On homosexuality in general, and specific responses...

[Kolbitar]

On homosexuality in general, and specific responses to Alecto's thread.

(Since my reply is rather long I'm also going to place my posts in a series, after the fashion of Alecto's thread)

I. Preface

First off, I understand the objection which views arguments against homosexual acts as distanced, abstract, ripped from the context of personal, existential reality. However I find myself, if left to the latter context, really, strongly, viscerally opposed to the homosexual act. I feel strongly, intuitively, that the homosexual act runs contrary to that moral perception which intuitively aligns with a general natural law. Further I see, historically, the same moral perception which energetically overthrew what was otherwise accepted sexual perversion (how widespread and casual I find prostitution with boys was!) -- along with a general disrespect for human life (especially the crippled) and often a disgust at nature itself -- also finding no room for accepting such practice: in short, I find in tradition -- which works in fact toward moralizing society -- an inherited perception, a shared moral intuition.

I wish to state that I emphatically affirm my love for every person suffering with homosexual tendencies (I’ll always refer to such people as PEOPE with homosexual tendencies; I refuse to define people with homosexual tendencies as homosexuals); anyone who questions my respect and love for people even if they practice homosexuality – well, I’ll simply say I have some strong and unkind words for you! Concerning those people who have homosexual desires but choose not to act on them: in addition to my love and respect you have my utmost admiration. I’ve said before that such people, who do it out of love for God, are among the greatest of my Christian heroes. Each and every person, having homosexual tendencies or not, is made in the image of God; all of us have an innate dignity which should assure us respect, protection and love. Jesus died for every single individual person, and his grace is there no matter what. Overcoming homosexual tendencies will be a struggle, but Christ offers his grace, and it is power. Many persons with homosexual tendencies have found freedom in Christ, some after much struggle, repeated sin, but found it none the less – it’s there. There are many support groups, such as Exodus and Courage, which offer help for anyone so desiring. I also found this helpful link: http://www.dads.org/article.asp?artId=296

[Kolbitar]

Before responding to the specifics of Alecto's post I will offer this preface. Please read and understand it before you comment on my specific responses -- I'll just refer you back to it anyway...

II. Nautral Law

How Jesus spoke (and speaks) on the issue of homosexuality through the natural law
.
Christianity and Homosexuality
.
Catholics believe God has spoken in two distinct but mutually compatible ways: He's spoken through revelation -- through Jesus and the Bible, for instance -- and He's also spoken through nature. In short we (Catholics at least) have the book of Scripture and the book of Nature -- Divine law and natural law. If Jesus is God, and homosexuality violates the natural law, then Jesus HAS said something quite clearly on the subject, though we read his words through nature, not revelation. Even if you don’t accept Jesus as God, we’re all none the less bound to the natural law.
.
Natural law – reason reflecting on human nature -- reveals that happiness is the only thing we seek for itself, it’s the only end we seek for itself and not as a means to something else; happiness is, as Boethius puts it, "a life made perfect by the possession in aggregate of all good things." “So conceived,” says Mortimer Adler, “happiness is not a particular good itself, but the sum of goods." This is also the conception implicit in the Declaration of Independence when it speaks about “the pursuit of happiness”.

