How is Homosexuality Wrong, by Reasoning?

[Dwyer]

I have to disagree with Polaris about natural law being specifically a Christian theory of what is right and what is wrong.

I won’t be able to go into detail right now, and I don’t know if I’ll be able to return to this Thread specifically.

But natural law had its roots in Greek philosophy, including the philosophy of Socrates.

Natural law is derived by direct or indirect deductions from the basic moral principle “Do good and avoid evil.”

Natural law is recognizable by all human beings; the natural law derieves its validity from the natural law itself.

Natural law can be used by Christians, and it is, but it also can be used by atheists, hedonists, cynics, members of other religions, and all mankind.

This is probably one of the better natural law arguments:

This is an easy question, and it can be proved without bringing God into the equation (not out of disrespect, but usually the opponents of this argument dont belive in God to begin with).

The purpose of finding a mate is the pro-create period, no ifs ands or buts. Semen is designed to end up in one place, and any other use of it (whether by heterosexuals, homosexuals, or scientists) is illicit and highly against the natural law. What is the natural law? If a species is to survive it must reproduce.

I think you could also make an argument **from CUSTOM **or HUMAN TRADITION:

Most human societies, historically, have prohibited homosexuality; there may have been one or two glaring exceptions (perhaps in Ancient Greece; but the Ancient Greeks were exceptionally different from almost every society that has ever existed, including our own).

(We like to think our American society is the intellectual descendant of Ancient Greece, but it is very different.

Only in Ancient Greece could Aristophanes write a play satirizing the Athenian war against Sparta, and people flocked to the Theater to see it, and Aristophanes wasn’t punished for writing it.

Now if someone in our society had written such a play after Pearl Harbor, or after our invasion of Afghanistan or right after we invaded Iraq five years ago, I think the author would have been pilloried by the media and perhaps the play wouldn’t have been allowed to be performed in a public place).

 

[Dwyer]

To make a long story short, one of my friends is asking for logical proof that homosexuality is wrong. Basically, he doesn’t want me to say it’s wrong “because the Bible says so.” He wants evidence. His main argument is “what’s wrong with a homosexual if he’s not hurting/affecting people who don’t share his beliefs? Can’t they be left alone?”

Thinking about this a little more, I came up with the following arguments, using secular philosophers to counter your friends arguments which are being argued from, whether he knows it or not, a ULTILITARIAN moral philosophy (Jeremy Benthem’s school of philosophy) which is the basis of most modern liberal thinking / morality, along with PRAGMATISM.

From Jean Jaques Rousseau:

I would argue that in a democracy it is the general will of the people that should become law, and the individual must subscribe to the general will. The individual cannot trump the general will of his fellow citizens.

We recognize this in our own society, with safety belt laws, laws with age limits on drinking alcohol, the Draft, laws against loud noise / nuisance laws / disturbing the peace, having sex in public places, etc.

From Thomas Hobbes:

I would argue that the individual lives not alone but in a society; the society is necessary for him to live a safe existence. Without society, anarchy would reign. The individual this must sacrifice his individual liberty in order to be protected by the state.

Under this theory, this individual has no rights and receives all his rights directly from the state, because, without the state, he would be living in a state of anarchy where life is nasty, brutish, and short and he thus would have no individual rights in a state of nature.

Thus all rights come from the state.

From Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence:

Jefferson disagreed with Hobbes and saw men having natural “inalienable rights,” derieved from and endowed by their Creator and Nature’s God.

Jefferson was making a natural law argument in the Declaration of Independence!!!

Hey, they don’t mention that in school.

As a matter of fact, they don’t tell you any of this anywhere (the only exception being on Catholc Answers’ Radio Program and newsletters) because the people in charge of our society don’t want you to know it.

Thus, natural law is the foundation stone of our Revolution and of the nation that was founded as a result of that Revolution.

The natural law, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, trumps the laws made by men (the “positive” law).

Thus, gay marriage and homosexual acts must be banned in accordance with the natural law.

Since homosexualty violates the natural law, it must be made illegal.

Now, you’ll get people who’ll say something like “well, the Declaration isn’t a legal document” or that “well, homosexuality is part of nature and is found in the Great Apes.”

