Homosexuality

[Portrait]

Good day to you too.

My question was to define ‘natural’. Unless I know what you, OP, and others who make this argument mean by ‘natural’, I don’t know what you mean by saying things like, “Both homosexuality and beastality bring about uncleaness because they are a violation of nature,” or that, “Such conduct is contrary to nature.”

If you or someone else could clearly define the word ‘natural’ as it is being used in this thread, that would be a great help.

Dear Biblepole,

Hello again and thankyou for your response.

Natural, dear friend, is adhering to the design built into human nature by God. Thus purely from a biological perspective, those of the same gender are manifestly not made for intimate ‘face to face’ carnal copulation, either physically or genetically. Who would seriously deny that the vagina is intended to accommodate the penis? Moreover, the vagina has natural lubrication and multiple layers of protective skin in a way in which the anus does not, hence the hazards of infection and disease resulting from unnatural anal intercourse. That condoms must be used to reduce the risks of infection/disease, only serves to underscore the dangers of deviating from heterosexual copulation, the natural expression of human sexuality.

Therefore, dear friend, a consideration of the nature of the reproductive organs shows us plainly that they have inherent functions (known by philosophers as teleologies). Thus in the human body, for example, the purpose of the heart is to pump blood and the purpose of teeth is to tear and grind food. Similarly, the reproductive organs also have teleologies which can easily be discerned. Now to violate this natural arrangement, as homosexual deviant acts most certainly do, is to engage in unnatural aberrant behaviour that is not in accord with our Makers design. Homosexual vice is unnatural because it is clearly a perversion of the natural use of the reproductive organs.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Ignatius]

I talked to some people about gay marriage and heres how it went:

Girl: Happy Pride! if you can’t support equal rights for all, then YOU’RE the gay one.

Me: Equal rights for what? Once homosexual marriage is allowed, other unnatural sexual acts must also be allowed. When do we draw the line? Once you allow gay marriage you must also allow marriage of family members. Are you saying the unnatural marriage of mother and son is perfectly fine?

Girl: There is already a woman legally married to a national monument so I think lines have already been crossed. I would love to know how gay marriage would affect your life

Me: It effects my life by forcing me to engage, and live in a society which encourages, and promotes unnatural behavior; behavior that is against natural law.

Other guy: Define “natural law”

Me: People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.

The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.

Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.

Girl: And who decided that a man should be with a woman and a woman with a man?

Me: It is self evident, but open any biology book for evidence. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, vice versa. In order to reproduce, a human must have sex with the opposite sex; obviously. Animals are usually mobile and seek out a partner of the opposite sex for mating. Look up internal fertilization for more info.

Right, thankfully you don’t know anyone intelligent enough to actually refute what you say.

Girl: What does reproduction have to do with love? What’s so wrong with a gay couple who want to adopt one of the countless children that straight people give up everyday?

Other guy: FYI: countless cases of animals with intimate “gay” interactions.

Google for more info

Me: The bottom line is that homosexuality is unnatural. As I’ve said, allowing homosexual relationships is then promoting, and encouraging other types of unnatural relationships like incest. Just because two people love each other doesn’t mean they should automatically be allowed to marry one another.

Should a gay father and son, who are a “couple,” who “love one another,” be allowed to marry each other? Can’t they adopt a child? Why not? They love each other, right? Because it’s unnatural and goes against the nature of human sexuality the same way homosexuality does. Don’t you see anything obviously wrong with this scenario?

Me: Right Other guy, except there is no evidence that its genetic. No study proves homosexuals are actually born that way. Show me a study proving there is a gay gene. Sexuality is psychological, it’s a part of personality. Personality is developed, which includes sexuality.

Girl: All you’re doing is stating your opinion over and over and bringing up incest which is irrelevant and in no way connected to homosexuality. You’re entitled to your opinion, good luck going through life with such a closed outlook.

Me: My opinion is based upon fact. If homosexuality is natural, is healthy and good, and thats the truth; then I’m all for it. Unfortunately that isn’t the truth. Evidence is the truth, along with reasoning

1. The natural sex partner for a woman is a man, vice versa. That’s a fact.
2. Homosexuality is unnatural relative to 1.
3. No one is born gay.
4. Based on 3, homosexuality is wrong.

With this understanding, homosexuality is an unnatural behavior. Incest is also an unnatural behavior, it is a type of unnatural behavior. Both homosexuality, and incest are unnatural behaviors. If you had read anything I said, you would see how incest is very related to homosexuality.

