Reasoned Argument Against Homosexuality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ND88
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

ND88

Guest
I’m certainly not an Aquinas scholar, so forgive me in advance if I’m too simplistic. But my basic understanding is that Thimas Aquinas would look to the nature of things and find the Creator. Thomas said it is our nature to seek good, and the “good” was that which is in accord with the nature of the thing. If, and please grant me this argument, some humans are naturally homosexual, wouldn’t homosexuality be part of their nature and be part of their “good.” I’m certinly not arguing for this position, but wondering how to address the argument.
 
ND88 said:
I’m certainly not an Aquinas scholar, so forgive me in advance if I’m too simplistic. But my basic understanding is that Thimas Aquinas would look to the nature of things and find the Creator. Thomas said it is our nature to seek good, and the “good” was that which is in accord with the nature of the thing. If, and please grant me this argument, some humans are naturally homosexual, wouldn’t homosexuality be part of their nature and be part of their “good.” I’m certinly not arguing for this position, but wondering how to address the argument.
Click to expand...
Homosexual temptations can never be in accord with the good of the individual because they attempt to use sexuality in a fashion that negates the good end that sexuality is ordered to.
 
This sounds more like a question to be answered by consulting a library book and an index than a forum. However, there are also some papers online which mention this.

== “The Thomistic Natural Law Understanding of Homosexuality” by Janet E. Smith. It’s a direct response to:

== The Church and the Homosexual by John Boswell, which is online in excerpted form. (I gave it a glance, and it’s not the most scholarly article in the world. Pretty full of unfounded generalizations and non-facts, in fact.)

Smith mentions that Aquinas’ longest discussion of the issue is in Summa Contra Gentiles, so there’s where you should start looking. She mentions other interesting source material as well, primarily an article entitled “Whether Any Pleasure Is Not Natural?”, in which Aquinas concludes that people whose souls have been corrupted, or have been damaged by abuse, can take pleasure in things which are pretty unnatural.

But though Smith’s article seems good, you should read the relevant Aquinas bits yourself. People can miss or misinterpret the darnedest things.
 
ND88 said:
I’m certainly not an Aquinas scholar, so forgive me in advance if I’m too simplistic. But my basic understanding is that Thimas Aquinas would look to the nature of things and find the Creator. Thomas said it is our nature to seek good, and the “good” was that which is in accord with the nature of the thing. If, and please grant me this argument, some humans are naturally homosexual, wouldn’t homosexuality be part of their nature and be part of their “good.” I’m certinly not arguing for this position, but wondering how to address the argument.
Click to expand...
The problem is that you are making a hypothetical argument for something that cannot be true.
The fact is that no humans are naturally homosexual because there is no gay gene.
People who are gay have become gay through one or more of environment, upbringing, choice.
 
In the Thomistic view, homosexual acts are not natural, that is, they do not correspond to the end (goal, purpose) of human nature. Rather, homosexual acts are a misuse of the sexual faculty of man, which is ordered toward the begetting of children. Thus, homosexual acts are disordered.

A person may find himself with homosexual inclinations, but that does not mean that acting on those inclinations is therefore in accordance with the natural law.

The problem with saying that a person is “naturally homosexual” in the context of Aquinas is that he believes human beings have a common nature. In our modern culture, many people believe that individuals can validly construct their own moral codes independently of almost anything. This does not make sense in a Thomistic understanding, which has a strong emphasis on the natural law. Aquinas recognizes that because all human beings have the same human nature, they are bound to act in accordance with that nature rather than against it.
 
Aquinas specifically states in the Summas that homosexual acts, which he call the “unnatural vice” is the worst sin among the sins of lust. He orders them, from most grievous, homosexuality, incest, rape, adultery, seduction, simple fornication. The only more grievous sexual sin is bestiality.

I don’t think there is any doubt how Aquinas views homosexuality.
 
ND88 said:
I’m certainly not an Aquinas scholar, so forgive me in advance if I’m too simplistic. But my basic understanding is that Thimas Aquinas would look to the nature of things and find the Creator. Thomas said it is our nature to seek good, and the “good” was that which is in accord with the nature of the thing. If, and please grant me this argument, some humans are naturally homosexual, wouldn’t homosexuality be part of their nature and be part of their “good.” I’m certinly not arguing for this position, but wondering how to address the argument.
Click to expand...
I don’t think homosexuality is “natural” or in their nature in the manner of hair, eye or skin colour or left or right handedness, as homosexual activists would have you believe. First of all physical attributes like skin colour are not impediments to natural biological functions.

