Homosexuality

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hello Ladybri,

Laurie, the next question being what if people fell in love with their brother, sister, cousin, making incest legal, should we then say it’s morally okay if they are happy?

I think that, generally speaking, allowing incest would have bad effects in society - also there are problems re children I believe. Therefore it is probably best that the practise be deemed immoral even if, in a small minority of special cases the participants were ‘in love’.

Next question?

Hopefully they are leading somewhere.

Laurie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

LAST REPLY TO CAMERONG [Probably!]

Firstly, thanks for the conversation, I appreciate your time, but I think we have almost exhausted what we have to say to each other. Final comments from me plus a breif summary:

You say:
**The above discussion about the morality of homosexuality is off-point, from both sides. If any of us were atheists, we would probably have no basis to tell homosexuals their sex is immoral. None of us should be interested in arguing the existence of right or wrong in the absence of God, for the very discussion of right or wrong presupposes the existence of God. To speak of morality in the absence of God is meaningless. That is why the conversation will always go round and round. **

Forgive me being honest with you Camerong, but as a teacher of ethics, I find this reply to be disingenuous or displaying a great ignorance of the subject. Read any book on ethics and the idea that you cannot have morality without a belief in God is very much a minority view. Even most Christian thinkers, via the Euthyphro Dilemma, think that in some sense ethics is separate from Theism. If none of this makes sense - please read the standard textbooks before pontificating OR if you know all about the matter please do not state your own views as being obviously correct.

Infallibilty - one way to decide whether to accept this view is to look at the ‘infallible’ pronouncements and see if they appear reasonable. And they don’t in my judgement. [Of course if you have already decided to accept the doctrine then you just have to make do with them]

**Back to the subject here and the point that I am making:

Given the lives of thousands of gay couples, which by all normal moral standards are life-enhancing and causing no harm, you have a choice:

1. Accept them as morally good and so disagree with official Catholic teaching on the matter.
2. Deny that they are ‘life-enhancing etc’ in which case you display moral blindness that is stunningly evil.
3. Accept that they are ‘life enhancing etc’ and hence good by normal moral standards but think that God condemns them, in which case God is not a God of Love in the usual sense of that concept.

You have wavered between options 2 and 3. Obviously I think that 1 is correct and so I leave you.**

Best wishes - hope that further thought and meeting with gay couples will broaden your mind.

Laurie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Reply to Portrait,

1] St Paul and slavery. You say; Of course St. Paul’s teachings on the slavery issue reflect the times in which he lived, it could hardly be otherwise. Exactly and that is what people are arguing about his views on homosexuality.

2] Morality in general. You say:** Many polygamists, adulterers and fornicators would claim that their illicit ‘relationships’ do not wound or cause any emotional distress to anyone and are therefore perfectly harmless and wholesome**. **Well they may say this but they would be mistaken – usually these relationships cause harm and so, moral rules saying they are wrong are acceptable.

Homosexuality is quite different as has been shown when you look at the successful civil partnerships of many gay couples. Particularly those charming couples who have spent a lifetime of love together and come forward to celebrate it via ceremony which our country, to its eternal credit now allows.**

3] You misunderstand my Nazi example. My point was that the Germans should just have seen that the Jews were not monsters but were normal human beings. But they were blinded by Nazi propaganda that told them differently and so could not see what was before their own eyes.

Similarly, though on a much less culpable level, Catholics should just be able to see that faithful gay couples are morally equivalent to straight couples but you are blinded by medieval arguments from your church telling you different and so you cannot see what is before you own eyes.

**This last is what I have been saying all along. Look with open eyes at the many relationships between faithful gay couples and see the love that is displayed there.

Having done that ask yourself whether it really makes sense for a good God to condemn them to Hell for it. The honest answer – unless you are a blind man must be ‘no’!**

Possibly I have said all I can – if so thanks for your time.
I will continue if you wish provided there is something new you would like to say.

Best wishes,

Laurie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

**Reply to Mark **

Please accept my apologies for not replying in detail to your post. Time means that I cannot start, what would I’m sure would be, a long and interesting discussion.

Really there is only one thing that I had to say here and it is this:

My daughter has been in a wonderful gay partnership for over 20 years. It has resulted in them leading fulfilling, happy public-spirited lives. To give it up would devastate them. My question is: “Can you really deny what is before your eyes? Can you really claim it is evil or think a God of Love would cast such people into Hell?” If you answer ‘Yes’ you are morally blind.