Once homosexuality is an acceptable behavior, then incest MUST also be an acceptable behavior, since they are both unnatural behaviors. Once you allow ONE type of unnatural behavior, you must then allow all other types.

A gay couple who are father and son is obviously unnatural. It is an incest, and homosexual relationship. There is nothing healthy, or good, or right about that kind of relationship.

lol, I’m the one with a “closed outlook” on life. I’ve actually presented reasonable arguments, and I’m the “ignorant one.” My outlook is the truth. If you can prove to me homosexuality is based upon truth, then I’ll support it. You have failed to do that.

Girl: Why are you putting “ignorant one” in quotes when I never said that? Do you understand what quotes mean? Show me a study that proves people aren’t born gay.
What about a mother and son who have an incest relationship? Uh oh, now incest is factually linked to heterosexuality. Guess you’re bound to eventually be in a sexual relationship with a family member based upon the fact that you’re heterosexual.

Girl 2: Lolcats @ OP. What a comedian.

Other guy: Yeah man, your logic is very misconstrued, and frankly quite laughable. You should re-read that a few times maybe lol. She didn’t call you ignorant, but I will.

Girl 3: I can’t believe you would suggest homosexuality is on the same level as bestiality. Here is an example- Ron and Don are a gay couple. Both men are over 18 and both have legal standing to sign a marriage liscense. Ron owns a dog named fido. Although Ron has a legal standing to sign a marriage liscense, his dog fido dose not have legal standing and cannot sign a marriage liscense. Also, did you choose to be straight? If you state that one’s sexual identity is a choice then you have also admitted to heterosexuality being a choice. Case closed.

Girl 3: Also, if you have taken a college level english composition class, you might have also realized that your last comment contains a slippery slope fallacy. That argument that “if we legalize gay marriage then we will be opening the door to marriages between humans and animals or toasters” is frankly a weak argument that is getting old. I also hope you realize that in our lifetime gay marriage will be legalized nationwide

Girl 4: Homosexuality can be linked to the promotion of the species; by having satisfying sexual relationships with others of the same sex then the body doesn’t go through the stress of reproducing, allowing humans to expend their energy in economically useful ways instead of reproduction. If they do decide to have children later, via adoption etc, they will be able to provide for the children much better. In addition, heterosexual siblings can benefit from the success. I’m not saying that all gay people are successful, but it is a possible ‘reason’ not that I think it needs to be defended. If you have known anyone who has gone through the pain of realizing that they are gay, you know it isn’t a choice; most want to be a normal person; grow up to have a lovely wedding, be husband and wife. They don’t want to be confronted by people that call them unnatural. They just want to ‘normal’. And they are.

What do you think of what I had to say? What are your responses to what these people have said so far?

If people aren’t open to the truth, you are wasting your time. I’d just move on.

 

[Biblepoe]

Natural, dear friend, is adhering to the design built into human nature by God.

If I understand you correctly, by ‘natural’ you mean something is designed by god with an intent. Thanks for the clarification.

I don’t think a logical connection can be made between, “X goes against God’s will,” to, “Therefore, X is wrong.” To illustrate why, let’s consider a hypothetical scenario in which a god made humans for the sole purpose of being snacks for aliens as they travel across the galaxy. Would you say that the humans have a moral obligation to allow the aliens to eat them?

Who would seriously deny that the vagina is intended to accommodate the penis?

I just want to emphasize that there’s a difference between saying that the V does accomidate the P well (and serves the function of reproduction), versus saying that it was designed [by a god]. A lot of times I notice people using the words function and design interchangeably even though they are not, which, I believe, tends to lead to a bit of confusion between people on the opposite sides of these issues.

 

[MacBP]

Gay marriage may indeed open the flood gates. Before you know it, they will want to legalize interracial marriage. People “perceive intuitively” that interracial marriage is ‘wrong.’

I’m being facetious of course… but why doesn’t your line of argumentation apply to interracial marriage?

I’ve heard others use the comparisons between the opposition to gay marriage and the opposition to interracial marriage. I don’t think its a good comparison. An interracial marriage is the same as a non-interracial marriage while a homosexual marriage is qualitatively different from a heterosexual marriage. Accepting the former does not re-define our view of marriage. Gay marriage, however, changes the focus of marriage from children to one another. Granted, that change has already occurred. Gay marriage is simply continuing down that erroneous (in the opinion of the Catholic Church) path.

rofl
you should look up in the dictionary the meaning of the word natural and nature.

