So what if that violates the Natural Law?

[FAH]

In this past week someone asked me my stance on gay “marriage”. That quickly lead to a discussion on homosexuality and masturbation. I tried to present the idea that the reproductive organs of man and woman are designed for one another and that homosexual actions and masturbation violate this design or Natural Law. He seemed to acknowledge that, but then asked something along the lines of “so what?”

I was then stumped. And so I ask you kind souls what response should be given to the aforementioned question.

With every thanks

 

[SaintPatrick333]

You don’t really have to refute that. He acknowledged that its against the natural order and that by being against the natural order its unnatural/wrong. If he realizes this and says so what it just shows that he doesn’t discern right from wrong the way normal people do. That brings up a whole separate line of discussion and a different more personal approach. As far as that issue concerns it is resolved the minute he acknowledges the wrongdoing of going against our natural order.

 

[sw85]

It depends on what your interlocutor is asking. Is he asking why biological facts give rise to moral values (i.e., why the natural law arises from human nature)?

Well, the natural law defines human good. When we ask why we should do what is good for humans to do, we’re asking for a rational justification for doing so. Now reason and the practice of rational justification have a natural end, which is the pursuit of truth (theoretical reason). But the true and the good are convertible, so their natural end is also the pursuit of the good (practical reason). So asking what rational justification there is for pursuing the good is like asking what rational justification there is for pursuing truth. To be reasonable just is to pursue truth, and thus to be reasonable just is to pursue goodness. One may as well as ask why a square can’t have three sides or a circle 412 degrees. It can’t be otherwise.

In a nutshell: Do you want what’s best for you? (Tautologically, yes). This is what is best for you. QED.

If, on the other hand, he’s acknowledging the natural law’s existence but denying his duty to obey it, you’re not going to get anywhere with him. He’s literally embracing unreason.

 

[papaececi]

You might point out to him that murder is against the natural law and nobody would say, “so what?” about that, would they?

There are consequences to breaking the law, whether they are immediately apparent to us or not.

 

[mark_a]

In this past week someone asked me my stance on gay “marriage”. That quickly lead to a discussion on homosexuality and masturbation. I tried to present the idea that the reproductive organs of man and woman are designed for one another and that homosexual actions and masturbation violate this design or Natural Law. He seemed to acknowledge that, but then asked something along the lines of “so what?”

I was then stumped. And so I ask you kind souls what response should be given to the aforementioned question.

With every thanks

We’ll never get rid of immorality, however for the sake of the family, the most basic unit of society, laws should promote morality.

 

[Gods_Peace]

You might point out to him that murder is against the natural law and nobody would say, “so what?” about that, would they?

There are consequences to breaking the law, whether they are immediately apparent to us or not.

Well, I’ve told people abortion goes against natural law, and they fail to acknowledge they HAVE a duty to go through with the preganancy, due to the choice they made TO HAVE SEX!!! What is wrong with people…

 

[MidnightSun12]

In this past week someone asked me my stance on gay “marriage”. That quickly lead to a discussion on homosexuality and masturbation. I tried to present the idea that the reproductive organs of man and woman are designed for one another and that homosexual actions and masturbation violate this design or Natural Law. He seemed to acknowledge that, but then asked something along the lines of “so what?”

I was then stumped. And so I ask you kind souls what response should be given to the aforementioned question.

With every thanks

Well, bulimia is also a violation of natural law that is contrary to how God designed our bodies to operate (induced vomitting). Truly, the homosexual lifestyle and bulimia both have very serious psychological and spiritual reprocussions due to the mis-use of one’s body. I would ask this person if he would say “so what” to a family who’s teenager is struggling with an eating disorder such as bulimia…

 

[domNoah]

In this past week someone asked me my stance on gay “marriage”. That quickly lead to a discussion on homosexuality and masturbation. I tried to present the idea that the reproductive organs of man and woman are designed for one another and that homosexual actions and masturbation violate this design or Natural Law. He seemed to acknowledge that, but then asked something along the lines of “so what?”

I was then stumped. And so I ask you kind souls what response should be given to the aforementioned question.