Best wishes,

Laurie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Cinette - you say:

**Laurie - you want the Church to bend to your beliefs instead of bending to the teachings of the Church.

You want to tell God what to do - what is right and wrong. You can’t do that!**

This is not what I want old friend. I think that, if there is a God of Love, he would not condemn my daughter and so it seems to me that the Catholic Church has made a mistake about God here.

Goodbye and all the best,

Laurie

 

[Cinette]

I wish you well Laurie and your daughter. I suggest you keep praying and develop your relationship with God. Let Him lead you.

God Bless you
Cinette

 

[camerong]

It sounds like Laurie is trying to wind down his threads. Laurie, I enjoyed our discussion and hope to meet you again on this forum.

If anyone is interested, let me continue it and ask, as a devil’s advocate (I obviously agree with the Church about homosexuality): why should an atheist believe homosexuality is wrong? An atheist, say, who does not believe in objective morality (so believes what is wrong for you may not be wrong for me) and also that life has no objective purpose or meaning, but instead believes that morality, purpose and meaning is defined by oneself.

 

[ladybri77]

**Reply to Mark **

Can you really claim it is evil or think a God of Love would cast such people into Hell?” If you answer ‘Yes’ you are morally blind.

Best wishes,

Laurie

Laurie, as I’ve said this to you before, Our Lord is rich in mercy and would rather see people converted and turn away from their sin before their final rejection of Him. I believe up until the last minute, He gives people a chance to repent and open their heart to Him. In other words, people could live a morally corrupt, sinful lifestyle for years, but at the last minute, either right before or right after their death, express remorse and accept Jesus into their hearts. In this case, they would be saved from eternal damnation. It’s their choice. But of course up to the last minute, if they turn their hearts away from Him, and still have a closed heart, I’m sure it would be very detrimental. I wouldn’t want it to be me or those I care about!

 

[ladybri77]

It sounds like Laurie is trying to wind down his threads. Laurie, I enjoyed our discussion and hope to meet you again on this forum.

If anyone is interested, let me continue it and ask, as a devil’s advocate (I obviously agree with the Church about homosexuality): why should an atheist believe homosexuality is wrong? An atheist, say, who does not believe in objective morality (so believes what is wrong for you may not be wrong for me) and also that life has no objective purpose or meaning, but instead believes that morality, purpose and meaning is defined by oneself.

Because Scripture says God has written His laws on all our hearts, which I believe is in Hebrews. Deep down we all know right from wrong.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

**Reply to Mark **

Please accept my apologies for not replying in detail to your post. Time means that I cannot start, what would I’m sure would be, a long and interesting discussion.

Really there is only one thing that I had to say here and it is this:

My daughter has been in a wonderful gay partnership for over 20 years. It has resulted in them leading fulfilling, happy public-spirited lives. To give it up would devastate them. My question is: “Can you really deny what is before your eyes? Can you really claim it is evil or think a God of Love would cast such people into Hell?” If you answer ‘Yes’ you are morally blind.

Best wishes,

Laurie

Hi

Excuse me for jumping in here like this, but I just had to respond to this.

I will include here my response to the OP ( who appears to have abandoned this thread) and continue from there:

From a logical perspective, as has been answered but bears repeating - Logically speaking there is no point to homosexuality. Logically speaking there are male and female parts, logically speaking those differing parts fit together quite naturally and serve a purpose. That purpose being pro-creation. No other arrangement outside of male/female union, logically speaking, serves this purpose. Therefore homosexuality is illogical.

The fact that two people of the same gender can love one another, is without question. This fact is even encouraged. However, the fact of love does not automatically equate to sex. This should be logically obvious also. Even if sex is technically possible, in some form or other, does not make it logical, or necessary to the expression of love, or beneficial to either person. ( or even legal, in many cases) Rationalization and Justification aside - again, homosexuality is illogical, purely because sex is not necessary to the expression of love, and again, said sex is not beneficial to the species as a whole (I.E. procreation). Logically speaking.

The fact that two people can, with the help of modern medicine, have children in one way or another, does not make such unions logical. Because again, logically speaking - if the appropriate parts are present, and used according to their obvious purpose, procreation will happen quite naturally ( barring any medical problems) so rationalizing and then justifying homosexuality through medical means to circumvent what is logical is again, illogical.