Believing in the invisible mass murderer, terrorist who bombed at least two cities with napalm and the creature responsible for the genocide of the human race is totally unnatural whereas (which has nothing to do with your “god”) especially among our closest relatives for instance bonobo. And it has nothing to do with proving their hierarchical status.

You are ignorant religious fanatic as all you lot
Sexual orientation is influenced during pregnancy due to the way hormones interact with the fetus.

Your comments on comparing sexual orientation of homo sapiens to bestiality incest etc just show your complete lack of scientific and medical knowledge on the matter and on NAture itself

Pff…

Hello, and welcome to CAF.

I think I’ll deal with this in a paragraph by paragraph nature.

Believing in the invisible mass murderer, terrorist who bombed at least two cities with napalm and the creature responsible for the genocide of the human race is totally unnatural

Much of the Old Testament (and some of the New Testament) is indeed disturbing. This topic has been covered elsewhere on the forum and discussing it here will do little other than side track the topic. I suggest you make a new post to discuss this topic.

same sex relationships are completely within Nature

Yes the natural world does possess plentiful examples of same sex activity (e.g. Chimps, Hyenas, and Bonobos as you point out). These are typically done for four reasons: mistaken identity, male-male domination, conflict suppression and parental care in situations where there is a lack of males.

I would like to point out that only one of these (parental care) involves anything like a “relationship” and exists only out of pragmatism. Saying same sex relationships exist in the natural world is a little bit of a misnomer since our concept of relationships do not exist in the animal kingdom.

(which has nothing to do with your “god”)

Au contraire mon aime, God has everything to do with nature. As the first mover, the uncaused cause we can directly attribute nature to His will. You’ll be pleased to note that Catholics do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and are free to accept the many natural explanations for the production of the world (with some small exceptions). Another good forum topic if you wish to learn more about the Catholic faith.

especially among our closest relatives for instance bonobo. And it has nothing to do with proving their hierarchical status.

Yes, I’ll grant you that hierarchy may not be the cause of same-sex behaviour in Bonobos. One study I learned about attributed the behavior to their foraging behavior. Bonobos often share food and same sex activity may serve to promote this activity. You seem to want the reader to assume that such activities are about love or forming a dedicated relationship. This is not the case, just as it is not the case when animals engage in heterosexual behavior. We must be careful not to fall prey to anthropomorphism.

You are ignorant religious fanatic as all you lot

That’s hardly fair, Catholic thinkers have produced some impressive scientific achievements (we produced an early scientific method, proposed the big bang, discovered the exact cause of Down Syndrome) not to mention the achievements of other religious thinkers. There are ignorant Catholics just as there are ignorant individuals of any other persuasion.

Sexual orientation is influenced during pregnancy due to the way hormones interact with the fetus.

You are referring to the older brother phenomenon. It is true the hormones have been proposed as solution for this problem. This is not, however, the whole story. Homosexuality is likely the result of a number of interacting factors including, but not limited to, hormones.

Your comments on comparing sexual orientation of homo sapiens to bestiality incest etc just show your complete lack of scientific and medical knowledge on the matter and on NAture itself

Although the OP’s comparison is rather inflammatory I think the comparison is somewhat warranted. The purpose of sex (scientifically, medically, and biologically) is the creation of new life. Sex which cannot or impairs of life is disordered. Why is incest disordered? If the individuals are old enough and can consent shouldn’t they be allowed to love one another just like any non incestuous couple? The answer is simple: incest increases the likelihood of genetic disorders and thus we are genetically designed to consider the subject taboo? I do not think I have heard a single argument for homosexual marriage which cannot apply to a incestuous couple.

Pff…

I do hope you decide to stick around. Feel free to PM me with any questions you might have. Although you certainly don’t seem to be shy, I wouldn’t worry too much about offending me. I’ve heard it all by now.

I hope to hear from you soon.

P.S. My information on homosexuality and animals comes from a lecture by Dr. Reuven Dukas. If you desire posted lecture slides I would be happy to provide although they aren’t self explanatory.

 

[Portrait]

If I understand you correctly, by ‘natural’ you mean something is designed by god with an intent. Thanks for the clarification.

