Legislating same sex unions vs contraception

[I_am_learning]

The arguments against same sex unions in terms of legislation, based primarily on natural law (read up on this if you do not know what it is), make sense to me. However, there is a similar logic used to justify being against Contraception (natural law), so what is what differentiates them? What puts the former above the latter enough in terms of the need to legislate?

In other words, abortion is said to be a justice issue, while contraception is a moral one (should not legislate), so where would same sex unions fall? Thanks and God bless.

 

[Peter_J]

I think you’re confusing opposition to SSM laws with the criminalization of gay sex in some parts of the world.

Keep in mind, I’m not trying to stop gay couple from doing what they want, I just don’t want my government to affirm their belief that their marriages are valid.

 

[I_am_learning]

I think you’re confusing opposition to SSM laws with the criminalization of gay sex in some parts of the world.

Keep in mind, I’m not trying to stop gay couple from doing what they want, I just don’t want my government to affirm their belief that their marriages are valid.

Ah, I see. So natural law, like in contraception, can be used to try to persuade others. I guess I would agree that at the minimum, calling it marriage need not happen. However, Karlo Broussard (for example) I heard took it a bit further, saying that for human flourishing to occur, we apply the natural law. Since same sex unions goes against this, they are not to be promoted nor condoned by the state (paraphrasing. The full explanation was on CAL). I get this, but of course arresting people is something much further than I think he meant. Perhaps a more plausible plan of action would take place in an educative manner.

 

[Otar_Mendes]

As a non-religious person I can honestly tell you that you might have some problems using “natural law” argument to “try to persuade others” considering lots of other people think this “natural law” has little to nothing to do with the actual Nature itself and the nature of homo sapient species and it’s more of a pseudo-philosophical construct that was invented when Christians saw that they couldn’t influence others using religion directly.

 

[Lucretius]

Keep in mind, I’m not trying to stop gay couple from doing what they want, I just don’t want my government to affirm their belief that their marriages are valid.

I’m not trying to stop homosexuals from doing what they want either, which is why, if I were king, sodomy would procure jail time, in order to pressure those tempted to behave in such perverted ways from doing what they do not want to do, because no one wants to commit sodomy

Christi pax.

 

[I_am_learning]

As a non-religious person I can honestly tell you that you might have some problems using “natural law” argument to “try to persuade others” considering lots of other people think this “natural law” has little to nothing to do with the actual Nature itself and the nature of homo sapient species and it’s more of a pseudo-philosophical construct that was invented when Christians saw that they couldn’t influence others using religion directly.

Eh, I would disagree, but I would read up on an actual defense of it, because you seem to misunderstand a lot of it. Perhaps on Ed Feser’s blog (google it) or in his book “Aquinas.”

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’m not trying to stop homosexuals from doing what they want either, which is why, if I were king, sodomy would procure jail time, in order to pressure those tempted to behave in such perverted ways from doing what they do not want to do, because no one wants to commit sodomy

Christi pax.

By the same logic, we could ban reading the Bible, and justify it that we weren’t trying to make Christians stop doing what they want – rather, we were trying to make them not want to read the Bible.

It’s sophistry, and it’s insulting to people who genuinely deal with the temptation to have a homosexual relationship.

 

[Lucretius]

By the same logic, we could ban reading the Bible, and justify it that we weren’t trying to make Christians stop doing what they want – rather, we were trying to make them not want to read the Bible.

It’s sophistry, and it’s insulting to people who genuinely deal with the temptation to have a homosexual relationship.

Actually, it’s an insight that Plato, Arisotle, St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Thomas, etc. have all noticed: that there are different kinds of want, and they often conflict. That is, human motivation (especially sinful human motivation) is complex, and many, if not most, people don’t have the self-knowledge to know what they actually, truly want.

For example, we could say the drunkard wanted to drive drunk in a sense, but we can also say that the drunk very much didn’t want to drive drunk (especially if he ends up in the hospital).