With every thanks

Because it causes a disorder of the appetites. So a man who is constantly lusting (as the result of frequent self abuse or abuse with another person) gradually deadens his intellect and becomes more base than an animal.

A man who is constantly inflamed with lust is less productive and focused then he could be. Over time he also begins to view others (his neighbors) as means to the satisfaction of an appetite. When we consider how heinous the sins of rape, incest or abuse is we must consider that those sins are not just arrived at over night but are often a progression of lust to its most heinous conclusions.

 

[manualman]

So what? That’s his response? Then he still doesn’t get what natural law IS.

You can’t “break” the natural law any more than you can ‘break’ the law of gravity. You can only suffer the consequences of trying. When you climb a cliff, then attempt to break the law of gravity, you don’t fly away. You break your neck on the rocks below.

Same thing happens in natural law. Homosexual actions are immoral because they lead to self destructive outcomes. Gay activists make striaght society their scapegoats for the stratospheric levels of depression, drug abuse, domestic violence, infidelity and suicide in the gay subculture. They say it is our social disapproval that causes this. It does not. Evidence for my assertion already exists in places like Amsterdam where there has been no stigma at all for decades, but these related self destructive behaviors continue unabated. This evidence will get harder and harder to deny as they achieve their goals of societal acceptance, but fail to eliminate their misery. Sin begets misery by its very nature. It doesn’t require anyone’s disapproval. That’s what natural law is about.

True christians don’t oppose homosexual activity because they ‘hate’ gay people. We oppose it because we see them as sons and daughters of God who deserve better and who are in the process of destroying themselves. We see them as people who are in the process of tying themselves to railroad tracks.

 

[spencelo]

I tried to present the idea that the reproductive organs of man and woman are designed for one another and that homosexual actions and masturbation violate this design or Natural Law.

By “designed” do you mean intended for only certain purposes by God? Does NL depend on the truth of theism?

 

[spencelo]

You might point out to him that murder is against the natural law and nobody would say, “so what?” about that, would they?

There are consequences to breaking the law, whether they are immediately apparent to us or not.

One could reply, however, that there are harmful consequences to murder. What are the harmful consequences of masturbation and homosexual acts (so long as neither is done in excess)?

 

[spencelo]

Same thing happens in natural law. Homosexual actions are immoral because they lead to self destructive outcomes.

Are you saying, then, that there is no such thing as a stable and healthy same-sex relationship? Are you saying that all homosexual actions, without fail, lead to “self destructive outcomes?”

 

[FAH]

By “designed” do you mean intended for only certain purposes by God? Does NL depend on the truth of theism?

Maybe designed is the wrong word. Perhaps ordered is better. The male and female reproductive organs are complimentary and ordered towards a goal: conception. The sexual act is ordered towards pro creation. Homosexual acts violate this order and so the Church rightly calls them disordered. You don’t have to believe in God to see that homosexual relations are unnatural. In fact I was talking to someone who doesn’t hold a belief in God and he told me that he felt these actions were wrong. Not because of religious belief but because of the facts.

 

[manualman]

Are you saying, then, that there is no such thing as a stable and healthy same-sex relationship? Are you saying that all homosexual actions, without fail, lead to “self destructive outcomes?”

I’m saying that the nature of a homosexual union is “ordered towards” those self destructive outcomes just like the nature of a genuine marriage is ordered towards the cultivation of selflessness, self-sacrifice, and the procreation and care of new life.

Heterosexual couples often fail to live up to what marriage was intended to be, in spite of the fact that the nature of the relationship inherently nudges them towards that healthy outcome. The existence of long term homosexual relationships in which the two are faithful, self-sacrificial, honest and loving does not prove that that type of relationship is ordered towards that end. It just demonstrates that homosexual persons are multifaceted beings like everybody else and that their embrace of one particular vice doesn’t totally negate all their virtues, gifts and dignity.

On a somewhat analogous topic, I’ve known of healthy, active and vigorous 95 year olds that have smoked for 50 years. Their existence doesn’t disprove the assertion that smoking is bad for you. You look at the larger trends.

Hope that clarifies what I’m saying. Both sides tend to simplify this issue and reduce complex human beings down to one dimensional labels. It doesn’t work that way.