I don’t think a logical connection can be made between, “X goes against God’s will,” to, “Therefore, X is wrong.” To illustrate why, let’s consider a hypothetical scenario in which a god made humans for the sole purpose of being snacks for aliens as they travel across the galaxy. Would you say that the humans have a moral obligation to allow the aliens to eat them?

I just want to emphasize that there’s a difference between saying that the V does accomidate the P well (and serves the function of reproduction), versus saying that it was designed [by a god]. A lot of times I notice people using the words function and design interchangeably even though they are not, which, I believe, tends to lead to a bit of confusion between people on the opposite sides of these issues.

Dear Biblepoe,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response.

As far as the Christian is concerned, dear friend, if something is at variance with the will of God or His holy Commandments then it is clearly wrong. Moreover, your imaginary example assumes, if I may say, a jolly malevolent and inhuman ‘god’, the very opposite to the benevolent God of Christianity, to whom man must render obedience as unto a faithful and loving Creator. The Christian God is a spiritual, substantial, personal being, infinite in intelligence, in will and in all perfection, He is our living and loving Creator, even the Lord of Heaven and earth. Therefore it follows that His Commandments and the natural law, of which He is the author, must be for our temporal and eternal well-being.

Biologically the human body has been designed to function in a specific way according to its Makers instructions and this necessarily excludes alternative sexual variants such as homosexual deviant acts. Such unnatural acts serve no useful purpose for the organism or the race and militate against the normal function of the organism and the perpetuation of our species.

Let us, dear friend, take the argument from anatomy, which serves to illustrate normal function. It is perfectly clear that anatomically and physiologically the ailimentary and the reproductive systems in humans are separate organ systems, that is, man does not have a *cloaca * or the posterior orifice that serves as the one opening for genital, uniary and intestinal tracts in amphibians, birds and reptiles. Even very primitive cultures understand the nature of waste elimination, carnal copulation and child birth.

Furthermore, dear friend, the natural function of coitus is reproduction and since aberrant homosexual acts cannot be pro-creative, there sole purpose is hedonistic, which obviously violates the natural order by any criterion. Clearly, the normative and complimentary function from the natural law irrefragibly demonstrates that the opposite sexes of human beings are reproductive in nature and that this is the norm from which it is plainly wrong to depart.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Biblepoe]

As far as the Christian is concerned, dear friend, if something is at variance with the will of God or His holy Commandments then it is clearly wrong.

So if God commanded us to allow ourselves to be tasty snacks for the traveling aliens, doing otherwise would be wrong.

[God] is our living and loving Creator, . . .] Therefore it follows that His Commandments and the natural law . . .] must be for our temporal and eternal well-being.

According to Leviticus 25:44-46, this loving creator to the people of Israel that they may own slaves as property and may bequeath them to their children as inherited property. Would you consider that proclamation to be “for our temporal and eternal well-being?”

Unless and until this God has been proven to be a reliable messenger for morality, I will consider his commands and intentions to be of little relevance.

Biologically the human body has been designed to function

Biology does not tell us that our bodies are designed, religion does. Biology tells us what the functions of our bodies are and how they function.

Such unnatural acts serve no useful purpose for the organism or the race
. . .]
ince aberrant homosexual acts cannot be pro-creative, there sole purpose is hedonistic

First, I see no reason why doing something for pleasure alone, rather than for a useful purpose, is necessarily wrong.

Second, non-procreative sex can and does tend to serve a social purpose.

Third, this argument would apply just as well to heterosexual couples who are known to be infertile.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Couples who are “known” to be infertile have babies sometimes.

Not every sexual union creates a baby, but the possibility is there with a man and a woman. With two females or two males, there is no possibility of procreation.

I do understand the frustration that arises, when some folks perceive Catholics or Christians in general being very harsh on homosexual acts, but openely or tacitly accepting sinful heterosexual behaviors (fornication, adultery, masturbation, contraception, etc). That is a just criticism. The honest response to give is that those are wrong as well, and if a Christian accepts those acts, then they are at odds with the True faith.

Man has a Creator. That Creator has revealed Himself to us in a number of ways: public revelation and the natural law being two of them

Homosexual relationships are generally not the way they are portrayed on TV. In general they are violent, promiscuous, and short lived. Of course, heterosexual relationships are not how they are portrayed on TV either in which fornication is glorified, while the spiritual, mental, and physical damage inflicted by promiscuity is ignored.