The first sense is what Plato and Aristotle called passion, and what St. Paul called the flesh, while the second is what Plato and Aristotle called reason, and St. Paul (and Christ) called the spirit. The goal of of virtue is to order the passions to reason, that is, to strike a balance between our spontaneous, passionate, emotional, short term aimed selves with out reflective, spiritual, cultural, rational, long term aimed selves.

What I’m saying is that people definitely don’t want to behave like homosexuals in the latter sense, the “rational” sense. Sure, they might want to be a sodomite in the first sense, in the flesh as St. Paul would say, but this desire is inherently incompatible with the desire of reason, the spirit, natural law, inner man, whatever you want to call it.

For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

This just goes to show just how lacking our modern understandings of the human psyche, consent, autonomy, maturity, morality, etc. are.

Christi pax.

 

[Peter_J]

It’s sophistry, and it’s insulting to people who genuinely deal with the temptation to have a homosexual relationship.

I agree, Prodigal_Son – all the more so because of the winky-face that accompanied it. But unfortunately, jail-time-for-sodomy was supported by quite a lot of Americans as recently as the beginning of this century. I wouldn’t even be surprised if there are some in the current administration who would bring it back, given the chance.

It’s even sadder when you consider what a tremendous black eye such attitudes give conservatives.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Actually, it’s an insight that Plato, Arisotle, St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Thomas, etc. have all noticed: that there are different kinds of want, and they often conflict. That is, human motivation (especially sinful human motivation) is complex, and many, if not most, people don’t have the self-knowledge to know what they actually, truly want.

For example, we could say the drunkard wanted to drive drunk in a sense, but we can also say that the drunk very much didn’t want to drive drunk (especially if he ends up in the hospital).

The first sense is what Plato and Aristotle called passion, and what St. Paul called the flesh, while the second is what Plato and Aristotle called reason, and St. Paul (and Christ) called the spirit. The goal of of virtue is to order the passions to reason, that is, to strike a balance between our spontaneous, passionate, emotional, short term aimed selves with out reflective, spiritual, cultural, rational, long term aimed selves.

What I’m saying is that people definitely don’t want to behave like homosexuals in the latter sense, the “rational” sense. Sure, they might want to be a sodomite in the first sense, in the flesh as St. Paul would say, but this desire is inherently incompatible with the desire of reason, the spirit, natural law, inner man, whatever you want to call it.

For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

This just goes to show just how lacking our modern understandings of the human psyche, consent, autonomy, maturity, morality, etc. are.

Christi pax.

This is a much more thoughtful and less annoying post, that’s for sure. There is something that I still find condescending in it, though. It is one thing to say that the Church teaches – and you agree – that a proper exercise of reason would exclude the INTENT to engage in homosexual sex. That makes perfect sense to me.

But it seems to me that you are suggesting that all sexually active gay people are simply lying to themselves. Whereas many of them would say that they believe they are properly exercising reason, and therefore they would ask you to offer reasons to believe that YOUR exercise of reason is superior, you seem to reduce their approach to the world as something fully irrational – not just in the sense that it is objectively flawed, but in the sense that they’re not even *trying *to be rational.

Many of them are trying to be rational, and to square rationality with their passions, just like the rest of us. If their conclusions differ from yours, that seems to be a place for arguments and reasoning, not assertion.

For the record, I’m with the Church on this one. And also, for the record, I always found the passages where Plato redefines “want” to suit his purposes condescending and sophistical. One can make the same point without telling people they don’t know what they want.

 

[Lucretius]

But it seems to me that you are suggesting that all sexually active gay people are simply lying to themselves.*

Some are lying to themselves. Others are too lazy or too inexperienced to consider and see the long term tendencies of their behaviors. Still others see many of these consequences, but blame them on extristic factors such as “homophobic” people and Christian influenced culture, or outright deny that they actually occur, or that they “won’t occur to them.” And some are like St. Augustine: they want to stop in a real way, but they don’t have the will -or even the grace at the moment- to resist the flesh.

