13 only applies to men. Third, Lev includes adultery and gay (male) sex but the 10 commandments only specify adultery. Christians of course ignore most of Lev as being about uncleanliness. (I hope Linus knows that .)

I believe people can see that our sexual organs are designed to be used a certain way, I’m no biologist or anything, but for me, one quick study of the human anatomy, the sexual compatibility and complementarity between a man and a woman that produces new life, I see the puzzle fitting together clearly. However I also believe there are many men and women who refuse to see this, because I believe they are afraid, because truth makes demands, truth implies obligations, truth implies commitment and because once we acknowledge the truth, living with the status quo becomes harder. However, as the light uncovers our sins, love and mercy is also there ready to cover them.

This is a creationist argument though, and even then it doesn’t work (our mouths were not designed to blow a trumpet, our ears were not designed to hold up our sunglasses, etc.)

It’s very easy to say people refuse to see things your way because they’re afraid, but I could say exactly the same about you, although as it doesn’t get either of us anywhere I won’t.

I remember reading something from C.S. Lewis where he said that the biggest stumbling block for people admitting an objective moral law, is that they also have to admit that they have failed to keep it.

I’ve no problem with objective moral law, I just see it as prohibiting unjust discrimination.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I can’t believe you’re seriously arguing that an unmarried man raping an unmarried woman is adultery. I refuse to believe the Church is that daft, I think you’re on your own.

Que? Homosexuality is not under the heading of Offenses Against Chastity for the simple reason that being gay is not an offense according to the CCC.

But on a more substantive point, there is no reason for the CCC to say “Homosexual persons are called to chastity” when 2337 et al have already called everyone to chastity. The word is defined in 2337 as “the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being”. I don’t see how successful integration can mean one thing for straights and the dead opposite for gays.

You appear to be admitting that Catholics who disagree with the Church on this may have done more research than you.

To repeat what I said in post #175:

“[Thomas’] choice of procreation as a fundamental good came from comparing human sexuality with other animals. He concluded that heterosexual sex is the mechanism designed by God to ensure the preservation of each species. For Thomas that’s the only reason why there are females - the male is necessary while the female is accidental. The female is passive, merely supplying a womb and matter for the offspring, while the male seed is the active principle which gives the offspring its form. Well reasoned but we now know it’s all wrong.”

Although procreation once appeared to be a fundamental good, we now know the reasoning was built on sand. It’s no longer at all obvious to many people, exactly the opposite in fact.

You switched into the royal we. There’s only one person in your self portrait. The CCC would only need reorganizing if your theory about rape being adultery was true. It isn’t.

I didn’t understand this, it seems highly circular, and the line about games would only mean anything to creationists, and maybe not then.

Just to be clear, do you mean you agree with God that all gay men should be put to death? If not, then on what basis do you agree with God on the first part of His command, but flout Him when it comes to the penalty?

You really slipped on this one. Apparently you are simply being argumentative or you can’t understand what you are reading. It is incredible that you should respond in such a manner. My answers were perfectly clear and to the point and correct. You could respond by saying the Church is wrong, that’s fine, but you can’t truthfully deny that the Catechism says what it says in black and white. And haven’t you noticed that article 6 makes a distinction between acts and inclinations?

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

You really slipped on this one. Apparently you are simply being argumentative or you can’t understand what you are reading. It is incredible that you should respond in such a manner. My answers were perfectly clear and to the point and correct. You could respond by saying the Church is wrong, that’s fine, but you can’t truthfully deny that the Catechism says what it says in black and white. And haven’t you noticed that article 6 makes a distinction between acts and inclinations?

No, I’m completely sincere, and for that you call me an argumentative idiot. I guess huffing and puffing is all you’ve got.

Jesus: Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

Linus: Now the CCC is more complicated than brain surgery and rocket science put together, so just believe whatever I tell you, on no account try to understand because you just can’t, so there.

 

[polytropos]

Hi poly. You’ll realize that this sounds a bit like looking around for excuses to hang on to the procreation principle.

I am hardly about to pretend that my philosophy is not religiously motivated, but any arguments I produce can be evaluated on their own terms.