Stepping away, for the moment, from what is logical - I feel St. Paul addressed this from the moral perspective quite succinctly:

Romans Ch 1:24 Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

Therefore - from the moral perspective as well as the logical perspective - Homosexuality cannot be defended. IMO.

Continuing from that starting point - it can be shown that homosexuality is illogical. God, by anyone’s definition of the concept - MUST be Logical. He also, in order to be called God and therefore Creator, must have made things according to what is logical, I.E. ''Natural" in function. A natural order to things. There is much diversity to creation, I’m sure you would agree - and not everything might appear strictly speaking to be logical at first glance, but upon examination - everything does follow a logical and therefore natural order, fitting seamlessly together for the benefit of all things.

Once that natural order is set then, there must be standards of conduct for His highest creation - Man. What is right and what is wrong. What the natural order is for us. (Morally speaking, as well as in matters of Faith -how we should approach Him.) Because we have free will - as created - these ‘laws’ must be set down sometimes, but upon inspection, they also must appear logical because as we have said - God is logical. Even if sometimes, for the moment - they make no sense to us, they must at least on the surface follow logically, even when understanding of them is delayed.

Now, having established that God has set down an objectively natural form and function for us to follow, logically speaking, how are we going to logically, in turn - make that subjective to our own desires? Even if - according to us, nothing appears amiss in results, even if - by our own ingenuity (also God-given) we can somehow ‘make it ok’ and appear to follow the natural order of things - how can we then say “God, you have to be ok with this because we’re doing the best we can to make it ok”?

God wouldn’t be, indeed couldn’t be God if he did not set down rules and enforce them.

Also - a separate question I guess…from the points above:

You mentioned (I think it was you anyway - if not my apologies) somewhere in this thread, something about the Church’s views being ‘medieval’ - my question is - how can something NOT be ok 1000 years ago, but be ok now? Isn’t objective Truth, by definition - unchanging? To be sure, it develops over time with some things…but the underlying concept cannot, by definition, change. So far as I am aware, homosexuality has always been declared disordered.

I am interested to hear your response(s)

Pax

John

 

[camerong]

John,
The assertion you make assumes without establishing an objective morality, no? Laurie has stated above that morality us subjective. Would that change your argument?

Further, I don’t see how an act (sex between men) can be illogical. But even if it is, why does illogical mean immoral? Put another way, why is it immoral to use objects for other than there desired purpose?

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Reply to PRAwhatever,

Thanks for your points. I am winding down my replies here but you merit a quick response.

1] First – you do not reply directly to my challenge. Here is a same-sex couple with a long term faithful relationship. What say you? They do not display love [in which case you are blind] OR although it is loving, fulfilling etc your God of Love condemns it [In which case he is not a God of Love]. The matter cannot be side-stepped with reams of argument.

2] Same sex relationships – illogical? Logic has to do with the soundness of arguments so to describe homosexuality as illogical or logical is, what is called, a category error. Your argument shows that it is not natural in the sense that the sex organs are not used for one of their functions.

But here is where logic does come in. You go from the statement ‘the sex organs are not being used for reproduction’ to the conclusion ‘this is wrong’. This is the central claim of natural law ethics. Now whole books have been written on this topic and the fact is that very few non-Catholics agree. Sex is also and more importantly to display love: to insist that reproduction must always be a theoretical possibility is to prioritise the physical function over social and psychological. Moral rules are meant to result in us leading happy and fulfilled lives that harm nobody – a good God would want that. Why then this would he forbid gay couples because he has a ‘thing’ about the way the sex organs are used? Couples who cannot physically have children are allowed sex to express love but gay people who also cannot have children are not allowed to express their love physically.

3] St Paul. Being a man of his time he does not condemn slavery – he was mistaken over that, being a man of his time he does condemn gay sex [there is a debate actually about the type of gay sex he actually does condemn] but most think he was mistaken over that too – at least that is what we are debating.

