Homosexuality

[Laurie_Gibson]

The second argument goes:

Premise 1: If Natural Law ethics is correct then gay sex is wrong.
Premise 2: My daughter’s gay sex is not wrong.**

Conclusion** Natural Law ethics is incorrect.

Now if, IF, the two premises are true the conclusion MUST also be true therefore the argument is VALID. Of course the premises may not be true but that does not mean the argument is not valid in this technical sense.

[Compare. **If he was keen on football he would go to the match.
He did not go to the match
Conclusion - He is not keen on football

Or in symbols If P is true then so is Q
But Q is false
** Conclusion** P is false]

Hope that makes things clear.

All the best,

Laurie

 

[choy]

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?

i actually hate it when human behavior is compared to animal behavior

there are animals who eat their young, should we do the same?

also, we are humans. we have a mind, thats why we should not behave like animals and behave like humans, because we think

 

[davidv]

The second argument goes:

Premise 1: If Natural Law ethics is correct then gay sex is wrong.
Premise 2: My daughter’s gay sex is not wrong.

Conclusion Natural Law ethics is incorrect.

Now if, IF, the two premises are true the conclusion MUST also be true therefore the argument is VALID. Of course the premises may not be true but that does not mean the argument is not valid in this technical sense.

[Compare. **If he was keen on football he would go to the match.

He did not go to the match
Conclusion - He is not keen on football

Or in symbols If P is true then so is Q
But Q is false
Conclusion P is false]

Hope that makes things clear.

All the best,

Laurie
It does not clear up anything. What you say is premise 1, I see as a conclusion. If the statement read “Natural law ethics are correct”, I would see it as a properly stated premise. As it is, I don’t see validity, I see an improperly formed sylogism. So, until the premises are properly presented there is no argument.

Even as it is stated, premise 2 is not demonstrably true.

In addition your football example introduces another falacy, false dicotomy. There many other reasons besides lack of keenness for not showing at the game.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Dear Phooie,

You are very kind to persist. Your post raises such a lot of questions. Let me try to deal with some.

You say: The belief in God is necessary to objectively prove that homosexuality is morally wrong.

Sorry but the church’s position is that it is possible to establish moral truths via Natural Law without reference to God. That is why I am discussing the question here.

You say: The lack of belief in God essentially negates any contention that an objective morality even exists, therefore there is no point in trying to prove anything objectively right or wrong, including this.

This too is incorrect. I teach philosophy and can tell you that there have been plenty of philosophers who think that morality can be shown to be objective without reference to God.

You say: Sexual relations simply distract us from this process when they are not oriented toward sacrifice. Masturbation is condemned just as much as homosexuality. Birth control is condemned. Even Natural Family Planning is condemned other than for the purpose of spacing children in sacrificial love for the children that one already has.
6. For a Catholic, homosexuality is immoral because it keeps one focused on sexual pleasure rather than on the process of self-transformation through continual sacrifice that is the calling of every person. This process of transformation is not possible without giving up the things that we are doing instead of performing acts of sacrificial love.

Homosexuality is NOT the same as sex between an infertile couple because we assume that the infertile couple is having sex in the joyful hope that children will result. If any opposite-sex couple has sex for the sake of pleasure alone, without wishing to trust that God will bless them with children if He so chooses, then this is the same “abomination” as a homosexual couple having sex.

Of course sex is for pleasure but I am not sure that you are correct if you deny that another reason for sex is to express the love we feel for our partner. Sex would be a very desultory business otherwise. Now I am 69 and my wife is 59, even if we were Catholics do you think we would be having sex in the joyful hope that children would result? We are too old! No it expresses our love and, if you grant that, why not that of a gay couple? I also do not see how sex necessarily distracts from a life orientated towards sacrifice. By contributing to the physical and mental well-being of the participants it makes them better able to live a good life. Pleasure is not in itself a bad thing but only if it leads us into selfish ways.

You say: So I would argue that whatever happiness your daughter experiences is only a shadow of real happiness.

But you do not know her, I do. As far as I can tell and I know her as well as anybody her happiness is as great as that of any married couple that I have met. Of course I could be mistaken about her but the chances of that seem rather small. Dad’s are quite perceptive you know and could easily tell if her radiant happiness was just a facade.

Thanks again and no offence is taken by anything you said

 

[phoooiee]

This is all perfectly fine. All I am trying to do is to establish that the Church’s position is neither inconsistent, unfair, or harmful to anyone. Would you agree or disagree?