 

[tm30]

In this past week someone asked me my stance on gay “marriage”. That quickly lead to a discussion on homosexuality and masturbation. I tried to present the idea that the reproductive organs of man and woman are designed for one another and that homosexual actions and masturbation violate this design or Natural Law. He seemed to acknowledge that, but then asked something along the lines of “so what?”

I was then stumped. And so I ask you kind souls what response should be given to the aforementioned question.

With every thanks

It’s likely you will not get very far with individuals such as this. Rejecting the moral force of the natural law (nevermind Church doctrine) is a pretty good sign of being reprobate. To get to that point of indifference, one has to reject even the most basic laws written on all our hearts. You may want to consider fasting and prayer for this soul, instead of a verbal response.

 

[spencelo]

Maybe designed is the wrong word. Perhaps ordered is better. The male and female reproductive organs are complimentary and ordered towards a goal: conception.

I don’t know what “ordered” means in this context – “design,” at least, was clearer. I would agree that male and female reproductive organs enable a certain result to occur (conception), if that is one’s goal. But I don’t see any good argument for thinking that the goal or purpose of reproductive organs is conception (except perhaps in the limited biological sense)

The sexual act is ordered towards pro creation. Homosexual acts violate this order and so the Church rightly calls them disordered.

But this assumes that there is only one “order.” Why can’t there be multiple “orders” – for instance, pleasure? If our reproductive organs are also ordered for pleasure, then homosexual acts – in fact, any sexual activity – don’t violate this order.

You don’t have to believe in God to see that homosexual relations are unnatural.

I don’t believe in God, and I don’t see what is “unnatural” or immoral about homosexual relations.

 

[spencelo]

I’m saying that the nature of a homosexual union is “ordered towards” those self destructive outcomes just like the nature of a genuine marriage is ordered towards the cultivation of selflessness, self-sacrifice, and the procreation and care of new life.

Heterosexual couples often fail to live up to what marriage was intended to be, in spite of the fact that the nature of the relationship inherently nudges them towards that healthy outcome. The existence of long term homosexual relationships in which the two are faithful, self-sacrificial, honest and loving does not prove that that type of relationship is ordered towards that end. It just demonstrates that homosexual persons are multifaceted beings like everybody else and that their embrace of one particular vice doesn’t totally negate all their virtues, gifts and dignity.

On a somewhat analogous topic, I’ve known of healthy, active and vigorous 95 year olds that have smoked for 50 years. Their existence doesn’t disprove the assertion that smoking is bad for you. You look at the larger trends.

Hope that clarifies what I’m saying. Both sides tend to simplify this issue and reduce complex human beings down to one dimensional labels. It doesn’t work that way.

Then it appears you are saying that stable same-sex relationships are stable in spite of the “disorder” of homosexuality – that if it weren’t for other factors, “homosexuality” would surely bring ruin to every same-sex couple.

What is your evidence that the “nature” of a homosexual union is “ordered towards” self-destruction?

 

[spencelo]

I\To get to that point of indifference, one has to reject even the most basic laws written on all our hearts.

What are those “basic laws?” Do they include: Be kind and caring to others, show compassion, alleviate suffering where you can? If so, then how do you explain why many who reject the “moral force of natural law” are very decent human beings?

 

[tm30]

What are those “basic laws?” Do they include: Be kind and caring to others, show compassion, alleviate suffering where you can? If so, then how do you explain why many who reject the “moral force of natural law” are very decent human beings?

In other words, to prevent the pain of withdrawal, we must give the addict more drugs and cheer him on while he’s locating the vein.

“Very decent human beings” by whose standard? Yours? Theirs? And where are you getting your standard for “decency”? And by whose authority is that standard established? Huffington Post? Jon Stewart? Perez HIlton?

 

[spencelo]

In other words, to prevent the pain of withdrawal, we must give the addict more drugs and cheer him on while he’s locating the vein.

I have no idea why you think this follows from anything I’ve said.

“Very decent human beings” by whose standard? Yours? Theirs? And where are you getting your standard for “decency”? And by whose authority is that standard established? Huffington Post? Jon Stewart? Perez HIlton?

Do you believe there are decent human beings – in your understanding of the term – who reject natural law? Or is that an impossibility?