Sex is for marriage period. Marriage is only between a man and a woman. If someone has temptations towards homosexual thoughts or actions, they have the same responsiblity as anyone else- to live chastely. For the non-married, chasity means celibacy.

Pax

 

[Biblepoe]

Couples who are “known” to be infertile have babies sometimes.

There are times in which someone is “infertile” in the sense that it’s extreme unlikely they’ll conceive, and other times when there is no such possibility at all. The point is that I see no reason why the possibility of procreation would be necessary for a sexual act to be moral.

I do understand the frustration that arises, when some folks perceive Catholics or Christians in general being very harsh on homosexual acts, but openely or tacitly accepting sinful heterosexual behaviors (fornication, adultery, masturbation, contraception, etc). That is a just criticism. The honest response to give is that those are wrong as well, and if a Christian accepts those acts, then they are at odds with the True faith.

With the exception of adultery, I don’t see any reason why any of the things above are immoral, even if you god disapproves of them.

Man has a Creator. That Creator has revealed Himself to us in a number of ways: public revelation and the natural law being two of them

Even if this god did reveal himself to me (he apparently doesn’t), I don’t see how his values are all that relevant to what sexual acts are moral.

In general [homosexual relationships] are violent, promiscuous, and short lived.

Way to stigmatize gay people.

Sex is for marriage period.

To say something is for something is to impute someone’s intention. For example, pots are for cooking in the sense that that’s the use most people intend for them. However, I may intend to use pots as drums, so I can correctly say that pots are also for music.

Now with regard to sex, sex is for whatever the people having sex intend. The god you mention may have intended it for something else, but I don’t see why his intentions should be relevant.

 

[Dan_Daly]

God’s intentions are relevant for many reasons.

1. You, I, and everyone, everything else can only exist because He wills it.
2. We will all be judged by God when we die. Life is short. Eternity is a long time.
   “living it up” now and ignoring what God has told us is appropriate or inappropriate behavior is foolish even from a purely selfish point of view, because eternity will be spent either in Heaven or Hell.
3. God has revealed Himself to you and all men. Who had to tell you that murder is wrong? Nobody. Because God has written it on the heart of every man and woman. This is called the natural law. Understanding that homosexual acts are wrong, is also something that can be understood by the natural law.

May I ask you a question?

What do you think the purpose of life is? Or is it purposeless?

Pax

 

[Crescentinus]

God’s intentions are relevant for many reasons.

1. You, I, and everyone, everything else can only exist because He wills it.
2. We will all be judged by God when we die. Life is short. Eternity is a long time.
   “living it up” now and ignoring what God has told us is appropriate or inappropriate behavior is foolish even from a purely selfish point of view, because eternity will be spent either in Heaven or Hell.
3. God has revealed Himself to you and all men. Who had to tell you that murder is wrong? Nobody. Because God has written it on the heart of every man and woman. This is called the natural law. Understanding that homosexual acts are wrong, is also something that can be understood by the natural law.

May I ask you a question?

What do you think the purpose of life is? Or is it purposeless?

Pax

 

[Dan_Daly]

Way to stigmatize gay people.

I wanted to respond to this as well.

My comments were based on numerous personal interactions with people in homosexual relationships. If I’m stigmatizing anything, it’s a behavior, not a person.

But let’s say you are correct, and I’m stigmatizing people.

Based on your other comments, I must ask what do you consider bad about stigmatizing? Who said it’s bad? You? What right would you have to impose your view that stigmatizing is bad on others?

You see, there is a moral order to the universe and it is recongizable by everyone. Of course we all need to continually work on growing in our understanding of that order.

Pax

 

[Biblepoe]

God’s intentions are relevant for many reasons.

1. You, I, and everyone, everything else can only exist because He wills it.
2. We will all be judged by God when we die. Life is short. Eternity is a long time.
   “living it up” now and ignoring what God has told us is appropriate or inappropriate behavior is foolish even from a purely selfish point of view, because eternity will be spent either in Heaven or Hell.

These first two have nothing to do with whether or not an action is immoral per se, but rather what we want to do to be rewarded/not punished by a powerful being. Similarly, if Kim Jong-un of North Korea declared singing to be a capital offense, that doesn’t mean that singing has become immoral per se, but only that you’ll be severely punished for it.

1. God has revealed Himself to you and all men.

But I see no reason to believe that god’s proclamation makes anything moral or immoral. At best, he’s just a messenger for morality. However, I think the fact that this god, in Leviticus 25:44-46, told the Israelites that they may own slaves as property and may bequeath them to their children as inherited property should be sufficient to distrust him as a messenger of morality, because those values are much different than the values we base our moral systems on.