There's a vast difference between being happy at one particular moment -- having the psychological contentment accompanying the possession of a good -- and the quality of happiness pursuing a good life. The latter -- what natural philosophers are speaking about -- is a disposition, a habitual inclination determined by the end “all good things”, and does not primarily refer to the fleeting emotions of sorrow, anger, the contented feeling of happiness, etc. The opposite of a happy life as Boethius, Aristotle, or other natural philosophers conceive it, is a tragic life. There are four conditions inherent to the notion of happiness, which therefore define our nature. The four conditions are these: self-preservation, procreation, community (starting with the family though also implying a cumulative human history), knowledge and free-will (rationality); these conditions are as inherent to the notion of human happiness as the property of a triangle that the sum of it’s angles is always 180 degrees is inherent to the notion of a (Euclidean) triangle. Indeed, these four conditions are the properties of our human nature, for they are needed to sustain the happiness we seek. It follows, by the nature of our existence as rational beings which know they seek a rational/spiritual end – happiness – that any desire arising contrary to our nature (defined by these four properties and all that they imply) stems from a disorder. The homosexual desire runs contrary to the procreative desire, and is therefore disordered and unnatural in the sense defined above.
.
Among the usual objections to a Catholic wielding natural law are 1.) that priests are celibate, 2.) some married couples cannot have children, and 3.) homosexuals can adopt or have test tube babies – or sperm donors, as the case may be. The claim is that, if homosexuality is wrong then the first two (celibacy and sterile sex) equally violate the natural law, or that, in the case of the latter objection, we’ve somehow found a loophole; these objections, however, do not stand to reason.

1.) Celibacy is self control, which is, at times, needed by every human being married and unmarried alike. If celibacy were a Gnostic reaction implying that sex was inherently evil then it would indeed be dangerous and wrong. To the contrary, however, it adds to communal responsibility by idealizing self control while at the same time establishing a sacramental view of the physical world, which makes it a prerogative for married couples to multiply responsibly – indirectly assuring the procreative condition. Celibacy is self-control of a natural desire, in no way comparable to acting on an unnatural desire.

2.) Married couples who cannot procreate are still following and encouraging a natural desire, a desire open to the procreative condition. Sex serves to unify a couple towards raising a family unit, in addition to creating a family unit. It’s therefore quite natural.


3.) The fact that "homosexual couples" can adopt merely begs a series of questions, is such a relationship natural? is such sex natural? should they adopt? is all of this good? But these are questions we know, by the four pronged property of human nature, have to be answered negatively. We cannot say that a desire which is fundamentally flawed from the outset can be bent back into human nature at some point without perpetuating disharmony within the individual and causing disorder in society at large. If the very desire stems from an internal disorder, it’s no good to say it can be harmonized later on down the line, for it’s root is still out of place. The fact is, the heterosexual desire is still the necessity, meaning the traditional family is the norm which perpetuates conditions like emotional and social stability. "Homosexual" adoptive family units deny the natural desire a child has for a mother and a father, a design inherent in each individual according to the nature of procreation.

Once we understand the nature of human beings according to the conditions necessary to sustain happiness, the rest becomes an issue of prudence. The virtual mathematical certainty the conditions of happiness give us also lend us the rational context with which to interpret the concrete data of psychologists; data predictably conflicting along social and political lines. Thus the well intentioned on both sides of the issue can align their subjective sincerity with what is objectively good for the person struggling with homosexual tendencies.

[Kolbitar]

Part II
.
General Objections
.
The Catholic Catechism says that tradition, basing itself on Scripture, has always declared homosexual acts disordered, and it references Gen. 19:1-29; Rom. 1:24-27; 1 Cor. 6:9; and 1 Tim. 1:10. Now, there’s an objection which seeks to remove from the aforementioned (and like) verses any literal reference to homosexuality itself. For instance 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 are both apparently speaking specifically about homosexual acts in so far as they are acts with boy prostitutes, and therefore, so the reasoning goes, only in so far as they are acts with boy prostitutes. In addition the episode with Lot, it is reasoned, does not condemn homosexuality (there's also the comments in Romans, which I'll have something to say about soon). What I would like to suggest, however, is that the instances recorded in Matthew and Mark where Christ speaks -- referencing Genesis -- essentially about the design of male and female (about why man was created male and female) offers the overarching context which provides tradition it's firm basis in Scripture.