Or, a little bit of each.

There are different reactions to one’s homosexual tendencies: we all know about the militant homosexuals, but I find to that many simple despair and “go with the flow,” just following the impulse, and so forth.

Human motivation is a messy, complex thing, huh?

And also, for the record, I always found the passages where Plato redefines “want” to suit his purposes condescending and sophistical. One can make the same point without telling people they don’t know what they want.

But not saying the tyrants and homosexuals don’t do what they want doesn’t carry the full power of the insight into human desire, nor does it ruffle up as many feathers and make one sit down and really think about it.

After all, as I pointed out, Plato isn’t redefining “want,” he is simply drawing insights regarding how we use the term in different senses. “I want to eat the cake,” and “I want to lose weight” both use “want,” and refer to real desires, but they refer to different kinds of want, which is clear from the fact that they can conflict. This difference is which St. Thomas would call the difference between the sensible appetite and intellectual appetite, or the passions and the will informed by reason.

Christi pax.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Some are lying to themselves. Others are too lazy or too inexperienced to consider and see the long term tendencies of their behaviors. Still others see many of these consequences, but blame them on extristic factors such as “homophobic” people and Christian influenced culture, or outright deny that they actually occur, or that they “won’t occur to them.” And some are like St. Augustine: they want to stop in a real way, but they don’t have the will -or even the grace at the moment- to resist the flesh.

Or, a little bit of each.

There are different reactions to one’s homosexual tendencies: we all know about the militant homosexuals, but I find to that many simple despair and “go with the flow,” just following the impulse, and so forth.

Human motivation is a messy, complex thing, huh?

Well, there are a lot of gay people who DO see the rot in the homosexual community, but who (rightly, I think) see no viable option in the Christian community. Catholics in America usually have no real “community”, and live as isolated individuals and families who receive sacraments. Protestants live in more vibrant communities, often, but these communities are built around marriage. If you don’t marry, you don’t fit.

How does a gay person – especially a person who (gasp) sometimes falls into temptation – fit? They don’t. It’s very, very sad. If we want to give these people hope, give them a community that shows them love and compassion!

But the people you mention who think that there are few negative consequences of homosexual acts, or that the negative consequences are because of homophobia – these people have opinions that deserve respect and response from us. They are intellectual opinions. An opinion can be honestly and thoughtfully held without being correct.

(I’m not saying that you seem to disagree. I think we’re largely on the same page here.)

After all, as I pointed out, Plato isn’t redefining “want,” he is simply drawing insights regarding how we use the term in different senses. “I want to eat the cake,” and “I want to lose weight” both use “want,” and refer to real desires, but they refer to different kinds of want, which is clear from the fact that they can conflict. This difference is which St. Thomas would call the difference between the sensible appetite and intellectual appetite.

In other words, by using “want” in both these senses, Plato is equivocating on the word “want”. I think exploiting the word “want” through equivocation, in order to show that someone “doesn’t want what they claim to want” is patronizing. Socrates, in his conversations, was often patronizing in this way, and I don’t think it was a good trait.

 

[Lucretius]

In other words, by using “want” in both these senses, Plato is equivocating on the word “want”. I think exploiting the word “want” through equivocation, in order to show that someone “doesn’t want what they claim to want” is patronizing. Socrates, in his conversations, was often patronizing in this way, and I don’t think it was a good trait.

He’s not committing a fallacy: his whole point is precisely to bring to our attention these different uses of the term, and the reality that this reveals.

It’s not like he’s denying that some desire to behave like sodomites; he’s pointing out that this is not what they truly want. A self report is only as accurate as the person’s self-knowledge.

Christi pax.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

He’s not committing a fallacy: his whole point is precisely to bring to our attention these different uses of the term, and the reality that this reveals.

