0
031064
Guest
Why is homosexuality, from a logical perspective, wrong?
- Status
D
DCNBILL
Guest
What would be the logical “end” of homosexuality?
P
puzzleannie
Guest
from a biological non-religious perspective, because it is disordered to the biological purpose of sex, and does not benefit the survival of either the individual organism or the species and in fact militates against it.
S
Scoobyshme
Guest
Because, logically, it is against the Natural Law. It’s not how we were made to operate. Our reproductive parts were made to do just that, reproduce. Homosexuality, by its nature, doesn’t reproduce.
Most folks aren’t aware of what the Natural Law is. Let me offer a brief explanation. You probably have a car, right? Your car has an owner’s manual put together by the cars manufacturer. In that manual, it probably says you need to use unleaded gasoline in the tank to make it operate correctly. What if, in all sincerity, you came up with the idea that it would be better to put honey into your gas tank. After all, it’s “your car” right and you should be able to do with it “whatever you like,” right? What will be the result of you not following your manufacturers manual? You’ll be a pedestrian. Your car won’t work and you’ll have nothing but trouble with it.
The Natural Law is our Manufacturer’s (God’s) manual for human beings. Since He designed and manufactured us, He knows how we should best operate. If we deviate from that, we will have problems in our lives. Not maybe. But for sure, sooner or later.
If you would like to hear a good lecture on the Natural Law, I would invite you to listen to Dr. Charles E. Rice (professor emeritus at Notre Dame School of Law) at the following link:
alabamacatholicresources.com/Downloads/Natural_Law-1.mp3
Most folks aren’t aware of what the Natural Law is. Let me offer a brief explanation. You probably have a car, right? Your car has an owner’s manual put together by the cars manufacturer. In that manual, it probably says you need to use unleaded gasoline in the tank to make it operate correctly. What if, in all sincerity, you came up with the idea that it would be better to put honey into your gas tank. After all, it’s “your car” right and you should be able to do with it “whatever you like,” right? What will be the result of you not following your manufacturers manual? You’ll be a pedestrian. Your car won’t work and you’ll have nothing but trouble with it.
The Natural Law is our Manufacturer’s (God’s) manual for human beings. Since He designed and manufactured us, He knows how we should best operate. If we deviate from that, we will have problems in our lives. Not maybe. But for sure, sooner or later.
If you would like to hear a good lecture on the Natural Law, I would invite you to listen to Dr. Charles E. Rice (professor emeritus at Notre Dame School of Law) at the following link:
alabamacatholicresources.com/Downloads/Natural_Law-1.mp3
0
031064
Guest
That’s not actually true. In honey bees there exist sterile males whose sole purpose is to care for other bees. Evolution would not necessarily remove homosexuality because it may have provided for additional non-childbearing caretakers. Genetically, given that a gay persons’ nieces and nephews have 1/4 of their genes it would be beneficial to the continuity of their gene pool to act as an additional caretaker to those nieces and nephews.
What is so objectively wrong about sodomy as an act? Oral sex? I used to propose them as being disordered also but how exactly are they ‘sinful’? That’s a rather heavy word to use for acts that do not harm other people in any way, is it not?
What is so objectively wrong about sodomy as an act? Oral sex? I used to propose them as being disordered also but how exactly are they ‘sinful’? That’s a rather heavy word to use for acts that do not harm other people in any way, is it not?
0
031064
Guest
Re: the natural law. The logical extension of that is that all things ‘human’ should occur naturally. Therefore we ought to stop performing life-extending surgeries etc. We can overcome our natural limitations through our intellect.
C
crazzeto
Guest
Taking God out of the equation? The purpose of sexuality, strictly speaking is not to derive sensual pleasure, nor even to deepen emotional ties but rather to procreate the species. Homosexuality violates natural design by directing this procreative act, in such a way which it is utterly made null and void.
There are certainly some secularists out there trying to claim it is completely normal, because there may be a bioligical connection (I’m not saying there isn’t, though it has yet to be proved). The ultimate expression of this is the hunt for the “homosexual holy grail”, a so called “gay gene”. If you read the linked article, you’ll see just one post describing how false this has been proven to be.
Some might even try to prove it’s a defence mechinism designed to deal with over population, trying to tie this to Darwinian thinking. But it doesn’t fit there either, the most densely populated regions of the world aren’t experienceing homosexuality in greater percentages, and homosexualy most certianly has not proven to be an effective means to stop population growth.
There exists there for, no purely logical, purely scientific means by which homosexuality can be explained. In fact I pointed this very fact out to some very out spoken homosexuals on another forum I used to frequent. After demolishing all of these points, the best argument they were able to present was entirly emotionally based. “I like it, it makes me feel comfortable”, or in other words, I choose it because it feels good. The worst of the arguments covered the spectrum of usual slurs, “bigot”, “homophobe” etc. But the arguments I make are practical, and grounded in our best scientific arguments. It’s not bigetous to point this out, it’s realistic.
A
Alexia2000
Guest
Did not quite understand that, “does not benefit the survival of either the individual organism”
The species will survive because there are enough heterosexuals; by the way, I do not hear the same argument against asexuality
And in any event, two lesbians can, with the use of technology, have children; so this would mean that there in no logical argument against lesbianism in the 21st century
C
crazzeto
Guest
This is a false argument, our intellect is a part of our natural abilities. There for it is in fact, well with in our natural abilities to extend life via life saving medical procedures which are not available to a dog, monkey or any other lesser creature. This ability is God given, and it is more than our right to use it, it is our duty:
P
puzzleannie
Guest
you cannot use bees as an example, you have to use mammals since the whole sodomy thing does not relate to the lower animals. If you are reducing homosexuality to sodomy you will have to restrict your consideration in that way.
