This was written before Archbishop Carlo Viganó’s testimony became public. There is nothing, except for extra links at the bottom, that needs any change.
Orientations
The belief that there are such things as homosexuals is now accepted by almost all in the West. It is a false and recent belief, as pointed out here. Homosexuals are seen as human creatures that are like males and females, but different, like they are a third natural sex. The current fad is to say homosexuality is akin to a superpower not possessed by males and females, powers that it wielders should take pride in. When, in fact, sexual deviancy has always been with us.
Incidentally, calling the belief that homosexuals are human creatures different from males and females “recent” is a criticism, but won’t be seen as such by progressives who value ideas much more for their novelty than for their truthfulness. Innovations used to be suspect for the very good reason that the whole of human history weighed against a philosophical novelty usually found history winning.
Homosexuality spreads largely by contact, which is to say, by introduction of the idea and practices to the young from the old. Those so introduced and who in turn embrace the practices (which is not all those who are introduced) largely come to say, after the fact, that they have no choice in desiring the practices themselves. And this is true. It is true in the same way that a man introduced to the bottle will eventually come to say he has no choice but to desire a drink. The difference is that society will tell the drunk to shape up but will tell the man desiring to simulate sex with another man that he deserves protection of his “orientation.”
There is no evidence homosexuals are “born that way”. The multiple identical twin studies alone prove this, in which not every pair of identical twins identify as homosexual when at least one of the pair does. See inter alia “Gay Is Not All in the Genes“, a Science paper linked from The New York Times, so you may take it as gospel. Too, a propensity for a thing does not make on engage in the thing. Not all mathematically adept people become statisticians, for example.
Now society says there are not only such creatures as homosexuals, but there are also bisexuals. And there are lesbians, queers, furries, pansexuals, demisexuals, varioriented and all the many and multiplying “orientations” (nobody has an exact count). The people cloaking themselves with these terms claim the same status as homosexuals; which is to say, they claim they are separate kinds of human creatures, too, and just as deserving of protection and recognition.
There is certainly no evidence these people are born that way, but there is overwhelming evidence all come to adopt these labels via introduction of various practices and holding of certain ideas. They are enculturated.
And then there are not only varioriented et cetera but also pedophiles, zoophiles, objectum sexuals (those desiring simulated sex with inanimate objects), necrophiliacs, and other curious “orientations.” These people, like homosexuals, claim they have no choice but to desire as they do, and, of course, they should be believed.
It should be obvious that the mere claim of having a desire is not in any way itself a justification for the practices resulting from the desire. If homosexual acts are considered morally good because those who engage in them say they have no choice but to want to engage in them, then it follows pedophilic and zoophilic acts are also morally good for the same reason. Nobody believes that.
What then separates necrophiliacs from homosexuals? Only the objects of their intrinsically disordered lusts. What unites them? They both desire non-procreative or simulated sex. Even the most ardent supporters of homosexuals, and therefore also necrophiliacs, as separate kinds of human creatures, acknowledge that homosexual acts do not lead to conception. Neither do necrophilic acts etc.
Homosexuals, zoophiles, masturbators, and all the rest are thus acting against human nature because it is human nature to reproduce via male-female pairing (ask your parents for confirmation; I include in the procreative idea the notion of a natural biological family raising children; rape can lead to procreation but not parenting). Sexual acts outside this pairing are in this sense broken. Sexual health is directed toward procreation; acts directed away from it are unhealthy by definition. Thus to say, as some do say, that there are “healthy homosexuals” is like saying there are disease-free cancer patients.
Homosexuality and all the other non-procreative “orientations” are thus unnatural sexual aberrations (the old word was perversions, but modern ears cannot tolerate it). This is a fact of biology and of natural law. Because the people who engage in the acts of their “orientations” are largely introduced to these acts, it follows that if the introductions were removed, so too would a great majority of the people claiming to hold the “orientations.”
In this way, a society that wishes to minimize non-procreative sexual acts must always discourage them, which would reduce the number of introductions. The opposite is also true. A society that encourages pride in non-procreative sexual acts will see greater numbers of people holding various “orientations.”
We can test these claims. There are before us the acceptance theory which says (or should say) all non-procreative sexual acts are moral because they are driven by unimpeachable desire versus the natural law theory which insists on biology and say introduction is the main (or sole) cause. The acceptance theory largely rejects introduction as cause, and says the orientations are made that way in unspecified ways. It could be a virus, but then there would seem to be one for every orientation, or it could be birth, but the evidence is against it, as seen.
Some hold that homosexuals (and necrophiliacs etc.) are not yet fully accepted, and thus at times must mask their “orientation” and so sometimes they engage in procreative sex, and hence reproduce, and so pass on the relevant “necrophiliac genes”, if any. This is true: some claiming exclusive homosexuality etc. “slip” and reproduce. For many, “orientations” are not rigidly fixed, and can be bent as the opportunities present themselves (say, all the choir boys are on an outing leaving only a few girls). We have all heard of “gay” men who fathered children (and so on).
Here is the test. If the acceptance theory of homosexuality (and all other “orientations”) is correct, then the greater the acceptance of homosexual behavior the fewer homosexuals there will be. That is because homosexuals free to engage in non-procreative sex-like activities will not reproduce. We should therefore see a steady reduction of homosexual behavior the freer people become to express homosexuality. There won’t necessarily come a “bottom”, because of the possibility something else in addition to genetics controls sexuality (like those undetectable viruses).
But if the natural law theory is correct, the greater the acceptance of homosexual behavior the more homosexuals and other non-procreative sexualities there will be because of introduction. If left to go on like this, eventually an entire culture can embrace non-procreation. As has happened.
Which is right? I think we all know what the numbers say. The counter-claim to the numbers is that all the other “orientations” are still becoming free to act and display, hence the increase. This is a stretch, to say the least, especially since the numbers are now in double-digits. Of course, not all these new people (mostly kids) claiming non-procreative desires act on them. It is a fad, a choice. If so that proves “orientation” can often be a choice.
The Church
The impractical effect of accepting homosexuals are different human creatures is seen in the Church. All must read Fr. Edwin Palka on how priests use blackmail (which we can agree is a worse crime than so-called consensual homosexual acts) and introduction to perpetuate themselves in the Church: “Why Don’t the Priests Blow the Whistle?“, “How Bad Can Blackmail Be“, “An Apocalyptic Pandemic“, and finally “One Proposed Solution.” Do not comment on Church goings on if you have not read these.
See also “Bishop Morlino condemns ‘homosexual subculture’ in the hierarchy“. And by “Cardinal Tobin: ‘No one…has ever spoken to me about a “gay sub-culture” in the Archdiocese of Newark’” by Joseph Sciambra, a man who gave up homosexuality.
Whose fault is all this? Yours and mine, dear reader: yours and mine.
It’s worse now than it’s ever been: “In fact, the fact that we have only one saint repeatedly quoted on this topic from 19 centuries before our own proves to me that we have never had an epidemic of so many homosexuals in the priesthood as today.” He says “60% of the priests his age are gay and 80% of the bishops are gay.”
We still have to handle the odious Father James Martin, and his satanic enablers, which will be saved for another time.
