Scared of speaking out Against Gay marriage?

[alchemist3]

1. Man is the highest of God’s creation capable of self examination, reflection, analysis and will, not manifest with non-human animals. Should humans look up to animals as model of behavior? They are known to eat their young.

,

I don’t think anyone should or is arguing that we should be establishing what is moral or immoral based upon animal behavior, because as far as we know, we are the only creature that can even make a distinction between moral and immoral behavior. I think that when people point out homosexual conduct in the animal world, it is to counter the natural law crowd who want to claim that such conduct is “unnatural” or “disordered”. It seems to occur across the animal kingdom so there does not seem to be anything “unnatural” about it. In fact it seems to be very natural. Now whether being natural means such conduct is moral or not is an entirely different issue and is contingent upon how one arrives at their ideas of morality. But again, I think arguments from Nature are solely to counter to “unnatural’” arguments concerning sexuality.

 

[Rau]

No one would deny that there is something unique about a male/female relationship. But there is also a non-refutable argument from nature that sexuality can also be used for other things besides just procreation. As shown in Bruce Bagemihl’s book Biological Exuberance

You search for justification in the acts of animals?

Look at you own body. The body of a moral creature, who can understand motivations, logic and consequences. You body is equipped with sperm and a means to deliver it. That system binds together your procreative potential and the bonding effect with the person with whom you share sexual intimacy. Why would sharing that act, that substance with another man make any sense? Sex has more gifts than procreation. But surely as an intelligent creature, you know why you have sperm, and why it’s delivery is bound to the sexual act, and you can reason the implications that has for the ‘class’ of persons with whom sharing it makes sense. You can also understand the relevance of bonding to the formation of family units where children are possible in general.

If you acknowledge these realities, and your response is, “look, I don’t care, I want sexual experience in my life”, then so be it. But to postulate that it is ordained as good and proper behaviour despite what stares you in the face defies credibility.

 

[Rau]

I don’t think anyone should or is arguing that we should be establishing what is moral or immoral based upon animal behavior, because as far as we know, we are the only creature that can even make a distinction between moral and immoral behavior. I think that when people point out homosexual conduct in the animal world, it is to counter the natural law crowd who want to claim that such conduct is “unnatural” or “disordered”. It seems to occur across the animal kingdom so there does not seem to be anything “unnatural” about it. In fact it seems to be very natural. Now whether being natural means such conduct is moral or not is an entirely different issue and is contingent upon how one arrives at their ideas of morality. But again, I think arguments from Nature are solely to counter to “unnatural’” arguments concerning sexuality.

Natural Law is all about human behaviour, and has nothing to do with what happens in “nature”.

 

[jmcrae]

And yet it is not homosexuality that modern society finds loathsome, but homophobia.

Does that ‘gnaw’ at you, or would you find that question insulting and uncharitable?

It doesn’t “gnaw” at me, but it does make me feel like I’m living in a Surrealist painting, where the night sky is full of daylight, and the sails of the ships in the streets of downtown are made of butterflies - just that odd inward feeling that, even though everything seems fine, something isn’t quite making sense, you know?

 

[Thorolfr]

Not at all. Besides homophobia is a made up word. It is not even an actual phobia. In fact, Associated Press has banned using the word, the same with Islamophobia.
,

And “homosexuality” is also a made up word that did not exist before the 19th century.

 

[alchemist3]

Natural Law is all about human behaviour, and has nothing to do with what happens in “nature”.

Yes and no, it is seen what is natural/universal in human behavior across the natural world and in some spheres humans are seen as just another animal in the natural world. Not saying I agree with this, but some do argue as such.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t think anyone should or is arguing that we should be establishing what is moral or immoral based upon animal behavior, because as far as we know, we are the only creature that can even make a distinction between moral and immoral behavior. I think that when people point out homosexual conduct in the animal world, it is to counter the natural law crowd who want to claim that such conduct is “unnatural” or “disordered”. It seems to occur across the animal kingdom so there does not seem to be anything “unnatural” about it. In fact it seems to be very natural. Now whether being natural means such conduct is moral or not is an entirely different issue and is contingent upon how one arrives at their ideas of morality. But again, I think arguments from Nature are solely to counter to “unnatural’” arguments concerning sexuality.

The term “natural law” doesn’t refer to “what animals do” or “what plants do” and that therefore we should imitate them - rather, it’s more along the lines of physics and mathematics, in which, a+b=c, and that repeating the same action over and over will never result in different consequences.