It’s not like he’s denying that some desire to behave like sodomites; he’s pointing out that this is not what they truly want. A self report is only as accurate as the person’s self-knowledge.

Plato never claimed that the word was used in different ways, at least not in the Gorgias. Perhaps Aristotle or Aquinas separated out different uses of the term, but Plato didn’t. He just equivocated.

I say this despite the fact that I absolutely LOVE Plato.

 

[Lucretius]

Plato never claimed that the word was used in different ways, at least not in the Gorgias. Perhaps Aristotle or Aquinas separated out different uses of the term, but Plato didn’t. He just equivocated.

I say this despite the fact that I absolutely LOVE Plato.

You are assuming that Plato is just wrong here, while I’m trying to understand what Plato is talking about. He didn’t commit the fallacy of equivocation: he means “want” in the same way that Dante is talking about here:

"My son, you’ve seen the temporary fire
and the eternal fire; you have reached
the place past which my powers cannot see.

I’ve brought you here through intellect and art;
from now on, let your pleasure be your guide;
you’re past the steep and past the narrow paths.

Look at the sun that shines upon your brow;
look at the grasses, flowers, and the shrubs
born here, spontaneously, of the earth.

Among them, you can rest or walk until
the coming of the glad and lovely eyes—
those eyes that, weeping, sent me to your side.

Await no further word or sign from me:
**your will is free, erect, and whole—to act
against that will would be to err: therefore

I crown and miter you over yourself.**"

Christi pax.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Have you recently read the relevant passage in the Gorgias? I have, and I can tell you it involves equivocation between the two senses of “want” that you have been discussing. The basic gist is this:

• Socrates says that orators are the worst people in the city at getting what they want.
• His interlocutor says that is absurd. Orators want power, and they have power, since they can easily manipulate people.
• Socrates says orators lack the power to get what they want.
• Clearly the interlocutor means that orators HAVE the power to be popular, rich, and respected – all things that they want, according to the sensible appetite.
• Socrates does NOT admit that the orators want those things, in any sense of the word. He does not distinguish the sensible and intellectual appetites.
• Instead, he says that orators do not get what they want, and proceeds to prove that the orators want happiness, and that their speaking power does not get them happiness.
• Socrates thereby proves that they do not get what they want according to the intellectual appetite, but he does not prove anything about the sensible appetite.
• He glosses over the distinction you are making, in other words. It is winning an argument by equivocation.

 

[ATraveller]

I’m not trying to stop homosexuals from doing what they want either, which is why, if I were king, sodomy would procure jail time, in order to pressure those tempted to behave in such perverted ways from doing what they do not want to do, because no one wants to commit sodomy

Christi pax.

How about fornication and adultery? Why focus on one sexual sin? The reason why we are even in this turmoil is due to all of the fornication and adultery by heterosexuals of decades past.
The celibate homosexual is closer to Heaven and the fornicating heterosexual is closer to Hell.

 

[Peter_J]

The celibate homosexual is closer to Heaven and the fornicating heterosexual is closer to Hell.

Shocking notion!

 

[chloride]

Shocking notion!

Unfortunately, it is to many people.

 

[Vico]

The arguments against same sex unions in terms of legislation, based primarily on natural law (read up on this if you do not know what it is), make sense to me. However, there is a similar logic used to justify being against Contraception (natural law), so what is what differentiates them? What puts the former above the latter enough in terms of the need to legislate?

In other words, abortion is said to be a justice issue, while contraception is a moral one (should not legislate), so where would same sex unions fall? Thanks and God bless.

No legislation?

• The UN delegation of the Holy See objected to the inclusion of contraception and reproductive rights in worldwide development goals.
• The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has fought the Affordable Care Act requirements for contraception coverage.
• Catholic authorities in the Philippines opposed a bill to allow government health centers to stock free or subsidized birth control, but it passed in 2012. Catholic hospitals and clinics often do not offer contraceptives.

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

1. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html