That homosexuals are seen as different human creatures by “conservatives” (outside the Church) is verified easily. For recent activity, see NRO’s Kevin Williamson who writes of “The Compulsory Society” who sees acceptance as an economic question. And don’t miss “Politico Takes Heat for Blaming Roy Cohn’s Death by AIDS on His ‘Decadent Homosexual Lifestyle’“, where the usual cast of characters pretend to be horrified that decadent homosexual acts are called decadent. Under natural law all non-procreative sexual acts are decadent by definition.
Addendum
Archbishop Carlo Viganó’s testimony must be read by all (if you do not read it, do not comment). Besides details about Pope Francis covering and protecting Cardinal McCarrick etc., there are details confirming the “gay” or “lavender mafia” inside the Church is real. E.g. Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone “notoriously favored promoting homosexuals into positions of responsibility”, such as the elevation of Bishop “Nighty Night Baby” Tobin, who was just appointed by Francis to the Youth Synod, and so on.
What will happen? My guess, crude as it is, is that Francis does…nothing. Because that is what he has always done in crises. It will take God Himself to remove Francis, if that is what He wants.
Update Eberhard Wagner has translated this post into German in two parts at his site Ambrosius Konnotationen: Part I, Part II. The other good news is that Wagner has asked some associates who might be able to translate Pope Benedict’s new paper. Stay tuned.
Update A follow-up to this post will appear on Monday, September 3rd.
Update. Many readers have sent in this. Please listen.
“Homosexuals are seen as human creatures that are like males and females, but different, like they are a third natural sex. ”
No they’re not. False premise, Briggs.
Who are these who think this?
I read that far and of course a false premise leads to false conclusions.
Who thinks that? You think that’s what people think?
Of course you might count the people who are under the influence of university lecturers but even you might sympathise with those types?
Men the world over and women, on whom it impinges less, evidently, express a disgust about this.
You are not unusual.
The world accepts that homosexuality is here to stay.
That’s about it.
When you’ve found the cure. Be sure to be in touch.
The first line in that quote epitomises the way that debates of complex human matters from right to left have gone.
Or from left to right if you prefer.
Arbitrary binning is evil and an entire branch of mathematics is based upon the idea that how the data is sliced is a fair way to prove a complex thing. Where there is never enough attention paid to the original assumption.
The best, most honest arguments against homosexuality which is some kind of a preference, as far as I can tell, and not entirely resting within the conscious part of the body’s function, are very simple.
I thank God I don’t have that problem. That is how I see it. It is a big problem to be saddled with.
I haven’t known many men or women who are homosexual. For some reason I couldn’t be friends easily with a lesbian. I don’t have this difficulty with men who are attracted to men. What’s that about?
I know two gay men. One appears to be effeminate. The other appears to be very straight and it’s him that I can’t fathom.
I keep asking the straight men I know about this and they mostly don’t want to consider the matter! Like me. However, they do tell me, and I do concede not being male, that they believe that the real threat is the possibility that boys can be persuaded into a gay lifestyle at a young age. I don’t understand this. I don’t see past the abuse.
Not enough is known about an impressionable young brain or body to understand how neural pathways might be ‘strengthened’ or processes altered/inhibited to make such behaviour normal.
Again, I can’t see past the abuse.
“Homosexuals […] are thus acting against human nature because it is human nature to reproduce via male-female pairing”
False. Monkeys do it [also implies activist poop-throwing, threat displays, and screeching are perfectly natural]. And penguins even form gay households and have an innate need to adopt.
QED
😀
Homosexuality seems rather too commonplace (and not just recently) to be called abnormal. One might say undesirable, counterproductive or sinful perhaps but not abnormal.
My comment pertains exclusively to Matt’s update re Archbishop Vigano’s testimony, and what will happen now.
We know where Francis — I was going to say, ‘where Francis stands’, but ‘limps,’ or, even better ‘Wormtongues,’ is more precise. So it’s all up to the bishops now.
Canonically, they can only try to get their own house in order. For justice and for good, risk independent, and very possibly, rabidly anti-Catholic, investigations of EVERYTHING, within their own diocese.
Informally, of course, they can have great influence, if they join together in outrage. What will they say, if anything? Matt’s in the wrong diocese; I’m in the wrong diocese. So we both know that nothing good is going to happen in our places.
We’ll know in about two weeks. The preference cascade among US bishops will assert itself by then.
My guess is that silence, or lame dismissal, will be the answer. Same old same old.
It’s worked for years already, after all. There won’t be fifty or a hundred US bishops who will publicly state that they find Archbishop Vigano’s testimony credible, and thus will publicly demand thorough civil and canonical investigations, beginning with independent investigation of themselves and their own friends and appointees.
The preference cascade will be for same old same old: silence, or lame apologies, and committees formed to ‘study’ everyone but themselves; there will be no preference cascade among them for justice, punishment, penitence, removal, reform.
And what about the present awesome silence from bishops in Europe, and Latin America, Asia, and Africa? They don’t have these exact issues in their own places, in spades, so there is no need for outrage, justice, punishment, removal, penitence, reform, any place else? It is to laugh.
So far, which bishops, world-wide, have been seen standing on the shoulders of Archbishop Vigano’s courage, seizing the moment, at last shouting from the rooftops of their cushy chancelleries that now, Now, justice can speak and triumph? This is the moment when Something Could Be Done, when Vigano’s pebble can become an avalanche.
And yet: crickets, the world over.
Yesterday, I was so joyful to learn of, and then read, Archbishop Vigano’s testimony.
A good night’s sleep has calmed me down considerably.
‘There is no evidence homosexuals are “born that way”.’
This construction may become a pet peeve of mine. Of course, there is evidence. You may not consider the evidence persuasive, you may think the evidence for the opposite is more convincing, but there is evidence, and a serious treatment of this subject would have at least to consider it before giving reasons for dismissing it. It’s like the anti-Christian who smugly claims that there is “no evidence” for the resurrection, or Christ’s miracles. Of course there is some evidence; it’s just that most rational people don’t consider it strong enough to establish such remarkable claims.
‘Under natural law all non-procreative sexual acts are decadent by definition.’
So a married man and woman who engage in coitus after one or both of them has become infertile, through menopause or something else, is engaging in decadence? Asking for a friend.
abnormal (adj.) “not conformed or conforming to rule, deviating from a type or standard, contrary to system or law, irregular, unnatural,” 1835, a refashioning of anormal (13c.) under influence of Latin abnormalis “deviating from a fixed rule, irregular,” from ab “off, away from” (see ab-) + norma “rule” (see norm).
With the decay of education, many folks confuse this with a pejorative, esp. if they never learned Latin, and believe that if something happens, it cannot be abnormal, regardless how far from the norm it falls.
Lee,
Your friend can rest assured that he and his wife are not, given the information you provide, engaging in decadence according to natural law. The difference is that whatever two two people of the same sex do in bed aims at being sex and fails miserably, whereas what your friend and his wife do in bed (call it natural sex) aims at being sex and succeeds. This is a consequence of the fact that procreation is the characteristic effect of natural sex, regardless of whether or not the effect is produced in particular instances.
Tim Simmons:
But it’s non-procreative, surely. So Briggs has it wrong?
YOS, it’s not a word game.
