Probably not the right argument to pose to a maths professor.
Actually, itâs just another lame analogy, as marriages are not triangles â and mathematically naive, to put it gently. It is indeed possible to construct a triangle with interior angles of 38 degrees. You just embed it into a concave space such as the interior of a cone with the proper eccentricity. You can achieve greater than 60 degrees by laying your triangle on a convex space, such as a sphere. In projective non-metric spaces, angular measure isnât even defined, but that doesnât prevent us from populating them with triangles. Possibly, youâve only dealt with Euclidean planar geometries, which, just by the way, are the only place youâll find triangles of 60 degrees, as they donât exist in nature itself. Triangles are mathematical abstractions. They donât arise from nature.
Ugh! You remind me of my old college roommate who would subvert every discussion to mathematics.
But the logical analogy here, then, is that a triangle can be made to conform to some other definition only if it is warped. That is, if a triangle drawn perfectly on a sheet of paper (impossible I know) is simply a closed-plane shape consisting of three straight lines, and if every such shape will exhibit certain properties (such as having angles that sum to 180 degrees), then changing the nature of the shape (by warping its lines so that it fits into the interior of a cone) will also change the properties (causing it to have angles that sum to something other than 180 degrees) and thus cause it to instantiate the essence of a triangle less perfectly.
And it is precisely that triangles are mathematical abstractions that prove they do arise from the natural order of things (as opposed to merely our consciousness). We did not invent facts about triangles. We discovered them.
You are in the business of teaching mathematical
truths, right? Not merely mathematical
value judgments?
Homosexual pairings, on the other hand, do arise in nature, which proves they exist in conformity with natural law.
But ânatural lawâ does not mean âoccurring in nature.â It refers to the idea of being consistent with the nature of a thing. Think of it this way:
Everything in nature serves, or acts toward, or points to, some end. I have eyes so that I can see, a heart to pump blood, a voice to communicate, and so on. It is therefore good for my body parts to do these things, and bad for them not to. When people say they have a âbad heartâ they mean that it is not instantiating the essence or the norm of what a heart is very well, perhaps because it pumps too fast or whatever. These arenât value judgments, they are simply facts arising from nature, discerned by considering what end they serve.
It is likewise a norm arising from nature (specifically, from the end to which the human sexual configuration points) that the sexual faculty exists chiefly for procreation, and secondarily for unity. (Secondary because it is subordinate to the end of procreation). To be contrary to natural law simply means to act contrary to this end.
Homosexuality is simply a deficiency which inhibits the realization of this end (when acted on, at least). It may be a naturally occurring deficiency, like clubfoot; but no one would imagine clubfoot is normative, much less entitled to government sponsorship as such.
Hope that helps clarify things.
I donât believe the Church cares who gets to visit who in hospital, nor is it necessary to pretend that a partnership between homosexuals is a marriage in order for them to be able to visit each other in hospital, there are other laws that could be passed which would not require trying to redefine marriage if that was all this is really about.
My understanding is that hospital visitation rights accrue to spouses because they are the legal next of kin and there presence may be necessary to make medical judgments should the individual become incapacitated.
Of course, it is possible for homosexual to designate his partner as his next of kin by virtue of mere contract law, I imagine. And a hospital that denies that would be in violation of that law.
