Per Request: Natural Law

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Natural law can be as simple as slamming two plugs together and saying..."see it doesn't fit" because Natural law is self evident. There are cases like infertile people where it becomes a little more complex but again, self evident. From the way you posed your question, Im not sure you were looking for a sincere and honest debate/dialouge. Also, Im not sure if this is the correct forum or thread to have a debate on sexuality and Natural law.
If you're sincere in your desire and you'd wish to continue, might I suggest a thread in the religion forum and I will follow up. In the meantime, here are two links that you might find helpful if you desire to read them.


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Natural Law

Natural law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First link is broken for me. Second one contains multiple definitions; I'm guessing you're rolling with the Christian one? So now can you please explain why homosexuality is counter 'Natural Law', but making home with someone who's infertile is cool?

 

[Boogs]

Men aren't made to have sex with each other. They are made to have sex with women. Likewise, women aren't physically designed to have sex with women.

 

[chicowalker]

Men aren't made to have sex with each other. They are made to have sex with women. Likewise, women aren't physically designed to have sex with women.

"Sex" involves any number of acts that aren't limited to a man and a woman.

 

[Ring 6]

"Sex" involves any number of acts that aren't limited to a man and a woman.

I am pretty sure i have read that there are homosexual animals as well, so the whole its a choice thing or unnatural act thing probably fails there.

 

[chicowalker]

I am pretty sure i have read that there are homosexual animals as well, so the whole its a choice thing or unnatural act thing probably fails there.

Agreed. I was just sticking with the claims regarding "sex" and physical design.

 

[Boogs]

"Sex" involves any number of acts that aren't limited to a man and a woman.

True. You can have sex with a sock, a doll, an animal, etc. All that is messed up too.

 

[Boogs]

I am pretty sure i have read that there are homosexual animals as well, so the whole its a choice thing or unnatural act thing probably fails there.

I know. And I'm saying there is something psychologically wrong with that animal.

 

[chicowalker]

True. You can have sex with a sock, a doll, an animal, etc. All that is messed up too.

ah, the old fallback to comparisons with bestiality...

I like the twist you've added, though, claiming that most heterosexuals are "messed up," too.

 

[Ring 6]

I know. And I'm saying there is something psychologically wrong with that animal.

If the evidence conflicts with your view, the evidence is flawed. You must be very religious.

 

[Boogs]

ah, the old fallback to comparisons with bestiality...

I like the twist you've added, though, claiming that most heterosexuals are "messed up," too.

Yes we are chico.

 

[chicowalker]

Yes we are chico.

pretty bleak view

(though if most of us are messed up, wouldn't that mean that most us are actually normal? )

 

[Boogs]

pretty bleak view

(though if most of us are messed up, wouldn't that mean that most us are actually normal? )

You got me on that one man.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Men aren't made to have sex with each other. They are made to have sex with women. Likewise, women aren't physically designed to have sex with women.

And this is what confuses me; natural law was thrown out there as if it was separate from religion, but only the religious version contains content that could be seen as anti-homosexuality. The original roots are more an argument against tyranny and antisocial behavior. Once religion usurped it it's no longer an alternative to coming at a discussion from a religious standpoint. All the arguments I've seen anti-homosexuality seem to be a house of cards trying to hide the basic ones: uncomfortable with it and God said so.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

And this is what confuses me; natural law was thrown out there as if it was separate from religion, but only the religious version contains content that could be seen as anti-homosexuality. The original roots are more an argument against tyranny and antisocial behavior. Once religion usurped it it's no longer an alternative to coming at a discussion from a religious standpoint. All the arguments I've seen anti-homosexuality seem to be a house of cards trying to hide the basic ones: uncomfortable with it and God said so.

Outside of homosexuality advocates in the late 20th century, who was challenging the fact that homosexual acts were acts against the natural law in all of human history?

The gay rights movement of the Middle Ages???

Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates.....all pagans.......all saw homosexual acts as contrary to the Natural law.