The only people I know who don’t admit that it occurs in nature are Roman Catholics.
The word abnormal is unnecessary given an explanation that does not require reference to God, or a dictionary, but, well, baby biology?
Natural law is not a law like those in physics unless properly iterated to include purpose?
Roman Catholic moral teaching is not based upon the bible but on natural law. yet they seem not to know this. Especially the new recruits.
So they’re stuck with a very creepy story about a man giving his daughter away to be raped to prevent an act that is considered worse!
There are hidden premises in the argument which aren’t spelled out to keep it looking correct.
Those being to do with whether the thing is acceptable to God, or whether it is necessary for reproduction.
Nature is decadent.
Plants, good example, throw out many seeds and flowers copious pollen, as it happens, the very cute little owl eats the very cute and fluffy black baby moorhens. 14 down to none some times!
It depends what evidence you include or value the most. In part or the whole story.
I think the only way to go is to include everything.
So it is in humans.
‘Full many a flower was born to blush unseen and waste it’s sweetness on the desert air. ”
There are men and women on both sides of the argument about God who find it hard to justify their hatred for people who are attracted to the same sex.
Claiming God agrees with one side and not the other is not good reasoning.
I say it’s not ideal. it isn’t what a loving God would want for someone. The Atheists will laugh and the Roman Catholics will say something really bad.
As stated before, my line is and always has been successful hetero. That doesn’t mean I despise the self-Darwinizing who terminate their own lines. Ridding the world of their genes is their business. So be it and more for mine and too bad for you, toodle-oo.
What does bug me is when the self-Darwinizing gay or allegedly celibate try to grope, fondle, or rape members of my family. If I catch you, I will kill you. Slit your throat. Make no mistake. Capice?
DAV – Please learn the English language. “Ab-” is a prefix meaning “away”, more commonly understood as “not” or “out”. Homosexuality is a mental disorder, and is decidedly abnormal.
Natural is something that happens commonly, or at least often enough to be noticed, in nature. Homosexuality may be natural, but is by no means normal. If it were normal, the human race would have extinguished itself generations ago.
I will say that I have seen two children grow up, in healthy Christian families, whom almost everyone recognized as being gay while still in diapers. They are both grown men with AIDS now, of course. Because we’re not supposed to say anything bad about the “homosexual lifestyle” or how AIDS is a disease of homosexuals and drug addicts.
Boy, oh boy, Briggs, most of the comments absolutely prove your point. People are so far gone on “acceptance” they can’t see the truth for all the assumptions. And may I say that most of the means of “introduction” of the young to homosexual acts is done via grooming and torture. I have stopped calling it “sexual abuse”. Homosexuals used to be 1-2% of the population. Studies show they committed 40% of “sexual abuse” of children. Those whose danders get upped by the word “abnormal” may want to meditate on that.
Lee:
No, it is still procreative because natural sex characteristically brings about procreation, so that considered as an act, in abstraction from concrete circumstances, it still aims at procreation. This may seem silly, since natural sex will never bring about its characteristic effect for your friend, but what matters for present purposes is what actions as such aim at, since that is the foundation of understanding an action as an object of choice. If the usage of the word bothers you, you could re-read procreative as apt-for-generation-qua-act or something like that.
Tim Simmons:
“it still aims at procreation”
But it does not, since the participants know that no procreation is possible.
“If the usage of the word bothers you”
It doesn’t bother me; I’m just trying to figure out what you and/or Briggs are trying to say. You seem to be talking in circles.
A non-procreative sex act is a perversion, but a sex act that can not possibly lead to procreation is not a perversion if it were procreative under different circumstances—but all non-procreative sex acts would be procreative under “different circumstances”. Also, non-procreative sex is not sex but “simulated sex;” but then we continue to speak of non-procreative or perverse “sex” acts.
Dear Dr. Briggs,
I am still waiting for a discussion on “clericalism”, which Pope Francis condemned three times in his letter last week to the People of God:
“…Such is the case with clericalism, an approach that “not only nullifies the character of Christians, but also tends to diminish and undervalue the baptismal grace that the Holy Spirit has placed in the heart of our people”.[3] Clericalism, whether fostered by priests themselves or by lay persons, leads to an excision in the ecclesial body that supports and helps to perpetuate many of the evils that we are condemning today. To say “no” to abuse is to say an emphatic “no” to all forms of clericalism.
What is “clericalism”, and how does it apply to priestly homosexual pedophilia or global warming alarmism for that matter?
Given that white heterosexual males apparently are the worst kind of evil in American society, I don’t think it is surprising that people are claiming to be something else than a white heterosexual male.
In less advanced societies, such as the Dutch, the percentage of people making such claims is still very low, and not rising, AFAIK. Posted the numbers a while back.
But it’s non-procreative, surely.
That’s like saying that a car up on blocks is not “for” transportation. That a thing might not successfully achieve its end doe not imply that it has no such end.
The only people I know who don’t admit that it occurs in nature are Roman Catholics.
Of course, it occurs in nature. Whether by grooming, genetics, virus, mental illness, or some other modality — or some of each — is a debated question. Darwinism has a hard time with it as an inherited trait: “On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious [to reproductive success] would be rigidly destroyed.” (The Origin of Species, pp. 80-81)
it’s not a word game.
Wors have meanings. Only Humpty Dumpty insisted that words only meant what he wanted them to mean. Every statistitian knows that data need not be normal. The same goes for the lines constructed by geometers
Roman Catholic moral teaching is not based upon the bible
Neither is sola scriptura or the right of the king of England to change his woman.
The Bible may rather be stated as based upon Catholic moral teachings. (Greek and Roman had not separated at the time the Church chose the books to include.
Lee:
How can the couple’s knowledge of their infertility affect what the action as such is aimed at (i.e., characteristically produces)? Of course, it can’t, and this is all that is meant by describing natural sex as procreative. Hence, as strange as it may sound to modern ears, an infertile couple can still have procreative sex in *this* sense even if they cannot actually procreate.
There’s much more that could be said, since this point about the procreative character of natural sex is just a step in natural law thinking on sex. It would be interesting to see what Briggs has to say. Edward Feser has also thought very carefully about it (he has a two hour presentation on the subject on YouTube).
Tim Simmons asks,
“How can the couple’s knowledge of their infertility affect what the action as such is aimed at”
How can it not? You can’t possibly be claiming that a couple who knows that they are infertile undertakes coitus with the aim of procreating. Or can you?
@ DAV, YOS, Joy – ‘abnormal’
Semantics is often (not always) the analytical tool of the manipulator or confused. In this case its somewhat pointless, and therefore fun to note a relevant distinction (no Latin proficiency required!):
DAV attributes the concept/observation of “commonplace” to extrapolate to ‘not abnormal.’
If we look at demographics, to the extent we can trust them, we estimate that most human populations have something on the order of 2-4 percent of its members being “gay” by some typical definition for what “gay” means, and, that this rough proportion has been the observation for generations. THUS, we can conclude that roughly 3 percent-ish of the population being gay is “normal.” (i.e., a “normal” demographic for a population).
But that does not mean the condition (being “gay”) that is measured with generation-to-generation consistency itself is “normal”…
… Anymore than we would assert that cancer is a “normal” feature within a human’s body — without debate cancer is an abnormal condition of cell growth — even though some one-third+ of the population can expect to contract some form of cancer.