Just stick to these arguments, and those people won’t be able to counter them, even though your arguments may sound a little eccentric by today’s “standards” because, as I’ve shown, the people in charge of our society and educational system don’t want you to know this because it will interfere with the government (through taxes) and business owners making money off potential population markets.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

So we can keep on track, lets all remember the following. It is not the tendency to homosexuality that is sinful. It is the practice of homosexual sex that is sinful.
Deacon Ed B

 

[revelations]

I think you could also make an argument **from CUSTOM **or HUMAN TRADITION:

??? My argument was based on biology, not human tradition. Man and man are not MADE to fit together. Even if you retrofit some parts together, the result is not the intent of the design. The orgasm is a biological reflex that releases chemicals in our brain that make us want to procreate, and thereby continue our existence. MSM cannot fulfill this basic biological function no matter how hard they try. It is not natural. The act is a perversion of nature. This has nothing to do with human tradition, or anything of the sort.

Homosexual acts are biologically abnormal.

 

[Ender]

how could claim the article was “As far as the science is concerned, this article was right on.”-Post #60 and now it “neither cites sources”?

The article contains scientific statements; the fact that the statements were not footnoted doesn’t make them any less scientific. You claimed the article was “void of science”. That charge is untrue.

the problem is two fold 1) I do not believe your challenge as genuine, 2) the challenge by definition is a waste of time (which is why I believe you made it) that was known during the initial read

You dismissed the article as being poorly written sophistry and attacked my comments about it: “though interesting should be hid from scrutiny, otherwise it will not survive.” I have challenged you to defend your charge. That you are unable to do so is unsurprising.

btw have you addressed internally the 6% problem with the lesbians?

If, as seems most likely, people are not born homosexual but are drawn into the lifestyle, then having a homosexual in the family would increase the likelihood that other family members would adopt that behavior themselves. If the study’s numbers are correct, a sister’s influence doubles the chance that a girl will become a lesbian herself while a mother’s influence increases the likelihood tenfold.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The article contains scientific statements; the fact that the statements were not footnoted doesn’t make them any less scientific.

and the author nor you can provide any “facts” or if properly analyzed " a body of supporting circumstantial evidence"? Instead opinion is submitted as fact

You claimed the article was “void of science”. That charge is untrue.

would it not be easy to prove if it were in fact untrue?

You dismissed the article as being poorly written sophistry and attacked my comments about it: “though interesting should be hid from scrutiny, otherwise it will not survive.” I have challenged you to defend your charge.

and what charge is that?

That you are unable to do so is unsurprising.

actually unable is not the same as unwilling

If, as seems most likely,

science is not “most likely”

people are not born homosexual but are drawn into the lifestyle, then having a homosexual in the family would increase the likelihood that other family members would adopt that behavior themselves. If the study’s numbers are correct, a sister’s influence doubles the chance that a girl will become a lesbian herself while a mother’s influence increases the likelihood tenfold.

Ender

I see I am sorry I misunderstood earlier you have a 3% problem. So if science is on your side explain the 3%. Or at least use it to hide from the earlier stance. btw did you (assuming you read the article) notice the author did explain the base of his knowledge did you catch that?

 

[Exalt]

So we can keep on track, lets all remember the following. It is not the tendency to homosexuality that is sinful. It is the practice of homosexual sex that is sinful.
Deacon Ed B

The gap between *tendency *and *sex *is HUGE.

---

And that’s putting it mildly. There is *acceptance *that homosexuality is okay. There is the beginnings of a romantic relationship with someone of the same gender. There is flirting with another man or women. There is holding another man or woman’s hand. There is kissing - there are dates - there is moving in - there is marriage. And there are tons of other things having to do with romantic relationships. Sex is one tiny part of that. Homosexual *relationships *are sinful. Not just sex.

 

[revelations]

:knight2: Cut’s like a sword! Nice post exalt, very solid.

 

[Dale_M]

Okay, I’m game for a reasoned discussion.

The purpose of finding a mate is the pro-create period, no ifs ands or buts.

This is an assumption, but that doesn’t mean it is true. It could be argued that the purpose of finding a mate is individual survival (emotional and material support) as adults, once parents are no longer looking after oneself.

Semen is designed to end up in one place, and any other use of it (whether by heterosexuals, homosexuals, or scientists) is illicit

Design? illicit? Those words make me think you have some outside concepts underlying your argument.

What is the natural law? If a species is to survive it must reproduce.