I repeat the issue is this:

My daughter has been in a wonderful gay partnership for over 20 years. It has resulted in them leading fulfilling, happy public-spirited lives. To give it up would devastate them. My question is: “Can you really deny what is before your eyes? Can you really claim it is evil or think a God of Love would cast such people into Hell?” If you answer ‘Yes’ you are morally blind

You have a choice – accept some rather abstruse and difficult reasoning that few thinkers beyond your church find persuasive OR accept what is obvious to anyone with a grain of empathy. Which is it to be?

Over and out

Laurie

 

[ladybri77]

PraRFL,

Put another way, why is it immoral to use objects for other than there desired purpose?

Because it’s just plain WRONG!

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

John,
The assertion you make assumes without establishing an objective morality, no? Laurie has stated above that morality us subjective. Would that change your argument?

No, and no, it doesn’t. Because as I went to great pains to show, is that what is objectively logical and natural - coming from a then necessarily logical God - would therefore by default have to assume a logical objective morality - God being both Logical, and Moral - otherwise He would not/Could not be God, by any rational definition. That being the case then, we then cannot turn around and make this objectively logical, natural morality subjective to ourselves and our desires, and opposite to what has been established, without denying it being logical and natural the way it is observed, and therefore intended to be, I.E. - Natural, and therefore objectively moral.

To do so is to try and change/define God as WE want Him to be, not as He is. To do so then is also to try and change what can be observed logically through what is natural, and redefine it to suit ourselves, thereby making ourselves above God.

Further, I don’t see how an act (sex between men) can be illogical. But even if it is, why does illogical mean immoral? Put another way, why is it immoral to use objects for other than there desired purpose?

See above, please.

Pax

John

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Reply to PRAwhatever,

Thanks for your points. I am winding down my replies here but you merit a quick response.

1] First – you do not reply directly to my challenge. Here is a same-sex couple with a long term faithful relationship. What say you? They do not display love [in which case you are blind] OR although it is loving, fulfilling etc your God of Love condemns it [In which case he is not a God of Love]. The matter cannot be side-stepped with reams of argument.

The fact that same sex couples can love is not in question…it is the way in which that love is expressed which is being challenged. To say that because God condemns the act of expression in this - does not automatically follow that He does not Love those who do so. There is a difference. Does a parent not Love a child whom they discipline? Even if that child doesn’t understand why what they are doing is wrong or dangerous? Hardly, and it is no different here. It’s just that in this case, persistence in doing what is wrong results in permanent discipline. ( for easier use, and to avoid a whole other topic I’m using this term ‘discipline’ here) God loves all of His children, and as such wants what is best for them.

2] Same sex relationships – illogical? Logic has to do with the soundness of arguments so to describe homosexuality as illogical or logical is, what is called, a category error. Your argument shows that it is not natural in the sense that the sex organs are not used for one of their functions.

Which is the point…there is nothing wrong in a relationship as such - no matter who it is with…but there is something wrong with carrying that forward into a sexual relationship. To arbitrarily decide the argument to be a ‘category error’ is to sidestep the issue in question.

But here is where logic does come in. You go from the statement ‘the sex organs are not being used for reproduction’ to the conclusion ‘this is wrong’. This is the central claim of natural law ethics. Now whole books have been written on this topic and the fact is that very few non-Catholics agree. Sex is also and more importantly to display love: to insist that reproduction must always be a theoretical possibility is to prioritise the physical function over social and psychological. Moral rules are meant to result in us leading happy and fulfilled lives that harm nobody – a good God would want that. Why then this would he forbid gay couples because he has a ‘thing’ about the way the sex organs are used? Couples who cannot physically have children are allowed sex to express love but gay people who also cannot have children are not allowed to express their love physically.

Here it is not a case of either/or. It is a case of both/and. Harmonious fulfillment of what is natural. God does want us to lead happy and fulfilled lives, harming nobody, ‘nobody’ in this case, also includes ourselves. He also wants this to be in keeping with the natural order, participating in the natural order of ‘be fruitful and multiply’. Sex organs being used for what they were obviously intended to be used for, naturally. The genetic factors of infertility notwithstanding.

3] St Paul. Being a man of his time he does not condemn slavery – he was mistaken over that, being a man of his time he does condemn gay sex [there is a debate actually about the type of gay sex he actually does condemn] but most think he was mistaken over that too – at least that is what we are debating.

To say that because Paul did not speak out explicitly denouncing slavery, and therefore declaring him wrong, and then following that with the logic of “well then he must be wrong about this too” which he did speak out explicitly about - is a logical fallacy. One does not follow the other.