With cancer we can measure and evaluate, and debate, various measures to deduce causal factors with some confidence, realizing that there are no guarantees and plenty of exceptions (e.g. tobacco use increases one’s likelihood of contracting particular cancers, but does not guarantee it; and, abstinence does not guarantee immunity … there are numerous factors involved, details not fully understood).
Similarly we can debate factors leading to (nature vs nurture) and stemming from homosexuality (does, and if so how much more does, that population subset prey on the innocent — which is Briggs point. The numbers suggest disproportionate risks from that group to youth, with institutionalized acceptance magnifying the problem (e.g. via “cover ups”).
Personally, I don’t trust Briggs’ numbers or conclusions — too much assertion not really well substantiated. On the other hand, there does appear to be some discernible trends there that do not comport with society’s currently trendy philosophically-based ideology. I doubt Briggs is correct, but he’s likely correct to some degree. Which is to say he’s probably at least partly, maybe even mostly, correct.
What I for one would like to see is truly objective analysis with the available data, un-/minimally-tainted by one’s predispositions, and see where the data actually leads…to include where the holes in the data are and where more study is needed. So much of this is contrived to force-fit cherry-picked data to align with one’s ideologically-based preconceptions. In other words, prejudice masquerading as intellectual rigor.
Lee:
I say nothing about the couple’s aims. The *action* has an aim (i.e., an effect that characterizes it).
Tim Simmons asked,
“How can the couple’s knowledge of their infertility affect what the action as such is aimed at”
but then said,
“I say nothing about the couple’s aims. The *action* has an aim”
An action, such as we are considering, is undertaken by a person. The aim of the action is is aim of the person undertaking it. The action can not be somehow personified to have its own disembodied aims. I remind you, completely without irony, that guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
we can conclude that roughly 3 percent-ish of the population being gay is “normal.”
Thus confusing “normal” with “it happens”. But to be normal, there must be a norm, not merely a median. After all, a certain proportion of the population are serial killers, a certain proportion of manufactured product are defective (“non-conforming to specification”)
How can it not? You can’t possibly be claiming that a couple who knows that they are infertile undertakes coitus with the aim of procreating.
The end of a natural act does not depend on the intentions of those performing it. I might buy own a car and then not drive it anywhere. That doesn’t invalidate the Main Basic Function of an automobile as transportation.
The action can not be somehow personified to have its own disembodied aims. I remind you, completely without irony, that guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
You are confusing “aim” (and possibly “purpose,” as well) with “intention.” But there are multiple cases, including “termination” and “perfection,” as well as “intention.” The purpose of a gun is not “to kill”, it is “to expel a bullet or shell at high velocity”. It might be directed at a bulls eye, with no intention of killing the target. It might never even be fired.
Not every act bears a conscious intention. Many animals copulate. So do some trees (e.g., ash, yew). Most do not intend to reproduce. Only rational animals are able to mobilize rationales for their actions. But the act is the same in either case. Sodium and chlorine atoms do not intend to form salt, but that is their natural end.
Semantics is often (not always) the analytical tool of the manipulator or confused.
Or, just possibly, of those who want to use a word in its intended precise meaning.
See also the following: https://www.davidwarrenonline.com/2018/08/27/twisted/
The one leap I that I still don’t see sufficient evidence for is that procreation is the *only* object of sex. Biologically, humans seek sex for the sake of pleasure just as much or more than procreation. Hence all of the civilized structures that have been built around sex to channel the drive into the furtherance of the species in a positive way that protects both the parents and results of sex.
The point, to me, is that by teaching that ‘non-procreative’ sex is sinful, with non-procreative defined in a specific and difficult to understand way, the average listener simply hears “you had better be having duty-sex only within marriage or else”. This means that they are much more suggestible to arguments against this teaching.
And don’t try to sideline it by saying the church doesn’t teach it – most priests / pastors are *not* theologians, and the average teaching boils down to “sex is bad unless in marriage and then only if you aim to have kids”.
So Vigano knew about the scandel then, what had he done to for the victims besides taking this opportunity to stab at Pope?
If you are disgusted by the same-sex anal intercourse, why don’t you just say it directly? Why keep saying that sex is for procreation, a qualifier for being natural and normal. I think people mainly have sex for pleasure, judging from the number of children in a family nowadays.
I don’t get it. Why don’t you just fight agaist the practice of anal sex? Is it because it is Ok for heterosexuals to do it but not for homosexuals? Is it becuase you are worried about the health of gay people?
Why repeatedly speaking against gay people? Is it because you are sacred by your own latent or not-so-latent homosexual desire… just like gay priests were pressured to pursue priesthood as an escape of so-perceived evil desire?
I still don’t see sufficient evidence for is that procreation is the *only* object of sex.
Darwinistically, there cannot be another. But the purpose of sex is to mix and recombinew genes. The purpose of coitus is reproduction.
Biologically, humans seek sex for the sake of pleasure just as much or more than procreation.
Could also be for power and dominance, as in rape. But those are motive, not purpose. It’s not uncommon for people to pursue various ends (assuming they have free will). For example, the purpose of eating is to nourish the body, but the motives for eating are many: the deliciousness of the taste, the depth of the hunger, and so on. There are likewise disorders in eating. Bulemia, obesity, and so on. In engineering design, you can speak of the Main Basic Function, but also of secondary basic functions, supporting functions, harmful functions, and so on. See Techniques of Value Analysis and Engineering: by Lawrence D. Miles (https://www.amazon.com/Techniques-Value-Analysis-Engineering-3rd-ebook/dp/B00UIDZRR0)
For example, my grandmother’s marriage manual from 1910 gave several purposes for marriage, the main one being to form a stable, loving household for the raising of children. Procreation itself was not the purpose of marriage. That could be accomplished by rape. It was simply an expected outcome of repeatedly engaging in the marital act. My grandmother was not a theologian, either, yet she was the intended readership. (Like all common books back then, it may be hard for Late Moderns to follow, though not for High Moderns.
by teaching that ‘non-procreative’ sex is sinful, with non-procreative defined in a specific and difficult to understand way
“Non-pro creative sex” is not sinful, since most sex acts no not result in reproduction. But one is supposed to be open to the possibility, even if it doesn’t seem likely. (cf. cases of couples previously thought to be sterile who have nonertheless conceived. In this situation, “non-procreative sex” means acts which cannot even in principle produce new life. What is supposed to be sinful is taking active measures to frustrate the natural outcome.
The conflation of marriage with a stae-approved shacking up muddies the waters. The marriage act is called that because the mere voluntary [if you beleive in free will] performance of it constitutes marriage. All the institutional folderlal was to reduce the risk to the woman of being victimized by men eager to seek sex for the sake of pleasure.
because you are sacred by your own latent or not-so-latent homosexual desire…
It was apparently a widespread belief among the homosexuals who used MZB’s daughter that all people were born bisexual and only needed to be “brought out.”
just like gay priests were pressured to pursue priesthood as an escape of so-perceived evil desire?
And that worked out so well for the Church, didn’t it?