In any case, it is uncharitable to characterize what I am doing as “looking around for excuses.” Moral philosophy often proceeds by looking at a number of cases and figuring out if the ethical intuitions behind them are sound. They can be overturned, of course. But looking at cases like masturbation ending it heterosexual consummation can indicate, for example, that procreation is probably not a sufficient condition for sexual morality, for the act is procreative but still not directed to the true ends of sex. Likewise, if I have intuitions about the morality of other sexual acts based on my own experience, finding out whether they are sound is as good a starting point in moral philosophy as any.

I mean, suppose following some worldwide calamity generated by naughty philosophers, all procreation had to be via in vitro. It would seem difficult to maintain that some acts are essentially procreative when there’s never any possibility of fertilization.

Well, if we uprooted all trees, stripped them of their leaves, and removed the soil from their roots, they would cease to grow. But I wouldn’t deny that they still had the power of growth essentially, by nature of being trees. Likewise acts can still be essentially procreative even if by contingent circumstances they do not result in procreation. Homosexual acts are however essentially non-procreative, even if by contingent circumstance they do result in procreation (as in Prodigal Son’s example).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No, I’m completely sincere, and for that you call me an argumentative idiot. I guess huffing and puffing is all you’ve got.

Jesus: Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

Linus: Now the CCC is more complicated than brain surgery and rocket science put together, so just believe whatever I tell you, on no account try to understand because you just can’t, so there.

First, I did not call you an " idiot. " I think you are quite intelligent and that makes the mode of your responses even less excusable. Shall we say then that you do understand but refuse to acknowledge that you do, prefering instead to dissemble. And that, whatever logical rules it violates, certainly proves a lack of sincerity.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

In any case, it is uncharitable to characterize what I am doing as “looking around for excuses.”

I apologize unreservedly if that’s how you took it. I thought you were summarizing a position taken by some philosophers and I was commenting on that position. I’m not wishing to engage in ad hominem, although it seems some get overheated on this subject.

Well, if we uprooted all trees, stripped them of their leaves, and removed the soil from their roots, they would cease to grow. But I wouldn’t deny that they still had the power of growth essentially, by nature of being trees. Likewise acts can still be essentially procreative even if by contingent circumstances they do not result in procreation. Homosexual acts are however essentially non-procreative, even if by contingent circumstance they do result in procreation (as in Prodigal Son’s example).

If you put the trees back in the ground and looked after them they might grow, or if you took a cutting then that could grow. But a man who does not produce sperm and a woman who has no eggs cannot procreate. So to me the cases are different, the link isn’t self-evident and needs some philosophical work.

It would have been better if I’d said it like that so there was no chance of your taking it personally, sorry again.

 

[paulrxp]

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!

I think #3 still holds because your example leads to other sinful behavior. Namely, engaging in any sexual act with someone other than your spouse. #3 would not be proven false just by the premise you stated.

Contrary to what society wants us to believe. There is no distinction between homosexuality and bisexuality in Gods law forbidding homosexuality. The homosexual act is still committed by the bisexual person when he/she engages in the homosexual behavior with the other person of the same sex. Forbidding bisexuality did not even need to be written explicitly in the Scriptures to be deemed sinful. It involves a homosexual act. It can with reason be implied to be a form of homosexuality for this reason.

Homosexuals, who without the help of another person of the opposite sex, or science will never be able to procreate naturally. No changes to civil rights will ever change that. Besides God’s law and will, that is what is at the heart of this debate, what is natural, and unnatural to both God and man. Not just to mans lustful desires.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hi josh.

I like your answer. But there are three problems. The first is that Jesus doesn’t say only those without sin can punish a thief, a murderer or a rapist for instance, so you’d have to say why you lump adultery and gay sex together and not those. That’s the main issue. The second is that Lev 20 is very specific about where it applies to everyone (e.g. verse 9) and where it applies to a man or a woman. Verse 10 only appears to apply to a man having adultery with another man’s wife, implying it’s not a big deal if he’s married but she isn’t. 13 only applies to men. Third, Lev includes adultery and gay (male) sex but the 10 commandments only specify adultery. Christians of course ignore most of Lev as being about uncleanliness. (I hope Linus knows that .)