Going back to Genesis, the man and woman were clearly made for each other and were told to multiply. The severity with which sexual acts outside of this purpose were viewed is evidenced in the story of Onan (Gen 38:9-10). It's therefore no stretch when the Study Bible I have notes, "[a]ccording to the present account of the Yahwist (the author of the story of Lot in Sodom), the sin of Sodom was homosexuality (Gn 19, 4f), which is therefore known as sodomy." Genesis 19: 4 says that, "…all the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old-all the people to the last man-closed in on the house." We've already brought up the point about the intended rape, but the finer point about the rape is even more significant (especially in light of what would be the understanding of the "Yahwist" about the nature of sexual unions according to why God made them male and female -- to be one flesh): they even turned down Lot's virgin daughters in favor of the men. The Yahwist is noting the significance here -- even amidst the atrocity of the intended rape, as if that wasn't bad enough -- that they won't even commit it within the design of God: he's noting the homosexual nature of the rape, not just the rape.

I think, therefore, that, as a deduction from the things mentioned in the last paragraph and from Jesus' quotation of Genesis, the writers of Rom. 1:24-27; 1 Cor. 6:9; and 1 Tim. 1:10 would have in mind that the general act of homosexuality was contrary to the design of God and that, much like the Yahwist thought about homosexual rape, the act of homosexual prostitution was a specific type of the more general disorder -- the writers specified this particular act because it was among the immoralities most immediately confronting them.

[Kolbitar]

Specific Objections 1
.
In response to Alecto:

::“In order to claim that the Bible condemns homosexuality, you have to add information to it. The information that has been added may boil down to only one thing, that "fornication" means any kind of sex outside of marriage. It really means "visiting prostitutes". This will be a key to the Apostolic reinterpretation of the sexual codes in Acts.”

No, you don’t have to add information, you merely have to read it in light of the boundaries set forth -- from the beginning, so to speak, and reaffirmed by Jesus himself -- by the simple concept that God made humanity male and female so that a man and women could become one flesh; not that a particular man or women must become one flesh, but that they could, and the purpose of becoming one flesh is to have a family.

::“From the first in particular is derived the claim that the purpose of the sexes is to procreate, and this is the obvious design. But there is a difference between design and purpose. Were the only purpose for the creation of man that he inherit the Earth, why bother with faith and loving God? This is a different purpose. Why worry about how the Earth is inherited? Why not promote the greatest promiscuity possible, if having sex and children is the only purpose of the creation of sexes. After all, quality of life for the children is a separate purpose. History makes clear to us that happy children is not a prerequisite for a nation to conquer territory. It is also obvious that Genesis is an outline of the story of creation. Not every detail and purpose is related. Where, for example, do we specify the creation of the platypus, and why it has its bill? Where do we learn the reason Man has two legs, not four? We should not expect to find every purpose under heaven explained to us in Genesis. To do so is artificial.”

I just see this as forcing a point. The context after all is, to us, the entire Bible; and is, to those before us (to those of us who have the Bible as we have it), the religious teachings of the Hebrews. In other words it’s complete nonsense to think an overarching purpose of happiness (be it inheriting the promised land, enlightening the nations, bringing forth the Messiah, seeing God, etc), in some form, was not the general goal to which the purpose of the sexes, and of procreation, and of raising a family, and of creating a nation, were all but means -- not ends in themselves. Your point may apply to robots, who need programmed, but not to men.

:: “To prevent the Disciples from falling into this very same simplistic interpretation of Genesis, Jesus explains several roles of men in Matthew 19:10-12. Ironically, the immediately preceding section is used to make the claim on New Testament grounds that the only reason for men and women is to be married”

Who makes that argument? It’s a straw man. The reason for the difference in the sexes is so that particular members of those sexes may become one flesh: that’s the argument. But that’s not an end in itself. Becoming one flesh is designed for fruitfulness, for multiplying. But no one says that that’s an end in itself, nor does the fact that Genesis stops there indicate that we cannot reasonably conclude that the Hebrews did, or that fundamentalists must.

:: “The argument made above that there must be multiple purposes can be made here, but I do not need to because Christ will make it for me.”

