If one thinks about the sexual acts in question and observes what happens and why when a man ejaculates, it is difficult to see two men engaging in those acts as entirely rational. That these men come to desire this act can perhaps be understood and accepted, but it is difficult not to conclude that one man drawn to engage in this act with another man reflects that something has gone awry.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 …
Forgive my ignorance, but does that mean that the Holy See supports contraception-comstock legislation (as the US had before Griswold v. Connecticut)?No legislation?
- The UN delegation of the Holy See objected to the inclusion of contraception and reproductive rights in worldwide development goals.
What I am referring to regarding the UN is here: holyseemission.org/contents/statements/statements-55e60e559a5749.94098476.phpForgive my ignorance, but does that mean that the Holy See supports contraception-comstock legislation (as the US had before Griswold v. Connecticut)?
This view is peculiar to Catholic natural law based on Thomistic natural law that sexual activity is justifiable only in marriage and must be open to procreation. Such a view denigrates the fact that certain bodily organs are and can be employed either for pleasure or for reproduction, or for both. It also denies the unitive nature of sexual activity and flourishing outside of opposite sex marriage.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.
…because homosexuality is the topic of the thread, and not fornication and adultery?How about fornication and adultery? Why focus on one sexual sin?
Plato, Arisotle, Cicero, etc. all held that homosexuality was unnatural and wrong.This view is peculiar to Catholic natural law based on Thomistic natural law that sexual activity is justifiable only in marriage and must be open to procreation.
Sexual activity tends towards children and bonding, and marriage is precisely that environment that gives children a chance to be raised well, and commitments are taken seriously. This is why sexual activity should be restrained to the institution of marriage. This understanding is known even in non philosophical societies. What you are saying is precisely the opposite.Such a view denigrates the fact that certain bodily organs are and can be employed either for pleasure or for reproduction, or for both. It also denies the unitive nature of sexual activity and flourishing outside of opposite sex marriage.
Both Aristotle and Plato thought that homosexual activity was unnatural and wrong, but neither of them thought that homosexual attractions were wrong. Aristotle thought they were pathological, not morally wrong; Plato pretty clearly thinks they are quite normal – even indications of nobility – but that homosexual sexual activity is not how they should be acted out. Plato’s approach would be most consonant with the contemporary “spiritual friendship” approach among Christians with same-sex attraction. See Spiritual Friendship.Plato, Arisotle, Cicero, etc. all held that homosexuality was unnatural and wrong.
Philosophers differ. Zeno, the founder of Stoic philosphy, was openly homosexual yet Cicero, a stoic, thought it unnatural.Plato, Arisotle, Cicero, etc. all held that homosexuality was unnatural and wrong.
I agree that children should be raised within a marriage whenever possible, whether or not sexual activity should be restrained to marriage is topic for a different discussion.Sexual activity tends towards children and bonding, and marriage is precisely that environment that gives children a chance to be raised well, and commitments are taken seriously. This is why sexual activity should be restrained to the institution of marriage. This understanding is known even in non philosophical societies. What you are saying is precisely the opposite.
It’s usual for sexual relations with someone you love to be pleasureabe and its the intimacy and pleasure of sexual activity along with commitment that enhances that adds unitive force of marriage.Pleasure is a red hearing, because anything can be -or be made- pleasurable.
Not every child has two parents. You to be making, what you believe, to be the “perfect” the enemy of the good. There is sufficient research showing that the quality of parenting is as valuable as the gender of the parents.
And so, you agree that opposition to homosexuality is not “peculiar to Thomism?”Philosophers differ. Zeno, the founder of Stoic philosophy, was openly homosexual yet Cicero, a stoic, thought it unnatural.
But it being pleasurable by itself doesn’t make it good.It’s usual for sexual relations with someone you love to be pleasureabe and its the intimacy and pleasure of sexual activity along with commitment that enhances that adds unitive force of marriage.
None of what you’ve written contradicts the well researched and intuitive understanding that it is better for a child to be raised by both his parents together.Not every child has two parents. You to be making, what you believe, to be the “perfect” the enemy of the good.There is sufficient research showing that the quality of parenting is as valuable as the gender of the parents.
Well, that is certainly true! But I’ll bet no one is willing to admit it.If one thinks about the sexual acts in question and observes what happens and why when a man ejaculates, it is difficult to see two men engaging in those acts as entirely rational. That these men come to desire this act can perhaps be understood and accepted, but it is difficult not to conclude that one man drawn to engage in this act with another man reflects that something has gone awry.
I did not write that opposition to homosexuality is peculiar to Thomism. I don’t know if Thomas ever wrote anything about homosexuality.And so, you agree that opposition to homosexuality is not “peculiar to Thomism?”
I never said that pleasure alone makes it good. If it wasn’t obvious I was referring to the pleasures of sexual intimacies in a marriage between two loving adults.But it being pleasurable by itself doesn’t make it good.
I wrote about research regarding “quality parenting.” You are making what you believe to be the perfect the enemy of the good. I seriously doubt that anything written by legitimate researchers contradicts the goodness of quality parenting regardless of gender of the parents.None of what you’ve written contradicts the well researched and intuitive understanding that it is better for a child to be raised by both his parents together.