"Let me begin by noticing a too little noticed fact. All three of the greatest Greek philosophers, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, regarded homosexual conduct as intrinsically shameful, immoral, and indeed depraved or depraving. That is to say, all three rejected the linchpin of modern "gay" ideology and lifestyle.
Socrates is portrayed by Plato (and by Xenophon) as having strong homosexual (as well as heterosexual) inclinations or interest, and as promoting an ideal of homosexual romance between men and youths, but at the same time as utterly rejecting homosexual conduct. This is made clear in Sir Kenneth Dover's book Greek Homosexuality1; in Dover's summarising words: "Xenophon's Socrates lacks the sensibility and urbanity of the Platonic Socrates, but there is no doubt that both of them condemn homosexual copulation."2 It is also made clear by Gregory Vlastos in his last book, precisely on Socrates: In Socratic ero^s involving relationships of affection between men and boys or youths, intimacy is limited to mind- and eye-contact and "terminal gratification" is forbidden3 (and a fortiori in relationships between adult males, since virtually all Athenians regarded sex acts between adult males as intrinsically shameful)4.
Vlastos thus makes it clear that Socrates forbids precisely what I have been calling homosexual conduct.
What, then, about Plato? Well, the same Plato who in his Symposium wrote a
famous celebration of romantic and spiritual man-boy erotic relationships, made very clear that all forms of sexual conduct outside heterosexual marriage are shameful, wrongful and harmful. This is particularly evident from his treatment of the matter in his last work, the Laws, but is also sufficiently clear in the Republic and the Phaedrus, and even in the Symposium itself. This is affirmed unequivocally both by Dover and by Vlastos, neither of whom favours these views of Plato. According to Vlastos, for example, Plato--
saw anal intercourse as 'contrary to nature,' [footnote: Ph[ae]dr[us] 251A1, L[aws] 636-7] a degradation not only of man's humanity, but even of his
animality..."5
It is for Plato, Vlastos adds, a type of act far more serious than any mere going "contrary to the rules".6
As for Aristotle, there is widespread scholarly agreement that he rejected
homosexual conduct. In fact, such conduct is frequently represented by Aristotle (in some cases directly and in other cases by a lecturer's hint) as intrinsically perverse, shameful and harmful both to the individuals involved and to society itself.7"


http://www.princeton.edu/~anscombe/articles/finnisorientation.pdf

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Outside of homosexuality advocates in the late 20th century, who was challenging the fact that homosexual acts were acts against the natural law in all of human history?

The gay rights movement of the Middle Ages???

Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates.....all pagans.......all saw homosexual acts as contrary to the Natural law.



"Let me begin by noticing a too little noticed fact. All three of the greatest Greek philosophers, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, regarded homosexual conduct as intrinsically shameful, immoral, and indeed depraved or depraving. That is to say, all three rejected the linchpin of modern "gay" ideology and lifestyle.
Socrates is portrayed by Plato (and by Xenophon) as having strong homosexual (as well as heterosexual) inclinations or interest, and as promoting an ideal of homosexual romance between men and youths, but at the same time as utterly rejecting homosexual conduct. This is made clear in Sir Kenneth Dover's book Greek Homosexuality1; in Dover's summarising words: "Xenophon's Socrates lacks the sensibility and urbanity of the Platonic Socrates, but there is no doubt that both of them condemn homosexual copulation."2 It is also made clear by Gregory Vlastos in his last book, precisely on Socrates: In Socratic ero^s involving relationships of affection between men and boys or youths, intimacy is limited to mind- and eye-contact and "terminal gratification" is forbidden3 (and a fortiori in relationships between adult males, since virtually all Athenians regarded sex acts between adult males as intrinsically shameful)4.
Vlastos thus makes it clear that Socrates forbids precisely what I have been calling homosexual conduct.
What, then, about Plato? Well, the same Plato who in his Symposium wrote a
famous celebration of romantic and spiritual man-boy erotic relationships, made very clear that all forms of sexual conduct outside heterosexual marriage are shameful, wrongful and harmful. This is particularly evident from his treatment of the matter in his last work, the Laws, but is also sufficiently clear in the Republic and the Phaedrus, and even in the Symposium itself. This is affirmed unequivocally both by Dover and by Vlastos, neither of whom favours these views of Plato. According to Vlastos, for example, Plato--
saw anal intercourse as 'contrary to nature,' [footnote: Ph[ae]dr[us] 251A1, L[aws] 636-7] a degradation not only of man's humanity, but even of his
animality..."5
It is for Plato, Vlastos adds, a type of act far more serious than any mere going "contrary to the rules".6
As for Aristotle, there is widespread scholarly agreement that he rejected
homosexual conduct. In fact, such conduct is frequently represented by Aristotle (in some cases directly and in other cases by a lecturer's hint) as intrinsically perverse, shameful and harmful both to the individuals involved and to society itself.7"


