[quote="Laurie_Gibson, post:8, topic:199894"]
How pleasant to meet up again.
However, if something is unnatural and contrary to the usual course of nature, then surely it must be wrong for that very reason, that to me seems an ineluctable conclusion.
This does not answer my question of how to go from 'unnatural' to 'wrong' because all you say is surely it is correct to do so. But I am obtuse as it does not seem sure to me!
Do not all men perceive intuitively that it is natural to copulate with another human but not with an animal?
I agree that most people feel revolted by the thought of sex with an animal [and most straight people by the thought of someone of the same sex]. But a feeling of revulsion is not enough. As I have mentioned I am revolted by the thought of eating raw oysters.
You might claim that it is a feeling that the act is morally wrong not just a feeling of revulsion. Suppose that is the case. We can still ask whether this feeling is correct. After all many people, seeing a loving gay couple, have a strong feeling that their relationship is good, so somebody's feelings must be in error.
Is not its unnaturalness enough to condemn it per se.
To which the reply has to be 'Why?'
Regards as ever ,
Cordial greetings my dear fellow, so glad that our paths cross again.
What I am saying is that the normal course of nature, heterosexual coitus, is what is natural and normal for our race to perpetuate the species. Thus to depart from this and to engage in homosexual deviancy is against the normal course of nature and hence, by definition, unnatural and wrong. How can it be said to be a right and wholesome thing to depart from this norm and engage in homosexual conduct which will not result in offspring, whatever the love quality of the liason? This surely savours of being wrong and disordered by any reasonable standard?
The fact that you see nothing morally improper or wrong in a stable and loving homosexual liason, whereas I do, means that there is a strong difference of opinion between us on this issue. We both maintain that we are correct and would adduce what we both believe to be cogent evidence in support of our own stance. However, who is to decide finally who is right and who is wrong? To say that one man's opinion is as good as another man's is to go down the road of moral relativism, where everybody is right and nobody is wrong and the only sin is intolerance. Moreover, this just leads one along a subjective path to an ultimate quagmire of competing opinions; in other words utter moral bedlam. What is required is surely some authoritative criterion of truth by which men's conduct can be appraised. the alternative is join with Pontius Pilate and impatiently ask, "What is truth?", that is if we believe there is such a thing.
Yes Laurie, I believe that the unnaturalness of homosexual aberrant acts are sufficient to condemn them because they are a violation of the natural order of our race. As with auto-eroticism and birth-prevention, homosexuality is unnatural and wrong because it involves the wasting of the substance (semen) that should be directed towards the creation of a new life.
Warmest good wishes,