 

[Thorolfr]

Natural Law is all about human behaviour, and has nothing to do with what happens in “nature”.

It’s kind of strange that something called “natural law” doesn’t actually have anything to do with “nature”. That’s because it’s a “law” invented by human philosophers.

 

[alchemist3]

You search for justification in the acts of animals?

Look at you own body. The body of a moral creature, who can understand motivations, logic and consequences. You body is equipped with sperm and a means to deliver it. That system binds together your procreative potential and the bonding effect with the person with whom you share sexual intimacy. Why would sharing that act, that substance with another man make any sense? Sex has more gifts than procreation. But surely as an intelligent creature, you know why you have sperm, and why it’s delivery is bound to the sexual act, and you can reason the implications that has for the ‘class’ of persons with whom sharing it makes sense. You can also understand the relevance of bonding to the formation of family units where children are possible in general.

If you acknowledge these realities, and your response is, “look, I don’t care, I want sexual experience in my life”, then so be it. But to postulate that it is ordained as good and proper behaviour despite what stares you in the face defies credibility.

I think this entire line argument rest upon the assumption that procreation between heterosexual couples and their bonding is the only purpose of human sexuality. Sexuality can surely have a primary purpose which very well be procreation, but this does not automatically make any use other than procreation disordered or even unnatural. Things in life may indeed have a primary purpose, but they can also have secondary uses and on down the line. For example, my work computers primary purpose is to be used for work. It is for researching and writing papers. However it also have several other purposes built into it which are not its primary purpose. I can use it to listen to music, I can watch DVDs on it and stream live videos, I can search the internet with it, and if I was inclined I could go on dating sites etc. If I want to I can simply use it as a paper weight. None of these other uses are unnatural to my computer, because they are built in functions of my computer or additional uses of my computer beyond its specifically built purpose, none of which is unnatural to it. I personally believe that the same is the case with human sexuality. Yes, its primary purpose does appear to be procreative in nature, but this in absolutely no way precludes any other “natural” use for my sexuality or implies that it does not have secondary or even a multitude of additional purposes.

I would also argue that the Natural law and the primary purpose argument was repeatedly used against women entering the work force, since it was obvious from a purely biological perspective, that a woman’s primary purpose was to procreate and have children and not work outside the home. WE find such views abhorrent today, but your reasoning is based upon very similar lines of argumentation.

So to sum up sex for procreation is entirely a valid use of one’s sexuality, but that does not in any way entail the assumption that sexual conduct for any other purpose is in anyway disordered or unnatural. Sexuality has a multitude of purposes and simply obtaining pleasure from engaging in it is surely one of them, otherwise we would only be able to derive pleasure from sex or desire to have sexual conduct when a woman is ovulating.

 

[alchemist3]

One additional argument, from a purely biological point of view would seem to negate your argument as well. The prostate gland in the male has a number of different functions. The primary function is adding additional fluid to a males sperm which increases the sperms alkalinity which is definitely for a procreative purposes as it counters the acidity of the female vaginal tract. However, the prostate also has the additional function of being extremely sensitive to sexual arousal and a male can be brought to orgasm simply through stimulation of the prostate gland that has absolutely nothing to do with procreation and seems designed simply to induce pleasure in men, irrelevant of how that stimulation occurs.

 

[alchemist3]

It’s kind of strange that something called “natural law” doesn’t actually have anything to do with “nature”. That’s because it’s a “law” invented by human philosophers.

That has been the major argument against Natural law by legal positivist who argue that there is absolutely no such thing as Natural law, Law is simply what we say it is in a legal sense. For example, there is no “law of gravity” gravity is simply a state of the universe and needs no such designation by humans. All “laws” according to legal positivist are simply what we as humans decide that they are.

 

[jmcrae]

I think this entire line argument rest upon the assumption that procreation between heterosexual couples and their bonding is the only purpose of human sexuality.

In Origin of Species, Darwin seems to assume that the primary purpose of sex is procreation, and that the reason it’s fun is in order that species would procreate.

He did not visualize people separating the procreative aspect from its other aspects, and I think he would be even more horrified by the idea of “homosexual marriage” than most Catholics (even those of his own day, as well as those living now). He would not see it as a survival strategy for the human race as a whole, and he would not label it “progress” since from the Darwinian point of view, “progress” results in more children who live longer and have more children.

 

[alchemist3]

In Origin of Species, Darwin seems to assume that the primary purpose of sex is procreation, and that the reason it’s fun is in order that species would procreate.