Gay does not equal homosexual and has no meaning whatever in the animal world so do not use it in that way if you are discussing biology, not culture.
sodomy the act is wrong because it is destructive and damages the orifice in question which was not made for the purpose. you can use a pen as a can opener but that does not benefit the pen, the can, or the food inside. It is unproductive, useless and potentially dangerous for the animal because it is physically destructive, and that physical destruction is its main purpose, and for the species because species preservation is not served.
near relatives or other members of the group can assist in child-rearing irrespective of their sexual orientation so by itself that is no argument.
the condition of a subgroup of homosexual, as in acting out sexually in that manner, individuals is destructive of the group in that it thwarts normal social and family relationships of the group. It appears in nature only in conditions of stress–captivity, population pressure, habitat destruction; or disorder–hormonal disruption, behavioral maladaption etc. Therefore the study of nature shows it is contrary to natural law, and therefore never a good thing in the long run for the individual animal or the society or the species.
no, life saving medical procedures are done to correct a condition that is contrary to natural law so this example also fails
those who argue that homosexuals actual benefit the individual, social group and species by their activity will have to demonstrate proof, until then the natural law as discovered and explained by science will have to suffice in the evidence generated up until now. Love how science-philes who cling to the theory of evolution reject it when it backs up the notion of natural law in the reproduction and survival of species
0
031064
Guest
I actually laughed when I read sodomy ‘damages the orifice in question’. That is so wrong. Second of all if God is the creator of all things why did he concentrate the nerve endings in the rectum so highly in order that men (and not some, but all men) could receive pleasureful sensations there? Why would he have allowed that to happen if supposedly it is contrary to his master design?
0
031064
Guest
Any self-respecting biologist will not tell you that homosexuality is ‘destructive’. It may not be productive but it is certainly not destructive.
0
031064
Guest
Also, if God is so immensely foresighted than why would he ‘doom’ certain well-meaning people to this path? It is statistically correlated that with each older brother a man has he is 27-33% more likely to be homosexual, therefore if you have 4 older brothers you are virtually guaranteed to be gay (this is called the Fraternal Birth Order effect and is the most reliable method of predicting bi and homosexuality.) How are homosexuals supposed to feel close to a God who dooms them to sin as a result of their place in male birth order? That’s tremendously just! Mind you I suppose given the history with genocide, acceptance of slavery etc. we’re not really talking about a historically just being. Why should we be forced to accept a priori that all of the things in the bible are simply and unquestionably true?
P
puzzleannie
Guest
if you ask any doctor whose practice includes many members of this community he will testify to the truth of this. God created sex for reproduction. biologists know the purpose of sex is reproduction. All the pleasurable sense sensations of the body are ordered to normal sexual expression with reproduction as an end. to say “why did God make some people to enjoy stimulation” of this or any other organ, as if the purpose of that organ’s existence is stimulation and pleasure is absurd. by that argument we should all be eating at McDonalds because the purpose of food and the alimentary organs now becomes solely momentary pleasure from sensory (name removed by moderator)ut.
I repeat, the burden of proof is upon those who insist homosexuality is part of the natural created order of mammalian biology to prove a positive benefit to the individual, the social group and the species. Since there is none, this will prove an uphill battle but go to it by all means.
D
DCNBILL
Guest
Note that none of the above argument is based on logic as the original post stated.
I would repeat my question from above, what would be a logical “end” for homosexuality?
L
ladybri77
Guest
Because God, the Catholic church, and the Bible say so!!
Let’s forget about “natural” for a minute. Things are things done all the time that are unnatural but are not sin. This happens to be one thing that is unnatural and IS a sin because it is against God’s plan. His original plan is for the male and female to become one flesh and reproduce in a marital relationship.
You must be familiar with the different scriptural verses pertaining to this and what God and the Catholic church say about it???
P
puzzleannie
Guest
it is destructive of the social group who depends on a specific structure to nurture the offspring and the group if it inteferes with those ends, or if it results from conditions that threaten those ends. It is destructive to the species of normal reproduction that insures survival of that species, or that group, is threatened. The media is full of stories of feminized populations of fish, monkeys, all kinds of animals because of interference with their habitat in some way–chemicals in the water or whatever–and the destruction is well documented even where the causes are not yet understood. yes if members of a group or species act outside of normal reproductive patterns there will be a long term negative effect on that population, and there may be shorter term damage to the normal social relationships of the smaller group. I must have seen three or 4 programs on that scenario among various animals on the nature channels just in the last year.
we are also waiting still for a logical argument that homosexuality provides some benefit to the species or to the society.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I just want to point out that you’re making a rather large presumption right here. You are assuming that such acts do not harm the person or the larger society. This is a presupposition with which Catholics would disagree.
Even private sins have communal consequences. That’s just part and parcel of us being one interconnected human family and the Church being the Mystical Body of Christ. What affects one person affects all, even if in ways that are not directly or immediately observable.
Even the secular culture admits to (and, in fact, highlights) this interconnectedness when it comes to things like hunger and “climate change”. And yet, when it comes to things of a sexual nature, they are so quick to forget/ignore this truth.
R
rossum
Guest
There is some research from Italy which indicates that the genes for male homosexuality tend to increase the number of children that his female relatives have. Hence his lack of children is compensated for by their increased childbearing.
See Why gays don’t go extinct.
rossum
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I would also point out that the word “natural” seems to be being used in several different ways in this thread. Natural law does not mean that anything that naturally appears in nature is good while anything else is evil.
I recommend following Scoobys above link to Charles Rice’s presentation if you sincerely desire to come to a greater understanding of the issue from a logical perspective.
I recommend following Scoobys above link to Charles Rice’s presentation if you sincerely desire to come to a greater understanding of the issue from a logical perspective.
- Status