Lee:
No personification of the action is afoot. As I tried to indicate, saying the action aims at a result is just to say that the result is one of the characteristic effects of performing the action. This language is an application of the idea of final causes to the domain of action.
Nate:
You raised some interesting points. I think the idea is that procreation is just one out of a battery of tests that an action must pass in order to count as true, in the same way that there are many tests a piece of putative gold must pass in order to count as the real thing. An act that qualifies as sexual but which isn’t true for whatever reason would be ruled out by natural law (though to show that requires detailed argumentation). So it’s not that the only end of sex is procreation, but that in order to be the genuine article it must be procreative in the convoluted sense above.
Hope that helps. Edward Feser would be able to go into the details.
This comment by an Orthodox philosopher may be interesting:
https://lastedenblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/25/the-word-sex/
Tim Simmons:
What result does the action of coitus “aim at” when it is between infertile people? Whatever it is, it can not be procreation. Therefore, according to the notion of perversion that you seem to be trying to defend, it is perverse.
McChuck
“Ab-” is a prefix meaning “away”, more commonly understood as “not” or “out”.
So ab-normal means “not normal”?
What does “normal” mean?
The median or average? If so, how far from the median or average must one go to be ab-normal?
The estimates that I’ve seen put homosexuality at about 1.5-1.6% of the population.
I’ve also seen estimates of 5M stamp collectors in the U.S.
With a U.S. population of 300M, that would mean that 1.6-1.7% of the U.S. population are stamp collectors.
If 1.6% of the population being homosexual means homosexuality is abnormal then, using the same logic, 1.6% of the population being stamp collectors would make stamp collecting abnormal.
What is the obsession with “abnormal”? Do you see it as an insult? Why?
It’s abnormal to be taller than 6’6″, but saying someone is abnormally tall wouldn’t be an insult, would it?
Perhaps you should be reading it as “usual”, rather than “normal” – and so, “unusual” rather than “abnormal”.
These two have very similar if not identical connotations to me:
Heterosexual is usual, homosexual is unusual.
Heterosexual is normal, homosexual is abnormal.
To me, they both say “if I had to bet, I’d go with the ‘normal’ or ‘usual’ rather than the opposite.”
What is the obsession with “abnormal”? Do you see it as an insult? Why?
The title of the blog post starts: Homosexuality Is Abnormal, Unhealthy & Unfortunate
Seems it was meant to be a negative attribute.
It carries a negative connotation in everyday speech as well.
Saying “So and So is abnormal” implies there is something wrong with So and So and rarely used when we mean So and So is extra-smart or extra-tall.
If it is “Unhealthy & Unfortunate” but also “unusual” then doesn’t that imply it is a minor problem? Plane crashes are also “Unhealthy & Unfortunate” but one wouldn’t necessarily say they are “abnormal”.
If “unusual” was meant, why bother mentioning it at all? Is it generally perceived to be ubiquitous and the record needed stating?
DAV – Stamp collecting is abnormal. What, precisely, is your point?
Words have meanings. Deliberate obfuscation does not change this fact. It just shows how much reality you’re willing to sacrifice in order to virtue signal to your own side.
TL;DR: Your argument, like the vast majority of Joy’s arguments, boils down to a small child with its fingers in its ears chanting, “La, la, la, la, la! I can’t hear you! I know you are, but what am I?”
DAV – Please learn the English language. “Ab-” is a prefix meaning “away”, more commonly understood as “not” or “out”. Homosexuality is a mental disorder, and is decidedly abnormal.
…
DAV – Stamp collecting is abnormal. What, precisely, is your point?Words have meanings.
That stamp collecting is not a mental disorder but fits your definition of “abnormal” as do most niche activities. Yes, words have meanings. “Abnormal” means more than “away”, “not” or “out” from “normal”. It also means “in a way that is undesirable or worrying”. Why is stamp collecting “abnormal”?
TL;DR: Your argument, like the vast majority of Joy’s arguments, boils down to a small child with its fingers in its ears chanting, “La, la, la, la, la! I can’t hear you!…
Speaking of chanting “la, la, la,”, TL;DR means “too long; didn’t read“.
Perhaps that’s the key. If you didn’t read the arguments how can you know what they boil down to? Just assuming the content and going “la, la, la” to avoid it? WHO is being childish here?
It’s not so much “virtue signalling” as not really caring what others do that don’t affect me. Why do you find homosexuality and stamp collecting undesirable or worrying? Are you afraid you might find them attractive? You already DO find them attractive and are constantly resisting the urge? They push your “prude” button? Please take your fingers out of your ears and tell us.
Saying “So and So is abnormal” implies there is something wrong with So and So
You should see how “theory” gets used in everyday speech. “It’s just a theory” drives professionals crazy.
Besides “abnormal” when used technically does not mean “unusual”. Something might be abnormal, yet common as dirt. Abnormal means simply “away from the norm.” If homosexuality were the norm, we would not have a surviving species.
Why do you find homosexuality … undesirable
It reduces the Darwinian odds on species survival.
But “abnormal” no more necessarily means “undesirable” than “theory” necessarily means “unsubstantiated.” Up to the point where the norm is ipso facto desirable in itself.
But “abnormal” no more necessarily means “undesirable”
The Cambridge dictionary
Briggs clearly intended “abnormal” to mean “in a way that is bad”.
Q: Why do you find homosexuality … undesirable?
A: It reduces the Darwinian odds on species survival.
So does hang gliding and bungee jumping — activities that can lead to premature death more than homosexuality can. Why rail against homosexuality and remain mum about the other things?
I see some characters I copied from the dictionary came out as question marks.
theory (n)
a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
So does hang gliding and bungee jumping — activities that can lead to premature death more than homosexuality can. Why rail against homosexuality and remain mum about the other things?
1. The issue is not whether homosexuality is dangerous. It’s that its practice reduces reproductive success. According to Darwin, natural selection would “ruthlessly” weed out such traits. (This is assuming Darwinian theory is true and that homosexuality is biological.)
2. No one claims that hang gliding is an innate trait possessed by hang-gliderites that makes them a separate kind of human being. If it’s not inheritable, Darwin is silent.
3. There is nothing per se in hang gliding that impairs or prevents reproductive success. Darwin doesn’t care if you survive; he only cares if you reproduce.
Dangerous?
Figures you would go there.
More of your quaint misunderstanding.
I’m beginning to think is deliberate.
Premature death also reduces the odds of species survival. Notice you left out that part.
So does celubacy for that matter.
Are you denouncing celibacy too?
Perhaps we ought to start to focus on how to teach more people the right way, instead of just railing against the sins. It’s obvious to me that the Church has completely failed in its teaching and doing more of the same thing that doesn’t work is a nonstarter.
If we want less non-marital sex, shouldn’t we should be working as hard as we can to encourage marriage young? Shouldn’t we find methods to show young women that they are much better off married, and having great marital sex, than having a string of boyfriends through their twenties and thirties that will end for them in feminist spinsterhood? Ways to encourage young men to commit and start a family? Say, loudly, that Romantic Love is not biblical. Tell women to stop thinking of themselves as special and above most men. Tell men to learn how to generate attraction and lead in relationships. Teach men that they should want to be men, not women.
This is going to take generations to correct and likely only will when there starts to be serious repercussions for the current cultural attitudes. You’ll never get contraceptives (at least the ‘device’ form – condoms/ back in the bottle.