No it can’t be made, and no Christ doesn’t make that point because your straw man doesn’t exist. He states that the reason -- that the purpose -- man is made male and female is so to make becoming one flesh possible. Genesis doesn’t say that God made each man and women for the purpose of becoming one flesh; it says he made male and female (categories) so that a man and women (particulars) may become one flesh. There’s only one purpose for making man male and female: that man may become one flesh. Man and man cannot become one flesh; woman and woman cannot become one flesh; the purpose for the difference is for the very possibility of the unity.

:: “But before going there, I should point out the purpose of this lesson: it is to forbid divorce and to request that men who do not believe they can avoid divorce should never be married. Within this lesson is explained the primary hypocrisy of the "family values" movement in the United States. They will use these verses to claim indirectly that one kind of sex is bad, while allowing divorce, which is directly called adultery in the same place. They will use this to support "defense of marriage" laws that do not contain the obligatory ban on divorce. I do not agree with the claim that these verses argue against homosexual behavior, but I can see how one gets there. But to make that claim and not be all fired up about banning divorce at the same time is absurd.”

The automatic assumption that one must insert or translate his religious or theological obligations into the political realm as societal law is what frightens me about the “religious left”; for it reveals either the unrealistic assumption about the opposition that they cannot be rational and/or an inability to themselves make any rational distinctions which, projected upon their opposition, becomes an occasion for fear. It does not follow that one cannot support the defense of marriage act as it defines marriage between a man and women on account of it’s derivation from nature without supporting the supernatural insight of Jesus Christ, concerning the sacramental covenant which transcends natural revelation (derivation), in the realm of politics. The first comes by reason, the other by faith; to seek to establish the latter would be to try to establish religion: securing the distinction is not absurd.

:: “Here we have, out of the mouth of Jesus, another thing that too many people think cannot exist: a discriminant - a statement that some laws apply to different people or nations in different ways because of different conditions. It also contains a rational explanation, reminding us that the Law is supposed to be reasonable.

But they’re never backward, we don’t go back to something that was allowed, but shouldn’t have been ideally.

:: “I have to wonder how many good Christian Republicans who believe in the literal truth of Scripture are committing adultery this very second with their lawfully (according to the State) wedded wives. I wonder how many of these very ones contemplated today that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. It is this very kind of hypocrisy that convinces me many people, if not most, who quote these verses are actually homophobic, not Christian, in their view of this. Were they truly Christian, they would not concentrate on one sin and ignore the other. The "defense of marriage" laws would address all of the sins, not just one. Now to any reading this who is not hypocritical in this way, I apologize if I made it seem I was including you. I am not. I just know from the way the political winds blow in this country that there are a great many out there who are hypocritical.”

I’ll never understand appealing to other wrongs in order to accept a wrong. Either homosexuality is wrong, or it’s not. If it’s wrong then the hypocrisy of heterosexuals, Republican or Democrat, makes it no more right. I’ve already addressed the difference between natural law and revelation as it appeals to “defense of marriage” laws, but I will agree that many people of all political stripes are, according to religious principles, committing adultery if they were lawfully wedded to their first husband or wife. However, to be “convince[d] [that] many people, if not most, who quote these verses are actually homophobic, not Christian, in their view of this” simply fails on logical grounds; for your conviction assumes that these people not only know (which most probably don’t), but, in addition, actually think there’s any credibility whatsoever to an alternative interpretation.

I’ve indirectly answered all the rest of the points made in the Matthew post, but let me know if I need to be direct…

[Kolbitar]

Specific Objections 2

Finally, concerning Romans -- I’ll make it short.

George Brantl writes “[t]he fundamental tenets of Catholic morality are rooted in the nature of God,” which is to say the natural law is uncreated and flows from God’s nature. The homosexual act is contrary to the natural law, therefore is a denial of God’s true nature. When Alecto writes, “[s]o we have the first part of our causal chain: ignoring the natural evidence of the true magnificence of God leads to idolatry,” and we connect to this the idea that the person practicing or endorsing homosexual acts is denying God’s nature via the natural law, then that person by default practices idolatry of some kind, “chang[ing] the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man.”

