New Book On Homosexual Behaviour

[CrossCuT]

When we are speaking in the context of Natural Law, "natural" does not mean "a common occurrence in nature". It refers to the idea that all things have an inherent nature with which they must conform.  Homosexual relationships do not conform to the inherent nature of human sexuality.

 

I think there is a big problem there...nature as in the animals and trees and blah...shows us what happens when humans dont interfere with our higher intellect. They follow nature pretty well because it is instinct. Humans have the ability to choose not to.  I think its a stretch to say that homosexuality is somehow adverse to what is natural for humans.

[Perigrina]

I think there is a big problem there...nature as in the animals and trees and blah...shows us what happens when humans dont interfere with our higher intellect. They follow nature pretty well because it is instinct. Humans have the ability to choose not to.  I think its a stretch to say that homosexuality is somehow adverse to what is natural for humans.

 

It is really difficult to discuss this with you because you lack the foundational concepts and I am limited in my ability to explain them.  I do not have a strong enough background in philosophy to be a good teacher.  I know enough to see that your assumptions are incompatible with classical/Thomistic thought, but my abilities are not adequate for this situation.  I'm sorry.

 

I have noticed that some others here have do strong abilities in philosophy and I hope they can explain this for you.

[Nihil Obstat]

Unfortunately even 4/5 of a Bachelor's degree in philosophy at my university leaves one vastly unprepared to discuss Thomism. :P 

[Perigrina]

Unfortunately even 4/5 of a Bachelor's degree in philosophy at my university leaves one vastly unprepared to discuss Thomism. :P

 

I am somewhat resentful that I was granted a M.Div with the inadequate amount of philosophy courses I had taken.  I had no idea that the program's requirements would be so inadequate.   I am not very good at studying on my own so I am filling in the blanks very slowly. 

[CrossCuT]

My degree is biochemistry so as a result I've taken 0 phil courses. Even if I did I wouldn't put too much weight into it since I go to a non catholic university.

[stevil]

Natural marriage is a fundamental, cross-cultural relationship between men and women that can no more be defined by governments than pi can.  Marriage has taken different forms and been associated with different laws in various times and places, but it comes from our nature as human beings, just as pi comes from the nature of a circle.  The government can decide constraints on marriage but not its fundamental attributes.

If you say natural marriage = A and I say natural marriage = B
How do we resolve this dispute? From where can we find the truth about what natural marriage actually is?

Is seems to me that marriage is a human made concept. It just doesn't occur in nature at all.
I have certainly never seen sheep or chickens tie the knot.

Some animals bond for life, some mate without any commitments. Many animals perform homosexual acts.
Our DNA doesn't really care whom we mate with and the universe doesn't care either.
Us humans can make many choices and go "against" our historical nature as we please. It isn't the government's mandate to prevent humans from making choices. As we evolved from all fours to walking upright, we didn't have a governing body telling us it was against nature to walk standing up. As we built cars or started drinking milk from the udders of cows, we weren't told these were against nature and thus we must stop.

Would you rather we reject all technology, reject houses, clothes etc and go back to living in the forests and jungles as our natural ancestors did, millions of years ago?

[CrossCuT]

You are right but she is saying st thomas has his own definition of natural in which a lot of catholic adhere which supports their stance that homosexuality is unnatural.

[Perigrina]

If you say natural marriage = A and I say natural marriage = B
How do we resolve this dispute? From where can we find the truth about what natural marriage actually is?

Is seems to me that marriage is a human made concept. It just doesn't occur in nature at all.
I have certainly never seen sheep or chickens tie the knot.

Some animals bond for life, some mate without any commitments. Many animals perform homosexual acts.
Our DNA doesn't really care whom we mate with and the universe doesn't care either.
Us humans can make many choices and go "against" our historical nature as we please. It isn't the government's mandate to prevent humans from making choices. As we evolved from all fours to walking upright, we didn't have a governing body telling us it was against nature to walk standing up. As we built cars or started drinking milk from the udders of cows, we weren't told these were against nature and thus we must stop.

Would you rather we reject all technology, reject houses, clothes etc and go back to living in the forests and jungles as our natural ancestors did, millions of years ago?

 

Natural Law has nothing to do with "occuring in nature".  There are two different meanings for the word nature:

 

1. na·ture

   ˈnāCHər/

   noun

    

   1. 1.

      the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

      "the breathtaking beauty of nature"

      synonyms: the natural world, Mother Nature, Mother Earth, the environment; 

       

       

       
   2. 2.

      the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it.

      "helping them to realize the nature of their problems"

      synonyms:

      essence, inherent/basic/essential qualities

       

       

You are talking about the first meaning, but the philosophical concept is based on the second meaning.

 

Natural Law involves matters than can theoretically be deduced by reason, but, will not necessarily be deduced by any given person.  This is why you have not figured it out. :)

 

Another way to learn about Natural Law is through Church teaching because this is an area in which the Church has the authority to teach.