As an aside – I don’t find the arguments about “allowing the possibility of pregnancy” logically compelling at all. Abstinence and NFP both prevent pregnancy, and are both practiced by the aim by the couple to *prevent* pregnancy. By some of the logic that I’ve seen here in both the comments and posts, a completely abstinent couple who were abstinent because they did not desire children is a moral couple, while a couple that uses, say, condoms because they want no more children due to the danger to the wife’s life should she get pregnant again, is immoral and sinful. And there are many cases where this danger is *real* – We are in this situation. God does not want someone to commit suicide, and postpartum psychosis is deadly.
On the ‘Ab’ word game and it’s cynical use masquerading as not pejorative distraction:
Make a snow angel and you’ve abducted most of your bits.
Tell a patient you’re going to abduct their leg and you’re not going to have a complaint patient, especially if you KNOW they believe in aliens!
Tell a child in a playground,
“You’re abnormal”
You’re going to hurt that child in a profound way. (Especially if you’re part of a gang. )
If you’re six, or even a teenager, you’ve got an excuse.
THAT is the risk you knowingly take with sloppy language. Adults who know all about it, who are all there and half way back, know better! It’s playground behaviour, nothing more.
Ken,
I would agree except I don’t trust the assertion that homosexuality itself is increasing in prevalence at all! Nor the current figures often stated. It’s the visual that’s changing. The appearance of it. When it comes to tropical storms and autism Briggs sees this point. It could be true but I don’t believe it.
The extremes of “pro-gay” “antigay” activism, do seem to be agreeing the same point.
I suspect they’re both wrong. My experience tells me one percent or even less in this country is nearer the figure. Maybe more in the US. As to ‘what is ‘normal’ for a population? Wow. How could it ever be established reliably when the current figure varies so much?
Especially when child abuse is being thrown in for spicing up argument or adding a bit of weight.
If people think that mainstream media is representative of what’s really happening then they are being mislead. The media and it’s influencers, it’s echo chambers, are the top and bottom of the problem of misinformation.
The illusion is pure engineering and visual effect. It forces further action and reaction. All sorts of trust breaks down when people can’t believe even simple statistics.
NFP is part of the problem too and was never meant to be practiced as it is today. God said, “Go forth and multiply.” But we think we know better than God. There is a very simple method for not having babies. It is called, “Not tonight, darling.” I can hear the spluttering already…………
True Faith – off the cuff remarks are unhelpful.
It’s not “Not tonight, darling.” It’s “Never Again, darling”.
Dangerous? Figures you would go there.
Then why the comparison to hang gliding and bungee jumping?
Premature death also reduces the odds of species survival.
Only if it occurs before reproduction. The whole of natural selection can be summed up as “a curious side-effect of freaks and death.”
So does celubacy for that matter.
Not for celibate males. Population matrices take no notice of them beyond postulating “enough” males to fertilize the available females. A village of 100 fertile females will experience at most 100 births in a year whether there are 100 males or 1000 males or even just 1 very tired male.
But again, do not confuse population with evolution of that population.
++++
shouldn’t we … be working as hard as we can to encourage marriage young?
For millions of years, no one had to “encourage” this. Why now?
++++
If people said x was “abnormal” or “unnatural” 500 ys than it is to translate something into utterly different categories of thought. Why, e.g., did the Cornelian Laws of Republican Rome prescribe death for male homosexuals? Why were woman to wear head coverings in public once they were grown (but girls were not)? Why did Aristotle say that some forms of slavery were natural and others were not? It might be that people thought of these things in different ways than they do now; and the words — esp. the translated words — didn’t describe the same things as they do now? In Late Antiquity, for example, a library was not a library, a school was not a school, science was not science, and astronomy was not astronomy.
I see, here and there in the comments, a kind of cartoon version of evolutionary theory, where it is imagined that only selection for the ability to reproduce is relevant. But without an instinct for nurturing the product of that reproduction, so that it survives long enough to itself reproduce, your species becomes extinct (this is for species such as humans, whose offspring are too feeble to survive on their own). Part of nurturing is taking care to ensure your own survival; reproducing and then immediately dying through indulgence of some dangerous activity is hardly better than not reproducing at all.
This cartoon version of evolution of course can not account for the heritability of homosexuality, but actual biologists have been studying its adaptive functions for a long time:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2010-02-reveals-potential-evolutionary-role-same-sex.html
a kind of cartoon version of evolutionary theory, where it is imagined that only selection for the ability to reproduce is relevant.
Well, we could get into the semantics of a specialized discourse, but we can just note that reproduction of offspring that do not survive is not “reproductive success.” E.g., a mutation that results in more stillbirths than normals is not said to lead to greater reproductive success, no matter how many dead bodies are birthed. Darwin was quite clear what he was talking about, although he did seem to lean to r-strategy in his thinking.
In the linked article, we find the same just-so story about avuncularity I heard back in the 70s, though written by psychologists rather than by scientists. They blithely refer to the genes for same-sex attraction without identifying just which genes they’re talking about. They used questionnaires as ‘instruments’ and declared Western society to be homophobic as usual, esp. compared to Samoa, as an explanation for why we don’t see similar avuncular behavior in Western society. It is unclear whether this meant “the West” all the way back to ancient Greece or how it was that Greek, Roman, Celtic, and Scandinavian societies managed to coordinate things; or whether Tonga, Maori, and other Polynesians are like Samoa. No word yet on China or Japan.
No matter what the behavior is, one can always create a just-so story to account for it.(*) The possibility that it doesn’t fit the Darwinian narrative, which the authors stipulate(**) may be due to the behavior not being heritable at all.
* The first-born/last-born dilemma is an example.
** “avuncularity probably contributes to the evolutionary survival of genes for male same-sex sexual attraction, but is unlikely to entirely offset the costs of not reproducing.”
Not for celibate males.
Celibacy presents the same problem as homosexuality wrt reproduction. Neither participant reproduces.
Wha you say about celibates and females can be said about homosexual males as well.
Ahem.
“There is nothing per se in hang gliding that impairs or prevents reproductive success. Darwin doesn’t care if you survive; he only cares if you reproduce.”
There is nothing per se in hang gliding that impairs or prevents reproductive success. Darwin doesn’t care if you survive; he only cares if you reproduce.”
Death’s a great leveler.
So is serious injury.
So is injury to an extent which means he can’t support a family. This is sometimes the reason men give up dangerous sporting activities.
Darwin doesn’t care about anything!
So moral versus natural evil must come into play for a religious person. For the radical fundamentalist and for the quaker and all those in between.
If the premise were clearly stated to include reproduction then God is not required in explanation.
However the celibacy of clergy is then in the same camp.
Which is why Roman Catholics as opposed to other catholics like Anglicans! have a harder time with this. I knew there was something fishy about watts and Briggs et als arguments .
Anglicans are part of the catholics church. I said something to this effect a couple of years ago with respect to the creed. It’s the Roman Catholic creed that’s being shown in sharp relief in this article.
It’s also hard to make a baby while you’re in a hand glider per se.
Brings to mind a lad from the RAF who was misbehaving and doing aerobatics in his private plane. Wasn’t supposed to be doing it. Crashed and died.