To be continued…sorry**

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Here is a short excerpt from HERE regarding the wisdom of the Holy Spirit through Paul.

One the one hand, St. Paul accepted slavery as an established fact, a deeply-rooted social institution which he did not attempt to abolish all at once and suddenly; moreover, if the Christian religion should have attempted violently to destroy pagan slavery, the assault would have exposed the Roman empire to a servile insurrection, the Church to the hostility of the imperial power, and the slaves to awful reprisals. On the other hand, if St. Paul does not denounce the abstract and inherent wrong of complete slavery (if that question presented itself to his mind, he did not express it), he knew and appreciated its actual abuses and evil possibilities and he addressed himself to the regulations and the betterment of existing conditions. He inculcated forbearance to slaves as well as obedience to masters (Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22; 4:1; Philemon 8-12, 15, 17; 1 Timothy 6:1; Titus 2:9). He taught that the Christian slave is the Lord’s freedman (1 Corinthians 7:22), and vigorously proclaimed the complete spiritual equality of slave and freeman, the universal, fatherly love of God, and the Christian brotherhood of men:

For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
(Galatians 3:26-28; cf. Colossians 3:10-11)

I repeat the issue is this:

My daughter has been in a wonderful gay partnership for over 20 years. It has resulted in them leading fulfilling, happy public-spirited lives. To give it up would devastate them. My question is: “Can you really deny what is before your eyes? Can you really claim it is evil or think a God of Love would cast such people into Hell?” If you answer ‘Yes’ you are morally blind

You have a choice – accept some rather abstruse and difficult reasoning that few thinkers beyond your church find persuasive OR accept what is obvious to anyone with a grain of empathy. Which is it to be?

Over and out

Laurie

Having a full understanding of what marriage, and sex is about - from the perspective of the Church, and God through His Church, I accept that viewpoint. This does not mean I do not have empathy for those who participate in this lifestyle. I just do not condone it, and never will.

Pax

John

 

[Portrait]

Dear Laurie,

Without risk of repeating myself ad nauseum and repeatedly restating my position, I think that this would be an appropriate time for me to wind up and bow out of the debate. Before I do, may I take this opportunity to thank you for an interesting and stimulating debate on what is surely a very emotive and thorny issue. However, I think the debate has been, for the most part at any rate, very good natured and I think we have demonstrated that it is possible for men to disagree without being disagreeable and to avoid all bitterness of spirit and expression - something of great importance on a public forum such as this. Now I will reply to your last post before saying farewell.

Firstly, your parity of reasoning between St. Paul’s position on homosexuality and on slavery is flawed and untenable. St. Paul’s unequivocal condemnation of homosexual deviancy (see Romans 1: 24-27; I Cor. 6: 9-10 and I Tim. 9-10) is owing to the fact that it is a direct violation of the moral law of God (“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” Lev. 18: 22) and an effect of the Fall and Original Sin. Such teaching is manifestly not merely a reflection of the times in which he was living but is of perpetual validity and hence continually binding, being based on the law of God.

Secondly, in the absence of any authoritatative point of reference, who are we sinful men ourselves to say that adulterers, polygamists and fornicators are not conforming to accepted standards of morality. You state that ‘moral rules’ (what moral rules?) are acceptable and applicable in these cases but not in the case of homosexuality. Now what makes your subjective, and I would say biased, opinion correct and more authoritative than any other man’s? Thus in the example I gave you of the married man who wanted to break his marriage bond because he had finally found his true soul mate, he would probably argue that remaining married would only make everyone involved unhappy and resentful in the long term. Now who are we to say, without some Divine and trustworthy criterion of righteousness, that he is mistaken or that his potentially adulterous behaviour is disgraceful? Why, it is all boils down to a matter of individual arbitrary opinion. Besides, sinful men will always seek to legitimize their actions or rationalize their behaviour, thus individual opinion is an unsafe guide when it come to ethics. Indeed, this once again underscores why an authoritatative standard of truth is so essential and indispensable.

Thirdly, sorry but so called ‘civil partnerships’ and ‘charming lives’ hardly render homosexual acts of depravity non sinful, no more than a civil marriage and the charming lives of some adulterers makes them non sinful. Both are guilty before an all holy God to whom sin is sin and both are morally blameworthy.

