Natural Law vs. Homosexuality

Hi

I am currently on a discussion in another board about homosexuality and Natural Law. I would like some input and help about some objections some of the posters are raising. Some examples:

What about kissing? Isn’t that exactly analogous to non-reproductive sex? Mouths are “intended” for eating. Is it morally wrong for people to use them to share love and pleasure?

Rationality tells me that a human embryo does not feel pain, is not conscious, and does not have a will. Rationality tells me that I can use this embryo for research that one day can help millions of fully developed human beings who are suffering of unspeakable horrors. That’s what rationality tells me, is that moral?

No, the “intended purpose” of legs is locomotion. Dancing is recreational, aesthetic, creative. It does not get someone from here to there. It is exactly analogous to non-reproductive sex, in that it takes an activity which has a biological function, and uses it for pleasure and recreation. Legs did not evolve so that people could dance. Dancing is unnatural–no animals do it. (Unlike homosexual sex, which most mammals and virtually all primates do.)

Their main argument is that since homosexuality is not natural, neither are those and many of the other activities they named (in the quotes above). So, to them, we should condemn those just as we condemn homosexuality.

Any help would be apreciated.

A

Just remind these mindless people that many things in nature are not natural. Just because certain conducts exist doesn’t mean they should exist. Just because people commit genocide against other tribes of humans, that doesn’t make it natural. Just because people invent atomic bombs and use them, that doesn’t make them natural. Just because adults sexually exploit children, that doesn’t make it natural. Just because cannibalism exists, that doesn’t make it natural. Just because people of the same sex want to have sex with each other, that doesn’t make it natural.

All of hese things are against nature if we take the natural law to be the plan that God intended for our happiness and our salvation.

What about kissing? Isn’t that exactly analogous to non-reproductive sex? Mouths are “intended” for eating. Is it morally wrong for people to use them to share love and pleasure?

First of all, mouths are also intended for speaking, conveying facial expresions etc. etc. so this argument (as well as the following, for that matter) fails in its unnecessary restrictions. There is no reason to suggest that mouths are not also intended for physical expressions of love. Common sense tells us this is perfectly natural.
With that said, sex for pleasure is *not *against nature, and is not sinful! What is sinful is the artificial manipulation of the body in order to render the sexual act incapable of procreation. This poster’s analogy fails because it is incomplete.
Artificial contraception would be like wearing a ‘tongue condom’ (you laugh, but they do exist!) when kissing someone. This defeats much of the purpose of kissing, and is unnatural.

Rationality tells me that a human embryo does not feel pain, is not conscious, and does not have a will. Rationality tells me that I can use this embryo for research that one day can help millions of fully developed human beings who are suffering of unspeakable horrors. That’s what rationality tells me, is that moral?

This poster is exemplifying a hedonistic mentality, and they betray the hole in their argument in the first sentence, then cover up the actual immoral act. He admits a human embryo is human. Fine. Then he says that he can ‘use this embryo for research.’ Here is a subtle way to say that he will kill this *human embryo. *The immorality comes with the words ‘kill’ (subtly translated into ‘use’ by this poster) and ‘human.’ We are killing humans to help other humans? That doesn’t seem right now does it?

No, the “intended purpose” of legs is locomotion…

The intended purpose of legs is motion, plain and simple. That’s ther ‘biological function.’ Dancing is motion… therefore… this whole argument is nonsense. Dancing is perfectly natural.

Unlike homosexual sex, which most mammals and virtually all primates do

Don’t be fooled by the confidence with which secularists assert lies. There is no evidence to suggest that animals are ‘homosexual.’ Male primates may ‘mount’ (**not **sodomize) other males for purposes of expressing power and domination among the group–not for recreation.
Anyway, when the hell did we start using animals as models for human behaviour??? Shouldn’t we then condone rape and infanticide too? Secularist logic is *immorally motivated *and founders under close examination. The root of a lot of their ‘rationality’ is simple hedonism.