Who had to tell you that murder is wrong? Nobody. Because God has written it on the heart of every man and woman. This is called the natural law. Understanding that homosexual acts are wrong, is also something that can be understood by the natural law.

We know to outlaw murder because it is blindingly obvious that murder prevents a society from prospering and because few people would want to live in a society where murder is tolerated. No god or ‘natural law’ is required for that.

Your question is off-topic, but I’ll briefly address it nonetheless:

What do you think the purpose of life is? Or is it purposeless?

Purpose is necessarily individual. My purpose in driving to a store is whatever my intentions are. My purpose in life is whatever purpose I give it. The purpose that a god would give to my life wouldn’t necessarily be relevant. If his purpose for my life was so that I could be a tasty snack to an alien, I’ll live my life by the purpose I give it rather than being a snack.

If I’m stigmatizing anything, it’s a behavior, not a person.

Your comment in post 24 was:

“In general [homosexual relationships] are violent, promiscuous, and short lived.”

This is a disgusting way to mischaracterize homosexual relationships and put those people in a box. Comments like these tend to perpetuate the conception that gay people are just promiscuous evil people, thus tarnishing their reputation and causing them social harm.

 

[Portrait]

So if God commanded us to allow ourselves to be tasty snacks for the traveling aliens, doing otherwise would be wrong.

According to Leviticus 25:44-46, this loving creator to the people of Israel that they may own slaves as property and may bequeath them to their children as inherited property. Would you consider that proclamation to be “for our temporal and eternal well-being?”

Unless and until this God has been proven to be a reliable messenger for morality, I will consider his commands and intentions to be of little relevance.

Biology does not tell us that our bodies are designed, religion does. Biology tells us what the functions of our bodies are and how they function.

First, I see no reason why doing something for pleasure alone, rather than for a useful purpose, is necessarily wrong.

Second, non-procreative sex can and does tend to serve a social purpose.

Third, this argument would apply just as well to heterosexual couples who are known to be infertile.

Dear Biblepoe,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou again for your response.

The Christian God, dear friend, is not some fiendish deity and therefore would never command the sort of repulsive thing that you suggest.

My Catholic brethren may wish to add further comment respecting the Leviticus passage that you cite, but bear in mind, dear friend, that the authority which Israel had over the bondmen of the pagan nations that surrounded them was in pursuance of the blessing of Jacob, “Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you” (Gen. 27: 29). Moreover, it prefigured the bringing in of the Gentiles to the service of Christ and His Church - “Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession” (Psalm 2: 8), and it is promised (Isa. 61: 5), “Aliens shall stand and feed your flocks, foreigners shall be your plowmen and vinedressers…”. It is also extremely important that we see the slavery of the Old Testament against the backdrop of the privileged position of Israel as God’s chosen people.

God has already proved Himself to be a “reliable messenger of morality”, as the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount clearly show. Would you deem these to be of “little relevance”, dear friend?

The Christian obviously believes that God is the designer of our bodies and so our biological functions owe their origin to His creative will. However, the key point is that even an appeal to the bodily functions, apart from religion, evinces most clearly that we were not intended to engage in homosexual deviant acts such as sodomy, which are plainly unnatural.

Believing that pleasure is the highest good and mankinds proper aim, only results in men leading deeply selfish lives where their chief and only desire is the gratification of their carnal lusts. That, dear friend, is surely a recipe for unbridled dissipation that ultimately leads to a very hollow existence indeed. What sort of “social purpose” does this really serve?

Non-procreative carnal relations that are not open to the possibility of life, dear friend, have a tendency to foster selfishness and a couple focusing exclusively on the pursuit of their own happiness. Moreover, they also necessarily encourage fornication as men and women are quite free to have multiple ‘partners’, without any commitment to one another. This amounts to little more than using one each other for sexual pleasure, to the exclusion of all else.

With respect to infertile spouses, they are barren through no deliberate fault of their own, so their case is hardly on all fours with homosexuals who engage in unnatural vice.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[filter2700]

Thank you for the very helpful posts Portrait.

 

[Biblepoe]

The Christian God, dear friend, is not some fiendish deity and therefore would never command the sort of repulsive thing that you suggest.