On the other hand homosexuality is a serious impediment to natural procreation (as opposed to in-vitro or artificial insemination).

Secondly cancer, congenital heart defects and all manner of deficiencies exist in “nature”. That does not make them the natural order of things, and it certainly does not make them desirable.

Homosexuality should be seen as an affliction, but those afflicted should be viewed with compassion and understanding, and without discrimination.

Theologically, afflictions and disease are a direct result of the Fall, and we are all afflicted to various degrees with temptations, lusts, aberrations, illnesses etc. Some worse than others. We should all be supporting each other in overcoming our afflictions, rather than enabling and facilitating them, which is why I take strong issue with the homosexual rights movement (but not individual homosexuals).

Mike
 
thistle said:
The problem is that you are making a hypothetical argument for something that cannot be true.
The fact is that no humans are naturally homosexual because there is no gay gene.
People who are gay have become gay through one or more of environment, upbringing, choice.
Click to expand...
I disagree. While we have not discovered it yet there may well be a genetic predisposition to same sex attraction. I admit this would not excuse the behavior but to say everyone who is gay has become gay is like saying they gave it some thought beforehand. The majority did not.
 
bilop said:
Aquinas specifically states in the Summas that homosexual acts, which he call the “unnatural vice” is the worst sin among the sins of lust. He orders them, from most grievous, homosexuality, incest, rape, adultery, seduction, simple fornication. The only more grievous sexual sin is bestiality.

I don’t think there is any doubt how Aquinas views homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Then I would have to disagree with Aquinas. I would place incest as worse than homosexuality.
 
goofyjim said:
Then I would have to disagree with Aquinas. I would place incest as worse than homosexuality.
Click to expand...
yeah, I think that rape is the worst sexual crime possible, aboce homosexuality, as there is no consent and it has a violence and a malice and disregard for feelings.
 
I was wondering if someone could offer one? I’m not looking for Bible quotes, or quotes from some so-and-so person, I’m looking for a pure, reasoned argument against homosexuality. Just wits, nothing else.

The best I’ve been able to convince my friends is that there is no argument for it, but I’ve been unable so far to dissuade them from thinking it is a neutral thing where opinion is the only part that matters. That, or they are simply unresonable, but I’m not worrying about them right now. (Well, I do, but right now I’m trying to convince those friends of reason…)
 
I assume you are trying to convince someone because you feel you are homosexual?

You ask for reason, and don’t want any Bible quotes or quotes from anyone else. Are you Catholic? Do you believe in the Bible? Are you having your doubts about your faith?
 
A portion of this text is edited from a response I gave to a similar question on this matter in another thread…

But if I had to say, in a single word, why homosexuality should be avoided, and if that is one’s primary orientation, celibacy should be adhered to it would be this: health.

Well before the dawn of HIV/AIDS, this sort of sexual expression has lent itself to a myriad of problematic health and wellness issues. I will look to see if I can’t find the study that discusses the average lifespan of an active homosexual. As I recall, it is around the age of 38, with a scant 2% of self-identified “gay men” who are homo-genitially sexually active living past age 65. There is mention of this study on the www.catholic.com (CAF’s parent website) in an article opposing gay marriage.

Hepatitis B, HPV (warts), HIV, and Syphallis are all hitting the community of men who have sex with men hard. Suicide, alcoholism and drug use is far more problematic there too. In my city - with numerous “gayborhoods” gay bars, and a couple of bathhouses - meth use is outrageous. 2200 new cases of HIV per year are reported (22,000 a decade!) and lately that is on the rise. (This is, I grant, significantly higher than in most cities that are not seeing this many new cases. This city is known for being the “San Francisco of the Midwest” with numerous distinctive neighborhoods.)

A considerable number of my co-workers at a night job I have are active in their homosexuality. Nice enough fellows some of them… but over the years I have watched them move from relationship to relationship, struggle with alcoholism (buried a 28 year old from liver failure this year) and drug addiction (a 27 year old OD’d on pain meds last year). A 38 year old I know who is two years HIV positive is already taking meds he can’t afford. A 21 year old co-worker I had who is attempting recovery from meth went to the free clinic to get tested for HIV and found out that not only was he positive, but he had a syphalis infection so bad he was running the risk of penis amputation.

The oft-propogated myth that everyone will be healthy if they wear condoms and have a chance to get married is really doing no one any favors. Many well intentioned people thinking themselves compassionate are only enabling this sad situation.