 

[ladybri77]

Dear Phooie,

You are very kind to persist. Your post raises such a lot of questions. Let me try to deal with some.

You say: The belief in God is necessary to objectively prove that homosexuality is morally wrong.

Sorry but the church’s position is that it is possible to establish moral truths via Natural Law without reference to God. That is why I am discussing the question here.

You say: The lack of belief in God essentially negates any contention that an objective morality even exists, therefore there is no point in trying to prove anything objectively right or wrong, including this.

This too is incorrect. I teach philosophy and can tell you that there have been plenty of philosophers who think that morality can be shown to be objective without reference to God.

You say: Sexual relations simply distract us from this process when they are not oriented toward sacrifice. Masturbation is condemned just as much as homosexuality. Birth control is condemned. Even Natural Family Planning is condemned other than for the purpose of spacing children in sacrificial love for the children that one already has.
6. For a Catholic, homosexuality is immoral because it keeps one focused on sexual pleasure rather than on the process of self-transformation through continual sacrifice that is the calling of every person. This process of transformation is not possible without giving up the things that we are doing instead of performing acts of sacrificial love.

Homosexuality is NOT the same as sex between an infertile couple because we assume that the infertile couple is having sex in the joyful hope that children will result. If any opposite-sex couple has sex for the sake of pleasure alone, without wishing to trust that God will bless them with children if He so chooses, then this is the same “abomination” as a homosexual couple having sex.

Of course sex is for pleasure but I am not sure that you are correct if you deny that another reason for sex is to express the love we feel for our partner. Sex would be a very desultory business otherwise. Now I am 69 and my wife is 59, even if we were Catholics do you think we would be having sex in the joyful hope that children would result? We are too old! No it expresses our love and, if you grant that, why not that of a gay couple? I also do not see how sex necessarily distracts from a life orientated towards sacrifice. By contributing to the physical and mental well-being of the participants it makes them better able to live a good life. Pleasure is not in itself a bad thing but only if it leads us into selfish ways.

You say: So I would argue that whatever happiness your daughter experiences is only a shadow of real happiness.

But you do not know her, I do. As far as I can tell and I know her as well as anybody her happiness is as great as that of any married couple that I have met. Of course I could be mistaken about her but the chances of that seem rather small. Dad’s are quite perceptive you know and could easily tell if her radiant happiness was just a facade.

Thanks again and no offence is taken by anything you said

We believe in God because we have the gift of Faith. It is wonderful to have the gift of faith as phooie described earlier. We also have the gift of Eternal Life. Knowing that this life is only temporary, it is a very wonderful thought indeed! You can have the gift of Faith also if you just ask Him who created you for it.

Also, I would recommend if you would like further explanation for the subject at hand, that you would ask God Himself to clarify it for you. Ask Him if it is truly okay to be gay. What would His thoughts be? He would have the best answers. Just a suggestion.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

DavidV

My friend you need to read a book on elementary logic. I will try again.

In the books there is a VALID logical form that goes like this.

1] If P is true then Q will be true
2] Q is false
Conclusion. P is false

Here is an example

1] If this is a square it has 4 sides
2] It does not have 4 sides
Conclusion. It is not a square

[P = square Q = has 4 sides]

This even has a name - it is called Modus Tollens.

Now try
1] If Natural Law ethics is true than gay sex is wrong.
2] This example of gay sex is right
Conclusion Natural Law ethics is false

[P = Natural Law ethics, Q = gay sex is wrong]

Your comments seem to indicate that you are not happy about the truth of the premises but that is quite irrelevant - when assessing the validity of an argument we assume the premises are true.

Of course I am happy to discuss the truth of the premises - but the argument, trust me, is valid alright.

Best wishes

Laurie

 

[davidv]

DavidV

My friend you need to read a book on elementary logic. I will try again.

In the books there is a VALID logical form that goes like this.

1] If P is true then Q will be true
2] Q is false
Conclusion. P is false

Here is an example

1] If this is a square it has 4 sides
2] It does not have 4 sides
Conclusion. It is not a square

[P = square Q = has 4 sides]

This even has a name - it is called Modus Tollens.

Now try
1] If Natural Law ethics is true than gay sex is wrong.
2] This example of gay sex is right
Conclusion Natural Law ethics is false

[P = Natural Law ethics, Q = gay sex is wrong]

Your comments seem to indicate that you are not happy about the truth of the premises but that is quite irrelevant - when assessing the validity of an argument we assume the premises are true.

Of course I am happy to discuss the truth of the premises - but the argument, trust me, is valid alright.