By what standard are you judging your god’s character? If you are doing so by his own standard, that would be circular.

My Catholic brethren may wish to add further comment respecting the Leviticus passage that you cite, but bear in mind, dear friend, that the authority which Israel had over the bondmen of the pagan nations that surrounded them was in pursuance of the blessing of Jacob, “Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you” (Gen. 27: 29). Moreover, it prefigured the bringing in of the Gentiles to the service of Christ and His Church - “Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession” (Psalm 2: 8), and it is promised (Isa. 61: 5), “Aliens shall stand and feed your flocks, foreigners shall be your plowmen and vinedressers…”. It is also extremely important that we see the slavery of the Old Testament against the backdrop of the privileged position of Israel as God’s chosen people.

God has already proved Himself to be a “reliable messenger of morality”

So your god is a-ok with owning human beings as property in some contexts! That alone should suffice for not trusting him as a messenger of morality.

God has already proved Himself to be a “reliable messenger of morality”, as the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount clearly show. Would you deem these to be of “little relevance”, dear friend?

Yes I would (at least when it comes to morality). The Ten Commandments forbid things like working on the Sabbath under penalty of death, which we don’t adhere to today. Most of the good prohibitions in the Ten Commandments have been frowned upon by every society. Similarly, the Sermon on the Mount does contain some good teachings, but it also give bad advice by advocating extreme pacifism (Matthew 5:38-42), it tells people to not plan for the future (Matthew 6:25-34), and it contradicts itself (for example, Matthew 6:1-4 says to pray in secret while Matthew 5:16 says to do good works so that others may see them).

Oh yeah, I shouldn’t forget that in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:17-20) Jesus said, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled,” meaning that all of the Old Testament laws apply, even the laws about slavery and not working on the Sabbath under penalty of death.

Any intersection between the ten commandments and our values are incidental.

However, the key point is that even an appeal to the bodily functions, apart from religion, evinces most clearly that we were not intended to engage in homosexual deviant acts such as sodomy, which are plainly unnatural.

The intention of the user, not the maker, is what’s important. This reminds me of a scene from Apollo 13 when the flight director of the mission said to the manufacturer of the one of the spacecraft sections that they needed to use for something it was not designed to do, “I don’t care what it’s designed to do, I care what it can do.”

Believing that pleasure is the highest good and mankinds proper aim . . .] What sort of “social purpose” does this really serve?

I never said that pleasure is the highest good. However, I see no reason why doing something for pleasure alone is necessarily immoral.

On top of that, sex serves a social role by bringing people together. Even the Catholic Church seems to recognize it, since it teaches that the purposes of sex are both unitive and procreative. I simply see no reason why the ability to procreate should be a requirement for sex to be moral.

Non-procreative carnal relations that are not open to the possibility of life, dear friend, have a tendency to foster selfishness and a couple focusing exclusively on the pursuit of their own happiness.

I’m not aware of any studies that suggest that sexual acts not open to procreation causes one to become more selfish.

With respect to infertile spouses, they are barren through no deliberate fault of their own, so their case is hardly on all fours with homosexuals who engage in unnatural vice.

That’s irrelevant to my objection, which is that the capability to procreate is of no relevance to the morality of sex.

 

[Dan_Daly]

We know to outlaw murder because it is blindingly obvious that murder prevents a society from prospering and because few people would want to live in a society where murder is tolerated. No god or ‘natural law’ is required for that.

Ah, but see you are again resorting to moral absolutes to justify your moral relativity.

Who has decided that prosperity is a desirable good for society? Who defines prosperity?

Who has decided that more than a few people should want to live in a particular society? Why are the wants of the many more important than the wants of the few?

You just said that the puprose of life is up to the individual. If an individual decides he finds purpose in killing his neighbors or stealing their property, who are you, or I or anyone else to impose our purpose on him?

You have been speaking of God in the abstract. Lets get more concrete. Do you believe in God? You may not find this question particularly relevant to the topic, but it is.

Pax Christi

 

[Dan_Daly]

That’s irrelevant to my objection, which is that the capability to procreate is of no relevance to the morality of sex.

Again says who? You? So it is your position that God’s view (God who created and maintains the universe) is irrelevant, but your view is authoritative?

Pax

 

[Biblepoe]

Ah, but see you are again resorting to moral absolutes to justify your moral relativity.

I never mentioned moral absolute or moral relativity. I said that no god or ‘natural law’ is required to understand that murder prevents a society from prospering and for few people to want to live in a society where murder was tolerated.