[Perigrina]

You are right but she is saying st thomas has his own definition of natural in which a lot of catholic adhere which supports their stance that homosexuality is unnatural.

 

It is not St.Thomas's definition, as in he did not make it up.  This meaning of "nature" goes back to the ancient Greeks and was developed by Plato and Aristotle.  As I showed in the last post, it is a conventional meaning that appears in dictionaries.

[stevil]

You are right but she is saying st thomas has his own definition of natural in which a lot of catholic adhere which supports their stance that homosexuality is unnatural.

OK, thanks for clarifying that for me.

The Pi analogy wasn't a very good one then as we don't have different groups claiming different definitions of Pi.
It seems that the Catholic view of natural comes down to an argument from authority. Authority being whatever the Catholic church says, and for this the Catholic church have gone with what St Thomas says.

Pi is a universal concept based on the definition of a conceptual circle (all points of the circumference equal distance from a central point). Given the definition of a circle, all capable intelligence (hypothetically, aliens on another planet) would derive the same number (adjusting for their own numbering system e.g. base 10?)

However non Catholics probably don't agree with St Thomas' definition of nature. We certainly don't see the church as an authority on the matter.

[Perigrina]

OK, thanks for clarifying that for me.

The Pi analogy wasn't a very good one then as we don't have different groups claiming different definitions of Pi.
It seems that the Catholic view of natural comes down to an argument from authority. Authority being whatever the Catholic church says, and for this the Catholic church have gone with what St Thomas says.

Pi is a universal concept based on the definition of a conceptual circle (all points of the circumference equal distance from a central point). Given the definition of a circle, all capable intelligence (hypothetically, aliens on another planet) would derive the same number (adjusting for their own numbering system e.g. base 10?)

However non Catholics probably don't agree with St Thomas' definition of nature. We certainly don't see the church as an authority on the matter.

 

Until quite recently we did not have different groups claiming different definitions of marriage.  Any dictionary would have said that it involved heterosexual relationships.  Virtually everybody of any religion shared this common understanding of marriage for thousands of years in multiple cultures.

 

The concept of Natural Law and its specific application to marriage preceded the Catholic Church by hundreds of years.  

[stevil]

Until quite recently we did not have different groups claiming different definitions of marriage.  Any dictionary would have said that it involved heterosexual relationships.  Virtually everybody of any religion shared this common understanding of marriage for thousands of years in multiple cultures.
 
The concept of Natural Law and its specific application to marriage preceded the Catholic Church by hundreds of years.

As I see it Catholic marriage is different from Islamic marriage is different from Hindu marriage is different from secular marriage.
With regards to government "legal" marriage, there is no religious requirement, my own marriage for example, we had a non religious celebrant, there was no mention of god/s, we got married in a garden and proclaimed our love, and our commitment for each other in front of family and friends.
To make it official (legal), we signed a government document.

I don't consider myself to be married in so far as the Catholic church regards marriage, but I am married in so far as my secular country deems it. It is a legal arrangement, not a "natural" universal arrangement. Just because we use the same word "marriage" it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing.

[Perigrina]

As I see it Catholic marriage is different from Islamic marriage is different from Hindu marriage is different from secular marriage.
With regards to government "legal" marriage, there is no religious requirement, my own marriage for example, we had a non religious celebrant, there was no mention of god/s, we got married in a garden and proclaimed our love, and our commitment for each other in front of family and friends.
To make it official (legal), we signed a government document.

I don't consider myself to be married in so far as the Catholic church regards marriage, but I am married in so far as my secular country deems it. It is a legal arrangement, not a "natural" universal arrangement. Just because we use the same word "marriage" it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing.

 

All these religions agree that it is a fundamental attribute of marriage to involve male and female which is also what secular marriage still is many places and used to be everywhere until very recently.

 

Actually you are married as far as the Catholic Church regards marriage.  

 

I suppose that people could decide to have another meaning for pi in which it equals 5, but that would be pretty silly and confusing.  What you are calling marriage is different from what marriage has always meant.  Wouldn't it make more sense to call it something else?

[stevil]

What you are calling marriage is different from what marriage has always meant.  Wouldn't it make more sense to call it something else?

I'm not too hung up on the name. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

But I do recognise that the term "marriage" does not beckon authority from any particular religion and doesn't have to have any religious underpinnings.

Secular marriage is a secular agreement (contract) between people and with legal recognition from the government.
I'm fine with the Catholic church refusing to perform gay marriage ceremonies. I'm not fine with Catholic people trying to make secular gay marriages against the law.

I am confused as to why a person might refuse to sell cakes or flowers to a person whom wants to buy them. Selling a cake is selling a cake, it's not a sponsorship or endorsement for any function that the cake is consumed within.

[Ice_nine]

All these religions agree that it is a fundamental attribute of marriage to involve male and female

 

However, polygyny or polygamy trumps monogamy if we're looking at the numbers, esp if we consider pre-Christian times. I would lean to "one man and one woman" being a revealed truth instead of natural law.