Best wishes

Laurie

I have studies elementary logic.
P:if P then Q
P: Not Q
Not P does not follow.

 

[Bishop93]

I agree with you completely. But whether it is our place to put a definition on love or not- love still has a definite nature and it is so easy to do something in the name of love that is in fact hurtful. Our human nature ensures this- we are easily led to deceive ourselves and to be deceived.
And you’re right about marriage. It is not the job of any human being to define marriage- it is God’s job.

It’s not our job to decide what is hurtful to the person or not.

If it’s hurtful we need to give them the benefit of the doubt to decide that on their own.

I’ve been in straight relationships where I was deceived…Deceitfulness doesn’t only dwell in some gays.

God never truly defined marriage.

Love

 

[phoooiee]

DavidV

Now try
1] If Natural Law ethics is true than gay sex is wrong.
2] This example of gay sex is right
Conclusion Natural Law ethics is false

[P = Natural Law ethics, Q = gay sex is wrong]

I’m going to go more for
1] if Natural Law ethics is true then gay sex is wrong.
2] According to the limited evidence available to me the best conclusion is that this example of gay sex is right
Conclusion:
either Natural Law ethics is false OR my conclusion in #2 is flawed
This is as far as logic will get you.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hi Phooie - you turn these posts round quickly!

You say:

This is all perfectly fine. All I am trying to do is to establish that the Church’s position is neither inconsistent, unfair, or harmful to anyone. Would you agree or disagree?

Disagree because:
1] I think that Natural Law ethics should take into account the social function of sex,namely to express love, more that the reproductive - so INCONSISTENT
2] At a deeper level there is an enormous inconsistency between the claim that God is Love and denial of that love’s physical expression to gays when that causes so much good. So INCONSISTENT again.
3] UNFAIR - yes to gays in and outside the church for declaring their physical love to be an ‘abomination’.
4]HARMFUL - Yes to the psychic health of many gays in the church who are taught to regard their natural desire to express love physically as being very wrong.
5] HARMFUL- Yes to those outside the church because the church tells gays wherever they are that they are horrible perverts if they love physically.

 

[phoooiee]

It’s not our job to decide what is hurtful to the person or not.

If it’s hurtful we need to give them the benefit of the doubt to decide that on their own.

I’ve been in straight relationships where I was deceived…Deceitfulness doesn’t only dwell in some gays.

God never truly defined marriage.

Love

Of course we need to give them the benefit of the doubt to decide on their own. But being Catholic and all that entails can also be one of the choices, right?

The Scriptures do make it clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

David, David, David,

I rely do not know how to get you to see what is before your very face.

If P then Q
Q is false
So P is false

is elementary logic - look up Modus Tollens before you reply.

If he was the murderer he would have blood on his hands
He does not have blood on his hands
He is not the murderer

If 5 was divisible by 2 it would be even
It is not divisible by 2
5 is not even

If Fred was a bachelor he would not be married
He is married
He is not a bachelor

If I was a millionaire I could afford to holiday in the US
I cannot afford to holiday in the US
I am not a millionaire

If it was a fish it could breath in the water
It cannot breathe in water
It is not a fish

In each example ASSUME THE PREMISES ARE TRUE and clearly the conclusion follows. If you still do not see this then I suggest you look up Modus Tollens on Google or in one of those logic books of yours

 

[phoooiee]

Hi Phooie - you turn these posts round quickly!

You say:

This is all perfectly fine. All I am trying to do is to establish that the Church’s position is neither inconsistent, unfair, or harmful to anyone. Would you agree or disagree?

Disagree because:
1] I think that Natural Law ethics should take into account the social function of sex,namely to express love, more that the reproductive - so INCONSISTENT
2] At a deeper level there is an enormous inconsistency between the claim that God is Love and denial of that love’s physical expression to gays when that causes so much good. So INCONSISTENT again.
3] UNFAIR - yes to gays in and outside the church for declaring their physical love to be an ‘abomination’.
4]HARMFUL - Yes to the psychic health of many gays in the church who are taught to regard their natural desire to express love physically as being very wrong.
5] HARMFUL- Yes to those outside the church because the church tells gays wherever they are that they are horrible perverts if they love physically.

That’s because I haven’t been feeling well all week and I’m using this as an excuse to not do anything physical

You have a right to your beliefs. I do not see the logic in this nor do I see any evidence to support a “need” for people who identify as gay to engage in sexual relations. But I do support your free will to believe as you like.

 

[phoooiee]

David, David, David,

I rely do not know how to get you to see what is before your very face.