Who has decided that prosperity is a desirable good for society? Who defines prosperity?

If you don’t desire to live in a prosperous society and think that it is “good” to live in a failing society, you are free to leave the country and live in a chaotic society where people randomly murder each other.

Why are the wants of the many more important than the wants of the few?

You just said that the puprose of life is up to the individual. If an individual decides he finds purpose in killing his neighbors or stealing their property, who are you, or I or anyone else to impose our purpose on him?

People place importance on things based on their values. I’m saying that people do value a safe society where they are mostly free of murder, and that a god and natural law are unnecessary for that. If someone commits murder while 99.999999% of everyone else disvalues it, the 99.999999% will probably do something to him.

Do you believe in God? You may not find this question particularly relevant to the topic, but it is.

Could you explain how it is actually relevant to the topic, because I fail to see how this would change the quality of any of the arguments on this thread.

Biblepoe;9462443:

That’s irrelevant to my objection, which is that the capability to procreate is of no relevance to the morality of sex.

Again says who? You?

Well, your religion apparently says one can marry without being capable of procreating (at least if you’re heterosexual). Thus, it seems your religion holds that the ability to procreate is irrelevant to whether of not sexual activity is moral.

So it is your position that God’s view (God who created and maintains the universe) is irrelevant, but your view is authoritative?

It’s my view that none of the arguments on this thread have drawn a logical connection between, “it is the case that the creator commands X” and, “you aught to do X.”

The best attempt I’ve seen so far is to say that the god will reward and or punish us based on whether or not we follow his commands, but that’s not an argument that things are actually immoral per se, but rather an arguing that you’ll want to conform to the powerful dictator.

 

[Dan_Daly]

The question of belief in God is important for a great many reasons, but one in particular is that man can know God exists by his reason. It follows that atheism is an act of unreason. Now that doesn’t mean an atheistic is always unreasonable about everything, but they are unreasonable about a fundamental of existence.

So asking you whether or not you believe in God is one way of seeing how reasonable you are.

Yes, fear of hell can be an important motivator for doing good, but it’s not the best one. Just as a husband might do something good because he doesn’t want his wife to nag him. Well, that’s better than doing something bad, but even better would be to do something good because he loves his wife.

Likewise, man ought not to obey God purely out of fear, but primarily out of love.

Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law?
Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind.
This is the greatest and the first commandment.
And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.

-Matthew 22:36-40.

Now how can a man love God wit his whole heart, soul, and mind and at the same time think God’s commandments are irrelevant to how the man lives his life?

He can’t. Just as a husband would didn’t care what his wife thought couldn’t love her.

Pax

 

[Biblepoe]

The question of belief in God is important for a great many reasons, but one in particular is that man can know God exists by his reason. It follows that atheism is an act of unreason. Now that doesn’t mean an atheistic is always unreasonable about everything, but they are unreasonable about a fundamental of existence.

So asking you whether or not you believe in God is one way of seeing how reasonable you are.

Here’s the kicker: People can (and often are) reasonable with regard to one belief while being unreasonable with regard to other beliefs. When discussing an issue, what’s important is their reasoning on the issue being discussed, not how reasonable/unreasonable they are with regard to other beliefs. To dismiss a person’s reasoning on a topic because of their faulty reasoning on another topic would be to commit the fallacy called the argumentum ad hominem.

Yes, fear of hell can be an important motivator for doing good, but it’s not the best one. Just as a husband might do something good because he doesn’t want his wife to nag him. Well, that’s better than doing something bad, but even better would be to do something good because he loves his wife.

Likewise, man ought not to obey God purely out of fear, but primarily out of love.

But my point wasn’t about what motivates one to do good, but whether or not the fact that a god commands something makes it good or bad.

-Matthew 22:36-40.

Now how can a man love God wit his whole heart, soul, and mind and at the same time think God’s commandments are irrelevant to how the man lives his life?

He can’t. Just as a husband would didn’t care what his wife thought couldn’t love her.

So you seem to be saying that loving someone means one aught to obey their commands. Thus, it seems that the logical consequence of this is loving your enemy requires obeying your enemy. Do you think we should love our enemies? if so, do you think US soldiers would have to obey terrorists (which would be a logical consequence to what you seem to be saying and a “yes” to the previous question).

Or loving someone does not necessarily mean one aught to obey them.