Alecto is assuming the homosexual tendency and the homosexual act are indistinguishable; he’s assuming people with homosexual tendencies cannot discern the natural law and naturally check those tendencies. This is not true, and the idea that boy prostitution existed as commonly as it did makes it fairly clear that people with such tendencies, committing such acts, would often be married. It does not, therefore, have to be people with distinctly heterosexual tendencies who are “given up unto vile affections,” it can also be, and according to the moral law is, people with homosexual tendencies who, being able to discern the moral law (and check their desires), are none the less given up unto vile affections.” This isn’t just people with homosexual tendencies, however, we all are born with inclinations that run contrary to nature in some form or another, and we all must discern, from nature, whether or not to act on them in a given context. Natural does not mean: whatever is, is natural.

[bingley]

[Kolbitar]

Somehow this post didn't make it...

it's III. Misunderstandings of the Natural Law, and should follow the post on Natural Law.

Regarding charges of “discrimination by generalizing”: Most of us are aware of the dangers of generalizing -- of taking, for instance, specific bad examples of a given ethnic group and, by an unwarranted induction from those specifics, making a generalization of the entire ethnic group. Some may charge that that's precisely what I'm doing here -- but, in my defense, I'd say that's precisely what I'm not doing here. The charge against me runs something like, "most people have heterosexual desires, so all you're doing is generalizing from the majority; in so doing you're leaving out a really existent minority of homosexual individuals." That is the inductive sense of the term “generalizing,” which science often uses, and it is dangerous and discriminatory when applied to classes of human beings.

However, I am using the deductive sense of the term “generalizing.” I am taking what is good for each and every individual without exception, whether or not a given individual feels that inclination, and sometimes despite whether he may indeed feel it's opposite (such as the aversion of the anorexic), and then determining by deduction whether or not a given tendency either compliments or contradicts these goods. A clear example of this sense of the term “generalizing” is found in the self-preservation principle that all human beings need water and nourishment to exist. From this fact it is deductively clear that anorexia is a disordered aversion.

Procreation: Existence is good: Self-preservation, procreation, community (starting with the family though also implying a cumulative human history), knowledge and free-will (rationality) are the four dimensions of the universal good of existence; they are predicated on the fact that we cannot deny that our existence, in so far as it desires the good, is itself good. This does not mean that those who do not or cannot follow the desire to procreate are not correctly participating in the pursuit of happiness. It only means this: since "existence" itself is needed to "sustain the happiness we seek" and we need procreation or we wouldn't exist then every person has to affirm that procreation, in principle, is good since it is the cause of their existence -- an existence which necessarily desires happiness, making procreation inherent to the notion. The heterosexual desire, with qualification (monogamous marriage, which is good for the community), aligns with the cause (of our existence) and promotes the same end; it is good. The homosexual desire is, by nature, closed to this end; it’s end denies the goodness of it’s cause revealing it as disordered – not ordered to the right end.

“Natural”, in the context of moral actions, is not another term for “whatever is”, or “however we’re born”: The existence of an individual desire does not in itself mean it's natural (in the sense that following it tends to our ultimate good); this is the whole point. If persons with homosexual tendencies claim they are born that way and (most) people with heterosexual tendencies claim they are born knowing the homosexual act is wrong, then how do we distinguish based on “being born that way?” The only possible way to make that distinction is to look at human nature, to find what is undeniably good for each and every individual human being, and then to deduce whether or not a given desire corresponds to the universal good. This is the very basis for a constitutional republic -- a society governed by the rule of law; a principle directly opposed to the principle of inequality and tyranny; the principle that might makes right (the might makes right principle inductively generalizes based on conscious or felt desire -- of a minority or individual -- not deductively from common, inherent, undeniable need; it thereby removes the minority or individual from the common ethic and sets up a different ethic, a separate pursuit of happiness).

[Josh]

[alecto]

[Kolbitar]

[john]

[Josh]

[john]

[alecto]

[alecto]