http://www.princeton.edu/~anscombe/articles/finnisorientation.pdf

It seems to me you're confusing their personal beliefs on what's right and wrong with their beliefs which was the basis of natural law, or maybe I'm confused. Near as I can tell the Greek philosophers laid the ground work with the basic idea that there are things we can all agree on that are right and wrong and that any laws that go against those aren't laws at all. It seems that it's not until Aquinas that attempts were made to start defining these things.

Regardless I fail to see the argument made by natural law that's supposed to be convincing. Maybe expanding a bit with your own words why homosexuality is against natural law and why other things like masturbation, birth control, etc. aren't would help me understand where you're coming from.

 

[Ring 6]

Outside of homosexuality advocates in the late 20th century, who was challenging the fact that homosexual acts were acts against the natural law in all of human history?

The gay rights movement of the Middle Ages???

Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates.....all pagans.......all saw homosexual acts as contrary to the Natural law.



"Let me begin by noticing a too little noticed fact. All three of the greatest Greek philosophers, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, regarded homosexual conduct as intrinsically shameful, immoral, and indeed depraved or depraving. That is to say, all three rejected the linchpin of modern "gay" ideology and lifestyle.
Socrates is portrayed by Plato (and by Xenophon) as having strong homosexual (as well as heterosexual) inclinations or interest, and as promoting an ideal of homosexual romance between men and youths, but at the same time as utterly rejecting homosexual conduct. This is made clear in Sir Kenneth Dover's book Greek Homosexuality1; in Dover's summarising words: "Xenophon's Socrates lacks the sensibility and urbanity of the Platonic Socrates, but there is no doubt that both of them condemn homosexual copulation."2 It is also made clear by Gregory Vlastos in his last book, precisely on Socrates: In Socratic ero^s involving relationships of affection between men and boys or youths, intimacy is limited to mind- and eye-contact and "terminal gratification" is forbidden3 (and a fortiori in relationships between adult males, since virtually all Athenians regarded sex acts between adult males as intrinsically shameful)4.
Vlastos thus makes it clear that Socrates forbids precisely what I have been calling homosexual conduct.
What, then, about Plato? Well, the same Plato who in his Symposium wrote a
famous celebration of romantic and spiritual man-boy erotic relationships, made very clear that all forms of sexual conduct outside heterosexual marriage are shameful, wrongful and harmful. This is particularly evident from his treatment of the matter in his last work, the Laws, but is also sufficiently clear in the Republic and the Phaedrus, and even in the Symposium itself. This is affirmed unequivocally both by Dover and by Vlastos, neither of whom favours these views of Plato. According to Vlastos, for example, Plato--
saw anal intercourse as 'contrary to nature,' [footnote: Ph[ae]dr[us] 251A1, L[aws] 636-7] a degradation not only of man's humanity, but even of his
animality..."5
It is for Plato, Vlastos adds, a type of act far more serious than any mere going "contrary to the rules".6
As for Aristotle, there is widespread scholarly agreement that he rejected
homosexual conduct. In fact, such conduct is frequently represented by Aristotle (in some cases directly and in other cases by a lecturer's hint) as intrinsically perverse, shameful and harmful both to the individuals involved and to society itself.7"


http://www.princeton.edu/~anscombe/articles/finnisorientation.pdf

This has nothing to do with nature, it is mens opinions.
Further you dismiss current enlightened thinking based upon views held alongside the belief the world is flat.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

It seems to me you're confusing their personal beliefs on what's right and wrong with their beliefs which was the basis of natural law, or maybe I'm confused. Near as I can tell the Greek philosophers laid the ground work with the basic idea that there are things we can all agree on that are right and wrong and that any laws that go against those aren't laws at all. It seems that it's not until Aquinas that attempts were made to start defining these things.

Regardless I fail to see the argument made by natural law that's supposed to be convincing. Maybe expanding a bit with your own words why homosexuality is against natural law and why other things like masturbation, birth control, etc. aren't would help me understand where you're coming from.