I am not inclined to spend days debating the merits of my anecdotal evidence - it is what it is: that which I have seen first hand and lived through. I am not prepared to debate for days the veracity of the studies cited in the Catholic Answers literature. No amount of debating will change the health situation. If any are inclined to believe I am wrong, that there are not health crises or that just wearing condoms keeps everyone in great shape mentally and physically, good luck with that.

I am not interested in going rounds on debating wether the rampant promiscuity and problems with drug and alcohol abuse are related to “homophobia” which seems to be the great scapegoat for these problems in a lot of debates. Living in a city with a huge gay population, after a decade of “Will & Grace”, “Brokeback Mountain”, “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy”, and noticing that pretty much every other television show has a gay character (even if minor) that 9 out of 10 times portrays them as very positive… Acceptance is at an all time high, but these supposed external influences that lead to so much unhealthiness declining, has not, by and large, made the gay community noticecably healthier.

I am also not prepared to debate for days (out of total lack of interest, this isn’t a sport for me) the possibility of healthy life-long (“ltr” - long term relationships) in the context of a same-sex, homogenital relationship. As one co-worker (now of blessed memory) shared with a group of us co-workers over a few pitchers of beer one night with no small hint of melancholy “Guys say or think they are looking for long term relationships, but if we are all saying we are looking for that, why aren’t we acheiving it! I just gave up on it and have fun now, what happens happens!”

If I saw health there, it might be a possibility for me to totally ignore the nature of the homogenital expression - an act I don’t need to be graphic about to underline the non-complimentary nature of such sex.
 
Wow, very logical well reasoned argument outside of scripture. While the tone of your reply beings out a litany of human suffering, it rings true. I’ve seen the suffering of a relative from AIDS and the devastating impact on the entire family and friends.

It’s sad and sadder that the media seems to be perpetuating the problem enticing the young to go down this path to their destruction.

Homosexuality is wrong and we must keep the gays in our prayers.

B.
 
brycelaliberte said:
I was wondering if someone could offer one? I’m not looking for Bible quotes, or quotes from some so-and-so person, I’m looking for a pure, reasoned argument against homosexuality. Just wits, nothing else.

…)
Click to expand...
how about simple basic biology, the human body is not designed for this type of sex, it serves no useful purpose for the organism or the species and indeed militates against the normal function of the organism and the perpetuation of the species.
 
A “reasoned” argument comes from anatomy. The nominee considerd by Bush for the position of Surgeon General wrote a MEDICAL paper describing the anatomical issues involved in homosexual acts. Of course, the press, liberal politicians, and gay activists loudly objected to his logical and reasoned conclusions about anatomical complementarity and the dangers of “mixing up” anatomical systems for unnatural purposes.

It’s hard for me to believe that this paper which states the OBVIOUS could be conisdered inflammatory.
“It is absolutely clear that anatomically and physiologically the alimentary and reproductive systems in humans are separate organ systems, i.e., the human does not have a cloaca,” he said, referring to the posterior orifice that serves as the one opening for genital, urinary and intestinal tracts in amphibians, birds and reptiles. The surgeon general nominee wrote that “even primitive cultures understand the nature of waste elimination, sexual intercourse and the birth of children. Indeed our own children appear to ‘intuitively’ understand these facts.”
abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3251663&page=1
Click to expand...
 
I suggest you read up on Thomas Aquinas.

Homosexual relations go against Natural Law. The natural function of sexual intercourse is reproduction. Since homosexual sex cannot in anyway be pro creative, its sole function is hedonistic which goes against the natural order.

Also, it is not hard to see what nature has intended when it comes to sexuality. It is quite clear that the natural parter for a human is not an animal but is another human. It is equally obvious that the natural partner for a man is not another man, but is a woman.

This is the argument at its most simple and basic state.
 
true, and then the argument for this from the homosexual activists is that not only are there humans who cannot reprodice, but there are animals who are asexual in nature and the like.

These are exception to the rule, not the norms though.

The normative and complimentary function from the natural law shows that the opposite sexes of human beings are reproductive in nature and that this is the norm.

as I have stated before, if you take 1 million homosexual couple, place them on an osland for 100 years with everything they need to survive, what do you have a the end of that 100 years? nothing.

take only ten heterosexual couples chosen at random(some sterile etc…) and after only ten years on that same island there is a village being started and thriving. life!

homsexual acts=no life-no exceptions

heterosexual acts=life
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top