Great Britain is the worse today for decriminalising sodomy and for allowing homosexual ‘civil partnerships’. The increasing prevalence of homosexual perversion, which is complacently regarded by the avante-garde as alternative variant, is actually a dreadful mark of God’s wrath upon a civilisation which now glories in its post-Christian character.

Fourthly, apologies for misuderstanding your analogy with Nazism, but again your parity of reasoning is seriously flawed. There is a wide difference between nefarious Nazi propaganda and the infalllible moral teaching of the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Moreover, the one is of Divine institution whilst the other is a creation of wicked and depotic men. The Church is the body of Christ established for the purpose of promulgating the Gospel of Redemption and of guiding and assisting men so that at the last they may enter into the life everlasting.

Catholics are not blinded by medieval arguments but they do belong to a Divine instituition which faithfully and without error interprets biblical teaching, including the veto on homosexual deviant behaviour. Moreover, they know that they can have implicit trust in the magisterium of the Church, for it will never lead them into error as touching faith and morals.

Finally, God does not condemn any man to hell, men condemn themselves by persisting in sin and continuing impenitent to their life’s end. When a man commits a mortal sin such as homosexuality or adultery, he deliberately thrusts God and His commandments aside. He has effectively chosen himself as his own lord and master so to speak and if he dies without reversing this choice, then that choice becomes final and fixed for all eternity. He will never cease to be a rebel towards God and will thus never cease being unfit for the Kingdom of God.

The root problem of homosexuality is the same as the source of any immoral, idolatrous thought or behaviour. At the deepest levels, homosexual liasons reflect our demand to live our lives on our own terms; it is the sin of autonomous defiant independence.

Until man faces up to the fact of Original Sin and his consequent inborn sinfulness he is unlikely to acknowledge that homosexual deviant acts are a fruit of the Fall and thus sinful, although his God-given conscience will intuitively tell him that such acts are unnatural and unwholesome, unless there has been a complete loss of moral discernment. God forbid.

Well Laurie old chap I must conclude now, but once again thankyou for a good debate. May I suggest for your reading: Fundamentals of the Faith: Essays in Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft, Ignatius Press. It is a very readable introduction to all the elements of Christianity and Catholicism, explaining, defending and showing their relevance to our life and the world’s yearnings.

Warmest good wishes and prayers,

Portrait:tiphat:

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Just for the record:

I have never said that morality is subjective and not objective.

In fact the matter is not black and white and it would take a few pages for me to explain my views on this issue.

Just so you posters know!

Laurie

PS But I am not going to engage in a discussion on the matter - refer to any good book on ethics.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Just for the record:

I have never said that morality is subjective and not objective.

In fact the matter is not black and white and it would take a few pages for me to explain my views on this issue.

Just so you posters know!

Laurie

PS But I am not going to engage in a discussion on the matter - refer to any good book on ethics.

Thank-you, I’ll stop looking for it. LOL - not that I feel it would have made much difference in my position - but I did think I understood your position reasonably well.

Pax

John

 

[camerong]

No, and no, it doesn’t. Because as I went to great pains to show, is that what is objectively logical and natural - coming from a then necessarily logical God - would therefore by default have to assume a logical objective morality - God being both Logical, and Moral - otherwise He would not/Could not be God, by any rational definition. That being the case then, we then cannot turn around and make this objectively logical, natural morality subjective to ourselves and our desires, and opposite to what has been established, without denying it being logical and natural the way it is observed, and therefore intended to be, I.E. - Natural, and therefore objectively moral.

It seems that your argument presupposes the existence of God, does it not? If there is no God, then the logical-moral connection breaks.

Perhaps I am being dense, but I still think you are making a number of jumps. First, it is a jump to say that homosexual sex is illogical. It’s certainly not illogical by the participants, their logic for wanting to do it is quite clear and cogent. I can’t think of any other way to even evaluate the logic of an act. Both Laurie and I have brought this up, and you haven’t resolved this issue.

Second, I still don’t see how just because it is illogical means it is immoral. Why couldn’t God allow something that’s irrational and yet moral? I’ve read through your previous post several times, and I still don’t understand.

Further, by the same view, is not kissing per se immoral? Our mouths are clearly not intended for putting them on each other, so by your definition, kissing would be illogical, and because it is illogical, it is immoral.