I know I'm not confused. I simply answered your "objection" citing evidence to contradict your contention that the Greek philosophers simply "laid the groundwork" and didn't address Natural Law "specifics".

Your response didn't address my evidence whatsoever nor did you provide evidence to the contrary. Then you seem to just restate your point.

When did I ever say that masturbation, birth control, etc. don't contradict the Natural Law? Thats a strawman if I have ever seen one. I have clearly said in previous threads that sex acts need to be open to procreation.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

This has nothing to do with nature, it is mens opinions.
Further you dismiss current enlightened thinking based upon views held alongside the belief the world is flat.

I "dismiss" current "Progressive faith" thinking that denies the self evidence of Natural Law and replaces sex between a man and a woman where there is a openness to procreation as well as a complete complementarity.... with masturbation between a man/man or woman/woman where the "act" itself is closed entirely to procreation and the participants have no complementarity whatsoever.

BTW, this is the same "Progressive faith" that gave us Eugenics (hello Nazis), abortion on demand, and forced sterilizations.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

I know I'm not confused. I simply answered your "objection" citing evidence to contradict your contention that the Greek philosophers simply "laid the groundwork" and didn't address Natural Law "specifics".

Your response didn't address my evidence whatsoever nor did you provide evidence to the contrary. Then you seem to just restate your point.

When did I ever say that masturbation, birth control, etc. don't contradict the Natural Law? Thats a strawman if I have ever seen one. I have clearly said in previous threads that sex acts need to be open to procreation.

Your 'evidence' doesn't refute my objection. Nowhere does it point to a definitive definition laid out by these philosophers. Not to mention that someone else's opinion isn't really evidence. But anyways here

The second answer is Aristotelian. The idea here is to reject a subjectivism about the good, holding that what makes it true that something is good is not that it stands in some relation to desire but rather that it is somehow perfective or completing of a being, where what is perfective or completing of a being depends on that being's nature. So what is good for an oak is what is completing or perfective of the oak, and this depends on the kind of thing that an oak is by nature; and what is good for a dog is what is completing or perfective of the dog, and this depends on the kind of thing that a dog is by nature; and what is good for a human depends on what is completing or perfective of a human, and this depends on the kind of thing a human is by nature. So the fact of variability of desire is not on its own enough to cast doubt on the natural law universal goods thesis: as the good is not defined fundamentally by reference to desire, the fact of variation in desire is not enough to raise questions about universal goods. This is the view affirmed by Aquinas, and the majority of adherents to the natural law tradition.

The third answer is Platonic. Like the Aristotelian view, it rejects a subjectivism about the good. But it does not hold that the good is to be understood in terms of human nature. The role of human nature is not to define or set the good, but merely to define what the possibilities of human achievement are. So one might think that some things — knowledge, beauty, etc. — are just good in themselves, apart from any reference to human desire or perfection, but hold that the pursuit of these are only part of the natural law insofar as they fall within the ambit of human practical possibility. This view of the good is not much defended — in part because of the scathing criticism offered of Plato's view by Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics (NE I, 6) — but it was affirmed by Iris Murdoch (1970), and forms part of the natural law view defended by Michael Moore (1982).

The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I'm not sure how you consider the original purpose of this thread a strawman. You claimed to use natural to support your stance; but so far you've refused to touch on what definition you're using, how you use it to support your stance, and how this is supposed to be convincing to non-religious folk.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Your 'evidence' doesn't refute my objection. Nowhere does it point to a definitive definition laid out by these philosophers. Not to mention that someone else's opinion isn't really evidence. But anyways here



The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I'm not sure how you consider the original purpose of this thread a strawman. You claimed to use natural to support your stance; but so far you've refused to touch on what definition you're using, how you use it to support your stance, and how this is supposed to be convincing to non-religious folk.

I metioned your use of a strawman when you stated that in some way I had held that masterbation and birth control didn't contradict the Natural Law when I said no such thing.

Just to clarify.... are you saying that if the ancient Greeks conveyed the fullness of understanding of Nautral Law and that any further development of this understanding would somehow be invalid?

As to your definite defintition......when you say "someone else's opinion", please be more specific.....who's opinion to what?