He was only young, when his parents found out that he had died, they also learned the news that his girlfriend was very recently pregnant. He was a lovely lad.
That must have been a great comfort to his girlfriend.
It’s the Roman Catholic creed that’s being shown in sharp relief in this article.
That was issued by the council of Nicaea and updated at Chalcedon. When was the Anglican creed issued?
It was at Nicaea, too, that clerical celibacy was raised. Once you were ordained, you could not marry; but if you were married before ordination, you did not have to abstain afterwards. Bishops could not be married at all. (Soc. Schol. Eccl. Hist. I:XI) The rule is still observed in Eastern Rites, where issues of nepotism and inheritance did not seem as central as in the feudal West.
The purpose of hang gliding is not to sterilize the athlete. Injuries may result, as they may from driving to work or cleaning the gutters, or indeed, getting out of bed. But the glamor of flirting with danger may also attract the chicks, providing more opportunities for mating, so who knows on which side of the ledger it falls.
Darwin doesn’t care about anything!
cf.: Metonymy
Wha you say about celibates and females can be said about homosexual males as well.
Except that there is a difference between declining to exercise a faculty and directing that faculty in a dis-ordered way. (I hyphenated deliberately.) There is no denying that lifelong celibacy is abnormal. If it were the norm, there would be no species. In fact, celibate clergy oft comes into criticism from those who cannot imagine leaving their mojo unjollied. Yet , there is a difference between dieting and an inability to digest; that is, between not exercising a faculty and lacking that faculty altogether. No one has suggested that celibacy is an inherent biological trait, so you are probably correct that Darwinism is not applicable
“The belief that there are such things as homosexuals is now accepted by almost all in the West. It is a false and recent belief, as pointed out here.”
In which you link to one of your own posts! There actually aren’t such things as homosexuals, there are such things as gay people. If you want to call them homosexuals instead, don’t complain if your God gets called a Sky Fairy. (Pun intended.)
“Homosexuality spreads largely by contact, which is to say, by introduction of the idea and practices to the young from the old.”
This sounds like the way religion spreads. Sure you’re not just projecting?
The fact is, it doesn’t make any difference if people are ‘born’ gay or not – who cares? Some people are obsessed with steam engines – were they born ‘that way’? Presumably not, but that doesn’t make their interest any less genuine. I can certainly see how we might be born with a personality which lends itself to obessive fascination with steam engines. (Or Sky Fairies)
“It should be obvious that the mere claim of having a desire is not in any way itself a justification for the practices resulting from the desire.”
A desire such as wanting to worship imaginary Sky Fairies? But seriously, no one is making such a claim. Gay sexual behaviour is acceptable to the same extent that straight sexual behaviour is acceptable, and with the same caveats – requiring informed consent, for instance.
“Homosexuals, zoophiles, masturbators, and all the rest are thus acting against human nature because it is human nature to reproduce via male-female pairing (ask your parents for confirmation; I include in the procreative idea the notion of a natural biological family raising children; rape can lead to procreation but not parenting).”
By adding on various ad hoc stipulations here, you all but admit your argument is threadbare. Human nature is whatever humans do.
“I include in the procreative idea the notion of a natural biological family raising children; rape can lead to procreation but not parenting”
What is a “natural biological family”? Does it include a hundred people living communally in an iron age roundhouse? Single-parent families? Extended families? Adoption? Polygamy? Etc. There is no standard “natural family” – every possible way in which people can organise themselves to live and look after children has been tried at some point in history somewhere in the world, and several of these ways are arguably superiour to the “natural biological family”, such as the extended family. Regarding rape, it can lead to parenting if someone else does the parenting.
“It will take God Himself to remove Francis, if that is what He wants.”
If you want to wait for your Sky Fairy to do anything about it, be prepared for a long wait.
YOS,
“When was the Anglican creed issued?”
Here again you illustrate the point about distraction and deliberate misunderstanding.
I am speaking of the difference between the Roman Catholics and the Anglicans. You like to talk about others which aren’t relevant to the point I’m making.
Anglicans are, whether you like it or not, considered by the Pope and your own Roman Catholic Church as being part of one true church of Christ. Your fellow worshipers have a problem with this. Your side is losing, rapidly.
The important part is,
“I believe in…”
You are only interested in what comes next. That’s for you to be surprised about. I know what I believe, of course. Yet you and others do your damnedest to paint the picture that something else is true.
Thank God for Kieth Ward and John Lennox.
Briggs and you have sinned against the holy spirit. It’s your rule. Not mine.
The only way I can now say these words and mean them is if I know and am clear about what I’m saying. I don’t believe in the current structure. It is flawed. All current revelations are supporting this view but not the origin of my feelings about it. I’m afraid it just gets worse and worse. The pope admits error and Catholics cry out. It’s pitiful and shoddy; disingenuous and very, erm, virtue signalling?
If you’ve included any gremlins in the text, they’re on board now on my PC.
Can you see that when something happened in the argument I’m making makes no difference at all and is in fact some distraction? If it started yesterday, or a thousand years ago, still makes no difference. This is not a difficult concept. Perhaps you have to be indoctrinated to be confused.
The most important thing you need to know is that Christians are not seeking your approval. Nor are they seeking approval from the Pope as a matter of course as you and other Roman Catholics seem to have to pretend to do.
“The purpose of hang gliding is not to sterilize the athlete. “
Nor is the purpose of homosexuality to sterilise someone. If it is, it fails. They are still fertile whatever they do with their tinkle!
YOS is the poor argument I’m pointing out.
Swordfish is right when he points out the word has altered.
The word can be substituted for a letter or a code and it means the same thing.
You describe your own taste. That’s all.
I use the word someone wants me to use so that everybody’s talking about the same thing. Otherwise no argument can proceed.
“…But the glamor of flirting with danger “
Spoken like an old statistician.
Do you have any hobbies?
may also attract the chicks, providing more opportunities for mating, so who knows on which side of the ledger it falls.”
So you’re not certain about that?
Women aren’t that dumb.
“Darwin doesn’t care about anything!”
Rhetoric.
So the point is that someone using it to say something about moral behaviour has to then introduce Purpose or values or God.
So the like I said at the beginning, my point is proved.
Your argument seems to be stuck between a rock and a hard place!
Mine’s considered weak.
Life goes on.
Pingback: The Odious Ideas Of Father James Martin – William M. Briggs
I am very late to this discussion, but was reminded of the article in a family discussion on homosexuality this weekend. The argument that nature designed sex for the sole purpose of procreation has a strong validity and was quite powerful in the family discussion. In my puny mind it is a truism. What is supportive of this argument is that nature designed pleasure into the sex act as an inducement to have sex and to promote procreation. Animals, including humans, can forego the natural design and just pursue the pleasure aspect via homosexuality, self-pleasuring, sex after menopause, et cetera. Once the argument of nature’s design of sex is established, it is relatively easy to demonstrate that the pleasure aspect is regularly subverted in nature for selfish reasons. Nature does not forbid sex for non-procreation purposes, but as Briggs pointed out there can be penalties, which nature seems to have designed, when the sex is outside of a monogamous relationship. Ancient humans recognized this truism and for millennia have frowned upon sex outside hetero-monogamous sex.