What amazes me (and I’m sure Gilbert Keith would wholeheartedly agree) is the utter lack of common sense which these sorts of arguments display. Truth is much easier to grasp if people would step away from their disordered desires and think.

As a veterinarian, i can assure you that “most animals” *do not * engage in homosexual behavior. As Niethan pointed out, mounting behavior is also a social statement, and not just a sexual behavior. I am not aware where any mammalian species engages in homosexual behavior (at least under natural conditions, it could be that the behavior might be shaped in a laboratory situation). To say that mounting behavior is homosexual would be analagous to saying that since people often greet friends by patting or slapping them on the back that they often attack their friends physically and to attack on greeting is normal behavior. After all, hitting with one’s hand is hitting, isn’t it? The intent is completely different even though it looks very similar.

The author should write a book called “The Complete Guide to Faulty Generalizations.” He seems to be an expert at that.

  1. Kissing may or may not be a prelude to sex. I kiss my mother hello, without thinking about sex (Thank God). I even kiss my wife sometimes and it’s not foreplay. Mouths are used for a lot of things. They’re highly multi-functional.

  2. Embryos do feel pain, which is why there is a push for legislation to require the mother to be given the option of the doctor administering a sedative to the embryo before it gets hacked out of the womb. Sorry to be so graphic, but that’s what an abortion is. The embroy is not the property to be used by the mother, scientists, or anyone else for that matter. The embryo belongs to God. It is the height of irrationality and arrogance to believe one can take an innocent life in the interest of scientific research.

  3. Sex is not a recreational exercise for the pleasure of the individual, but rather a gift from God used by married people to bond with each other and by the grace of God create new life. Additionally, some animals do dance to attract a mate, and as stated homosexuality in the animal kingdom is exceedingly rare…most likely becasue animals don’t have sex for pleasure…but rather to make more animals.

Good luck. I doubt this individual is open to hear reasonable arguments, but it’s worth a try.

Mouths are used for a lot of things. They’re highly multi-functional.

Also, we are responsible for how we use them. If we use our mouths to over-eat, then we are choosing to get fat. If we use our mouths to say lies, we are responsible for it. Ergo, we are also responsible for the way we use our reproductive organs.

Just remind these mindless people

That wasn’t very nice. :frowning:

[quote=Libero]That wasn’t very nice. :frowning:
[/quote]

Rather ironic looking at your signature:


Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

:hmmm:

Here’s a couple of threads where this is pretty well hashed:

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=70532

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=71125

With the embryo statement, which I assume he is meaning Embryonic stem cell reshearch, I heard on the World Over ,on EWTN, a week or so ago that:

  1. The stem cells taken from fetus’ are exremely unstable when used in adults, and could turn into tumors (or evan cancers I think) because they wern’t intended for adults but, for the devleopment of fetus. It would take an estimated ten years to be able to control (and evan then we are not sure if it will produce)and a large sum of money (billions).
  2. Adult stem cells research (which the church condons and incourages) don’t turn into tumors (or kill innocent children) and have in test lab experiments WORKED!!! It is doing what the whole thing (stem cell research) is supposed to be doing (They are still working on perfecting it).
  3. (which I saw on a diffrent show on the disocrery channel {I think} which was discussing pregnancy) That, not only do Fetus’ feal pain but, respond to outside stimulas (i.e. familair voices and music) both positively (laughing and the fetus form of danceing {I guess is what you would call it}) and negitivly (Cry).

and this is where you tell the gay people “Thank you and have a good day,____”

Rather ironic looking at your signature:

Ah, felra, so wee meet again. Don’t worry, I have made sure that I have never called anyone mindless people. I try to be as nice as possible, but I am only human. :rolleyes:

[quote=Libero]Ah, felra, so wee meet again. Don’t worry, I have made sure that I have never called anyone mindless people. I try to be as nice as possible, but I am only human. :rolleyes:
[/quote]

Just checking. :wink:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.