If P then Q
Q is false
So P is false

is elementary logic - look up Modus Tollens before you reply.

If he was the murderer he would have blood on his hands
He does not have blood on his hands
He is not the murderer

If 5 was divisible by 2 it would be even
It is not divisible by 2
5 is not even

If Fred was a bachelor he would not be married
He is married
He is not a bachelor

If I was a millionaire I could afford to holiday in the US
I cannot afford to holiday in the US
I am not a millionaire

If it was a fish it could breath in the water
It cannot breathe in water
It is not a fish

In each example ASSUME THE PREMISES ARE TRUE and clearly the conclusion follows. If you still do not see this then I suggest you look up Modus Tollens on Google or in one of those logic books of yours

But you have to prove the premises are true!

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Sorry you are not well Phooie

Most gay people I know have a need to physically express their love in exactly the same way as most straights do. That’s my evidence and surely you have met gay people with such a need?

As to my logic – I have written quite a few posts where I have explained my reasoning in detail and you must, if you wish, refer to them to show where it is defective. It might be, but that has not been demonstrated yet.

[Your next post is quite correct. We are discussing the truth of the premises]

I am retiring now and so replies to further posts, if any, to you will be delayed.

Get better

Laurie

 

[Bishop93]

Of course we need to give them the benefit of the doubt to decide on their own. But being Catholic and all that entails can also be one of the choices, right?

The Scriptures do make it clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Not everybody’s Catholic

1. Most Jews are o.k with gay marriage.
2. The Episcopal Church elect’s gay Bishops.
3. More liberal Protestants support gay marriage.

So the Catholics opinion can’t be the only right one can it?..No

It’s not right.

There is no “right”

If your gay…Your gay.

If your not…Your not.

Straight people can’t dictate gay peoples life just because the “church” says so because every church says something different.

 

[phoooiee]

Not everybody’s Catholic

1. Most Jews are o.k with gay marriage.
2. The Episcopal Church elect’s gay Bishops.
3. More liberal Protestants support gay marriage.

So the Catholics opinion can’t be the only right one can it?..No

It’s not right.

There is no “right”

If your gay…Your gay.

If your not…Your not.

Straight people can’t dictate gay peoples life just because the “church” says so because every church says something different.

Of course not everyone is Catholic.

It is quite possible that the Catholic opinion can be the only right one. It is just that it is not provable through human means. It must be accepted through faith, or not. Only God knows. Our only duty is to follow God to the best of our ability. This is quite consistent with Catholic doctrine as I understand it.

I believe that the Catholic Church has the right to state that homosexual activity is sinful, just as people have the right to reject that teaching or accept it. Following such a teaching has improved the quality of my life.

 

[Bishop93]

Of course not everyone is Catholic.

It is quite possible that the Catholic opinion can be the only right one. It is just that it is not provable through human means. It must be accepted through faith, or not. Only God knows. Our only duty is to follow God to the best of our ability. This is quite consistent with Catholic doctrine as I understand it.

I believe that the Catholic Church has the right to state that homosexual activity is sinful, just as people have the right to reject that teaching or accept it. Following such a teaching has improved the quality of my life.

“Only God knows.Our only duty is to follow God to the best of our ability”…Yep

We have to live and let live…Love and let love.

Thats all^^^

Who other people love and marry is none of our business.

Their final destination is between them and God…Not us.

Only God knows what’s in their heart.

 

[ladybri77]

Sorry you are not well Phooie

Most gay people I know have a need to physically express their love in exactly the same way as most straights do. That’s my evidence and surely you have met gay people with such a need?

As to my logic – I have written quite a few posts where I have explained my reasoning in detail and you must, if you wish, refer to them to show where it is defective. It might be, but that has not been demonstrated yet.

[Your next post is quite correct. We are discussing the truth of the premises]

I am retiring now and so replies to further posts, if any, to you will be delayed.

Get better

Laurie

If they need to express themselves this way, as I can see why they would being attracted to one another, then they don’t have to act out on it. A lot of gays don’t understand why they feel that way because most would not choose it. Therefore, they should look into the emotional/psychological reasons behind why they feel that way. They might be surprised at what they find.

If they are Catholic and don’t wish to act out on it and want to stay chaste, then they can see a counselor who would help them understand why they feel that way, they could join the group, Courage, to help them stay chaste. They could give their feelings to God who would in turn bless them and give them His grace to endure temptations. They could also channel their feelings in altruistic ways to help those in need, and make healthy friendships with those of the same sex. All this can promote healing.