I disagree with your equation survival = reproduction. Survival of a species is contingent upon not just reproduction, but of the next generation itself living long enough to reproduce. Having babies is of no value, if those babies are not able to live long enough to have babies of their own.

Survival in the human species is very much tied to altruism, in which adults of all stripes look after one another and of the offspring as well. This means that sex is only partially related to survival, and why homosexuality is not excluded - after all, adults who do not have offspring to tend are able to look after the well being of other adults and their offspring. This could be why homosexuality is found in animals as well as in humans… non-reproducing adults provide a safety margin which enhances the survival of the social group (tribe, troop, pack etc)

 

[Exalt]

:knight2: Cut’s like a sword! Nice post exalt, very solid.

Thank you.

By the way, I completely disagree with the idea that homosexual relationships are inherantly immoral, harmful, or in* any* way “wrong”. Just thought I’d make that clear. Also, I don’t believe in God and disagree with a great deal of Church teaching.

But I don’t distort it. I see it quite clearly. I wish more Catholics did, and saw the Church for exactly what it presents itself to be.

 

[Karen10]

How does prostitution empower. It gives them a steady income where they do not have to be supported by a man to survive. It is when it is illegal that more problems with abuse and drug use come into play by pimps.

This is simply untrue. The quickest Internet searches will bring you results of for the human/prostitute trafficking/slavery problem which exists just the same in areas where prostitution is legal. Just google “human trafficking”, “Europe”, “Amsterdam”, “Paris”, “prostitution”, etc. etc.

In case someone doesn’t know, it’s not just Amsterdam where prostitution is legal in Europe. It is legal in many parts of countries in Europe; it’s just that prostitution is kept to certain districts of towns and cities.

Just one site that is probably not the best, but it came up quickly:
humantrafficking.com/humantrafficking/features_ht3/MSNBC_Sex_Slaves/MSNBC_1.htm

 

[buffalo]

But I don’t distort it. I see it quite clearly. I wish more Catholics did, and saw the Church for exactly what it presents itself to be.

Where did you find this info? Care to share it?

 

[jmcrae]

Thank you.

By the way, I completely disagree with the idea that homosexual relationships are inherantly immoral, harmful, or in* any* way “wrong”. Just thought I’d make that clear. Also, I don’t believe in God and disagree with a great deal of Church teaching.

But I don’t distort it. I see it quite clearly. I wish more Catholics did, and saw the Church for exactly what it presents itself to be.

If there is no God, then there is no absolute standard of “right and wrong” beyond what is convenient to ourselves, so of course any action with no apparent victims could not be construed as “wrong” and no wonder you disagree with a huge amount of Church teaching. The source of your issues is the fact that you don’t believe in God.

If you believed in God, you would have less trouble understanding and following these things.

 

[KES]

Yeah, but then you’d not have a chance to post how it’s been discussed to death.

But to the OP. What sort of reasoning are you looking for?

Natural Law is probably the best fit (no pun intended ) Anatomy is ordered toward a specific goal. Mouths are for eating, rear ends for eliminating and reproductive organs for reproducing.

Would you say that everytime a married heterosexual couple has sex without reproducing it is a sin? Or what if they have sex without the intention to reproduce?

 

[jmcrae]

Would you say that everytime a married heterosexual couple has sex without reproducing it is a sin? Or what if they have sex without the intention to reproduce?

If it’s neutral (whatever happens, happens) then it’s not a sin, but if they are actively preventing a child, then yes, it’s a sin.

Sex has two purposes: reproduction, and bonding of the married couple.

 

[Dale_M]

Sex has two purposes: reproduction, and bonding of the married couple.

…says you and the Church. But those outside the Church may (and often do) disagree.

 

[jmcrae]

…says you and the Church. But those outside the Church may (and often do) disagree.

And … ?

 

[Tick_Dawk]

See, homosexuality in and of itself isn’t wrong. I guess having homosexual sex is wrong.

 

[jmcrae]

See, homosexuality in and of itself isn’t wrong. I guess having homosexual sex is wrong.

Yes - along with every other kind of sex outside of the valid and lawful marriage between one man and one woman.

 

[monica1950]

ANY sex performed by anyone outside of marriage and by anyone of the same gender IS totally wrong. anyone who doesn’t see it that way will probably be in for a BIG shock when they meet their Maker.