This is a creationist argument though, and even then it doesn’t work (our mouths were not designed to blow a trumpet, our ears were not designed to hold up our sunglasses, etc.)

It’s very easy to say people refuse to see things your way because they’re afraid, but I could say exactly the same about you, although as it doesn’t get either of us anywhere I won’t.

I’ve no problem with objective moral law, I just see it as prohibiting unjust discrimination.

I don’t know why you bring up Leviticus. Obvioulsly these proscriptions have more than ritual purity in mind. There is also a moral uncleanness involved. And because the Church saw that some people would read Leviticus in the ultra restrictive sense of ritual or bodily uncleanness, she omitted using Leviticus as a reference in Article 6. But it is clear that Leviticus is also talking about certain things of a sexual nature which were sins and violated the Commandments given to Moses. So I asked you what Commandment would you put these prohibitions under. The Church has put them generally under the 6th Commandment ( omitting here that many of these violate more than one Commandment - a different question. ).

And no, neither the Church nor I, nor any authority of the Church from Christ’s Resurrection to this day support death or any physical punishment for any violation of the Commandments. Those punishments were demanded by God for a very limited time and directed toward his chosen people for reasons of his own. I could give you my own thoughts but I know the reception they would get. You would have to consult learned Theologians for an answer to that question.

P.S. I don’t usually follow your discussions with others, I caught this by accident. If you have a question for me, just direct it to me.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

First, I did not call you an " idiot. " I think you are quite intelligent and that makes the mode of your responses even less excusable. Shall we say then that you do understand but refuse to acknowledge that you do, prefering instead to dissemble. And that, whatever logical rules it violates, certainly proves a lack of sincerity.

*"What to look for in your post before you press submit

Is the post civil and charitable?
Does the post challenge those to whom it is directed or does it bash them?
And remember: always, do unto others as you would have them do unto you."*

Congratulations, you’ve achieved a personal best by scoring zero on all three . For the second time in a week you’re grounded mister, go to your room and think about what you’ve done.

While you may find it hard to stomach, I and many other Christians do not comprehend why Almighty God would be concerned about what consenting adults in loving relationships do behind closed doors (btw that includes a majority of Catholics where I live, where LGBT marriage has now been legal for nine years).

There would seem to be a long list of other more important things in the world, yet this one topic concerning 3 or 4% of the population gets far more air time than world hunger and world poverty together. If you want to get angry about something, get angry about that.

Now I’m sorry if I can’t understand your argument, but sincerely, I don’t and there’s no reason for us to fall out. I can’t spot a smiley olive branch, so this will have to do: :christmastree1:

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I think #3 still holds because your example leads to other sinful behavior. Namely, engaging in any sexual act with someone other than your spouse. #3 would not be proven false just by the premise you stated.

But that’s question-begging. If we’re trying to PROVE that a certain kind of extramarital sexual behavior is wrong, we cannot start by ASSUMING all extramarital sexual behavior is wrong.

Am I missing something?

 

[inocente]

I don’t know why you bring up Leviticus. Obvioulsly these proscriptions have more than ritual purity in mind. There is also a moral uncleanness involved. And because the Church saw that some people would read Leviticus in the ultra restrictive sense of ritual or bodily uncleanness, she omitted using Leviticus as a reference in Article 6. But it is clear that Leviticus is also talking about certain things of a sexual nature which were sins and violated the Commandments given to Moses. So I asked you what Commandment would you put these prohibitions under. The Church has put them generally under the 6th Commandment ( omitting here that many of these violate more than one Commandment - a different question. ).

And no, neither the Church nor I, nor any authority of the Church from Christ’s Resurrection to this day support death or any physical punishment for any violation of the Commandments. Those punishments were demanded by God for a very limited time and directed toward his chosen people for reasons of his own. I could give you my own thoughts but I know the reception they would get. You would have to consult learned Theologians for an answer to that question.

I think the position taken by most, including the Church (?) is that the new covenant prophesized in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and referred to in Romans 2:12-16 is completed in John 13:34, and replaces the old law of which Leviticus was part.