To my amusement a family member brought up animal (non-human) homosexual acts to support the argument that homosexuality is natural. Of course it is “natural” in that it occurs in nature, but it is obviously not what nature intends for sex. To confuse my debate opponent to give me time to organize my thoughts, I asked, “have you ever heard of a female non-human perform a homosexual or self-pleasuring act?” I cannot say that I have, nor could my debate opponent. However, I would be curious if any commenter here has heard or witnessed this. I’ve never had a female dog hump my leg or shoe, but the male dogs often exhibited such behavior.
PS to Briggs: Heh! Just saw your comment on Willis. It reminded me that I wanted to comment on your article above. I am not great at original thought, but my talents include reducing complex arguments into easier to grasp arguments. I hope I have done that with your thoughts.
Tim Simmons and Lee Phillips, you two are going in circles and keep trying to see things all from the perspective of technics and science. Let me give it to you straight: when a man and a woman marry and partake in intercourse, it can be for a number of reasons; the most common one being that they love each other and want to make one another happy. Most couples don’t go into sex thinking of creating a child, but a lot of the time, it happens. So for you, Lee, to suggest that intercourse between a post-menopause couple is in relation to that of a homosexual couple is a complete and utter farse. People who are past childbearing years still make love for that exact reason: they love each other. And let me get one thing straight: lust for a partner of the same sex is not love, it is self-perversion.
Normality must consider evolutionary design. So it is with sexuality. What is it primary function, what is intended to achieve? Obviously the answer is procreation. Anyone who would deny this is delusional and their comments would be without merit. As to the morality of sexual pleasuring that cannot possibly result in and offspring, it is often more a matter of what is acceptable than what is right or wrong. Obviously sexually pleasuring one’s self cannot produce an offspring. Neither can sex with a person or the same gender, or with someone of the opposite sex when either participant is incapable of procreation. This begs the question as to whether the evolutionary design of sexuality must include the requirement that sexual activity is to be solely driven by the need to procreate or by the need to follow a sexual urge. By and large, it would appear the latter is the case. Realistically, the question should be whether or not certain sexual practices are healthy or not. And as to whether or not they are a threat to the preservation of the species.
@J R Hanks, although I agree with you that generally, pleasure is the primary driver of sex, you’re coming at this argument from only the evolutionary aspect. If you want to explain it away with “science,” be my guest, but it’ll get you nowhere because, as I said before, most of you are not taking into consideration the fact that many people have sex with a partner (of the opposite sex) because they are in love and want to show affection. And if you agree that sex is either a sign of affection or a type of bonding mechanism, your argument of the “evolutionary design” is flawed. You directly contradict yourself by saying “evolutionary design.” Evolution has absolutely no possibility of design in even the slightest. The definition of evolution from Bing comes back like this: “the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.” Therefore, evolution cannot possibly exist by way of design nor motif, but rather of so-called “natural selection.” So it simply comes down to this: is homosexuality “natural” in your worldview, or not?
I follow Szasz in that I don’t believe in mental illness. And there is evidence that testosterone bath irregularities can cause homosexuality and effiminacy. Obviously acting on it is a choice. I also believe that a lot of so called homosexuals are just attention seeking or perverts.
Whether homosexuality is developmental or not the gay agenda loses. If it’s not biological that means that homosexuals are responsible for their condition and it could be modified with ‘gay therapy’. If it is biological that means parents, who don’t want gay kids, will start selecting ova and sperm to ensure they don’t have homos, as many already do with retardation. Since I think homosexuality per se isn’t real but gay activities have both biological and social pressures I fully expect many societies to start working to eliminate it by medical and social intervention.
Most men do not like gay men.
However, for obvious reasons, the Catholic clergy has always been a popular destination for closeted gays. In fact this may be the genetic advantage for homos, acting as priests who support the group instead of their own offspring. The media and university, the modern theocracy, are filled with gays.
I personally do not believe in a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality because then we would have to call it normal because people would not be able to “control it.” I do believe, however, in mental illness because it drives this certain behavior that is harmful and has no real purpose. That is not saying that people with this condition should not be held accountable for their actions. So it is one of two things: either a mental illness or a perverted form of God’s original design.
Also, in your comment about the catholic church, you’re right. But my question for you is are you suggesting that we “normalize” homosexuality so that this kind of abuse in the Catholic church does not occur? I could be wrong, but what I’m hearing is that you believe that since most societies deem homosexuality as abnormal, then for the misuse of this behavior to stop we must make it normal so that homosexuals don’t act out? (Again, putting words in your mouth, but I just want to be clear.)
Seems the folk who try so hard to denigrate anybody they perceive as being different protest too much…
Homosexuality is part of nature and part of humanity, call it love of the same instead and maybe the haters will try find a.new target, like men who wear no socks or underwear, which is truly abnormal. ?
B,
If you are willing to grant there are such things as abnormalities, then it becomes a question of which behaviors are, and which not.
Homosexual behavior is an abnormality. It is not natural; it is harmful. It is dysgenic. It is a perversion of the natural order. It is sterile.
Generally, ignorant people give Darwin credit for some strange theory he actually borrowed (stole) from someone else (and it didn’t hold up)… Anyways, homosexuality is (a disease and is) not natural. Woman+man=child.
I couldn’t agree with you more, Willby. Well said. Thank you for simplifying it. ?
Testosterone and estrogen determine sexual orientation. All children and adults indoctrinated with the lbgt agenda do not embrace it. Sex hormone imbalance coupled with lbgt indoctrination at a young age or even older can lead to gender dysphoria and alternate lifestyles. If a hormonal inbalance was normal it would not be called an imbalance. if a homosexual, lesbian, transgender lifestyle was natural and normal, it should be accepted the same way a heterosexual lifestyle is. But it never has been and never will be except by those practicing it, or those who have loved ones or friends that are that way, or those that really dont care. Sexual orientation is bedroom business. But to wear it on your chest or collar, and build a whole visual reality reaching even the eyes of young (very young) children betrays the legitimacy of the whole movement. In my day, an adult who talked to a child who is not their own about sex, sex toys, wearing or modeling clothing of the opposit sex, what they might like sexually, or presenting literature of a sexual, or deviant sexual nature to a child was called a PEDOPHILE. Why would a grown ass adult care about the sexual nature or tendacies of a child who is not their own? Even telling them they may be in the wrong body biologically when they are not biological scientist? I challenge any person of any sexual preference to adress that question. A person who talked to kids who are not their own and younger than the age of consent about sexual themes, orientation, homosexuality etc in my day was called a PEDOPHILE. Doing those things was called grooming. Nothing has changed.A pedophile is a pedophile, Watch the movie “Far From Heaven with dennis quaid. Homosexual tendacies were looked at as a hormanal imbalance at the time period the movie depicts. Im not a doctor but where are the doctors that kmow this? They remain silent. Does your doctor know this? If you have an imbalance between testosterone and estrogen you may grow up feeling justified in your sexual orientation. Even to the point of having pride and fighting for acceptance. But to every gay pride activist, and every lbgt member, when was the last time you had your estrogen, testosterone balance checked? Dont tell me its irrelevant. If anything?else in your body was abnormal wouldnt you want to know?