He did not visualize people separating the procreative aspect from its other aspects, and I think he would be even more horrified by the idea of “homosexual marriage” than most Catholics (even those of his own day, as well as those living now). He would not see it as a survival strategy for the human race as a whole, and he would not label it “progress” since from the Darwinian point of view, “progress” results in more children who live longer and have more children.

This is very interesting, were people on your position not just arguing that we can not argue from nature, ie the animal world, what is and what is not natural for people? I find it very amusing that one moment the anti-homosexual crowd wants to argue that we can not argue based upon what "animals’ do in determining natural human behavior, and then just a couple post down, someone now wants to argue exactly that. This is really “a heads I win, tails you lose type of argument”.

So you would argue that our morality should be based solely upon what is good from an evolutionary point of view? I guess abortion of children with down syndrome would be evolutionarly beneficial, but I hardly think that is how “Catholics” make their decisions regarding morality.

 

[jmcrae]

It’s kind of strange that something called “natural law” doesn’t actually have anything to do with “nature”. That’s because it’s a “law” invented by human philosophers.

It’s based on observable data that certain actions have certain natural consequences.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

It is self-serving isn’t it. Coin a word that even “sounds” damning, and then apply it to the class of people with whom you have a disagreement.

It is kind of the mirror-image of terms like “marriage-equality”. Coin a term that sounds inherently good, never mind that the thing to which it is applied fails fundamentally to make sense.

Indeed!
,

 

[Rau]

It’s kind of strange that something called “natural law” doesn’t actually have anything to do with “nature”. That’s because it’s a “law” invented by human philosophers.

Well, it wasn’t discovered in a mining operation was it! It is the result of contemplative thinking - yes. If that’s grounds to discard it…up to you!

 

[Rau]

…So to sum up sex for procreation is entirely a valid use of one’s sexuality, but that does not in any way entail the assumption that sexual conduct for any other purpose is in anyway disordered or unnatural. Sexuality has a multitude of purposes and simply obtaining pleasure from engaging in it is surely one of them, otherwise we would only be able to derive pleasure from sex or desire to have sexual conduct when a woman is ovulating.

And yet, for whatever reason, our bodies bind together their procreative potential with the pleasure and the bonding effect with the person with whom we share sexual intimacy. Why is it so?

Be careful you don’t make an argument that pleasure is a proper result of sex, therefore all use of the sex faculty that brings pleasure is good…

 

[alchemist3]

And yet, for whatever reason, our bodies bind together their procreative potential with the pleasure and the bonding effect with the person with whom we share sexual intimacy. Why is it so?

Be careful you don’t make an argument that pleasure is a proper result of sex, therefore all use of the sex faculty that brings pleasure is good…

There is also a bonding effect produced from homosexual sex, and also from oral sex, hetero or homo, as orgasm and just intimate touching in general creates an increase in oxytocin which produces feelings of intimacy and bonding. Again if procreation was sex’s only purpose, surely we would be designed to only get this oxytocin effect from heterosexual sexual intercourse. Seeing however that this can be produced from a plethora of sexual conduct, I think this again works against your argument.

I definitely think that pleasure is a proper result of sex, but fail to see how that equates with all sexual functions as being good. I think all sexual functions are in essence morally neutral, it is how we use them that determines whether we are engaging in immoral conduct. I see nothing inherently immoral about homosexual conduct between two committed men or women. However I think it is much more immoral for a married man to view pornography as he is cheating on his wife in his heart and mind.

 

[alchemist3]

And yet, for whatever reason, our bodies bind together their procreative potential with the pleasure and the bonding effect with the person with whom we share sexual intimacy. Why is it so?

Be careful you don’t make an argument that pleasure is a proper result of sex, therefore all use of the sex faculty that brings pleasure is good…

Could you also address the arguments I made in post #110 regarding the male prostate.

 

[Rau]

One additional argument, from a purely biological point of view would seem to negate your argument as well. The prostate gland in the male has a number of different functions. The primary function is adding additional fluid to a males sperm which increases the sperms alkalinity which is definitely for a procreative purposes as it counters the acidity of the female vaginal tract. However, the prostate also has the additional function of being extremely sensitive to sexual arousal and a male can be brought to orgasm simply through stimulation of the prostate gland that has absolutely nothing to do with procreation and seems designed simply to induce pleasure in men, irrelevant of how that stimulation occurs.

I enjoy a back scratch too

The doc touches my prostate from time to time. Not pleasant!