The strongest argument against same-sex marriage””in the sense of the argument with the deepest philosophic roots, or the argument that gets to the most fundamental issues at stake””is that homosexual activity is contrary to the natural law. This argument is either true, or it is not. If it is true, then publicly sanctioned same-sex marriage will contribute nothing substantial to the happiness of homosexuals. There are various understandings of natural law, but all present the natural law as a reality that exists independent of human opinion, a rule for human flourishing that human beings can ignore only at their own peril. On this view, the real issue in human happiness is the moral quality of our lives and not how they are regarded by society at large. As Socrates explains to his young interlocutors in Plato’s Republic, the actual being of the soul, and not its mere seeming, is decisive for human happiness. That is to say, happiness is the fruit of the proper functioning of the human soul, so that character, and not reputation or opinion, is the source of genuine flourishing. On this understanding, Socrates explains, a just soul, one ruled according to reason, is happier than an unjust one, regardless of whatever praises are heaped upon the successfully unjust man by a corrupted public opinion.
Accordingly, if homosexual conduct really is, as its natural law critics contend, a perversion of human desires and capacities, a wrenching of them away from their natural purposes, then such conduct will be a source of frustration and unhappiness regardless of whether society bestows its “recognition,” and hence its approval, on it. On this view, there is nothing of substance to be gained from same-sex marriage even for homosexuals. Indeed, if traditional natural law theorists are correct in their assessment of homosexual conduct, then same-sex marriage would be not only pointless but positively damaging, to the extent that it could mislead people to their own harm by bestowing a spurious respectability on an objectively disordered way of life.
[blockquote] if homosexual conduct really is, as its natural law critics contend, a perversion of human desires and capacities, a wrenching of them away from their natural purposes, then such conduct will be a source of frustration and unhappiness regardless of whether society bestows its “recognition,†and hence its approval, on it. [/blockquote] One of the interesting side effects of the legitimization of homosexuality is the abolition of perversion. There must be a natural usage before there can be a perverse usage. Perversion only makes sense in terms of corruption and deformation. There must be something to corrupt and deform. By nature the type male is intended to use the type female for sex. By nature the type female is intended to use the type male for sex. We know this because of complementarity and reproduction. Perversion thus becomes a violation of type behavior. This is Paul’s argument in Romans 1.
In order to break this logic, the homosexual apologist has moved the locus of natural behavior from the type to the individual. According to this understanding, each man behaves naturally when he behaves in accordance with his authentic desires. Since the authenticity of desire cannot be directly measured, each man is free to obey his desires without reproach. No one can claim any particular individual is perverse because no one but that individual can offer an opinion on the authenticity of his desire. Thus perversion as a class is abolished. Each man may only act perversely against his own individual nature. Theoretically, a homosexual who desires a heterosexual life would be acting perversely.
When stripped to its essentials, the justification of homosexual behavior always reduces to the legitimacy of desire. One sees the problem immediately. If authentic sexual desire is inherently justifying, then any sexual behavior is justified by the presence of that authentic desire. This is why things like sado-masochism become ‘controversial’ issues instead of sexual perversions. How do you condemn a man for engaging in a behavior that he freely chooses to indulge? You have already established that there is no natural behavior of a type that supersedes individual desire. If it is a man’s individual nature to find sexual pleasure in the infliction of pain, and he expresses that nature in consensual relationships, then what grounds do you possess to call him perverse?
carl
That is hogwash!
NShands, to what does “that” refer? Carl’s comment? The article? While you assessment is clear, the object of your assessment is not.
Simple biology should tell us a lot. The genitals have that name because they generate new life. It is necessary for both male and female genitals to be involved in that process; there is simply no other possibility. The emotional component involved in procreation is extremely important for the raising of children; children flourish the most when they have caring and loving father and mother. But that emotional component is not vital the conception of children.
I would believe that same-sex attracted men and women have a natural and acceptable reason for same-sex pairings, if it were shown that same sex attracted men produced no sperm and same-sex attracted women produced no ova – if inherently sterile couplings were natural to them, what would they need sperm or ova for?
I found the article helpful and considered. His last sentence in the blog entry made me think of my catechism (though Episcopalian I love the Catechism of the Catholic Church): “Indeed, if traditional natural law theorists are correct in their assessment of homosexual conduct, then same-sex marriage would be not only pointless but positively damaging, to the extent that it could mislead people to their own harm by bestowing a spurious respectability on an objectively disordered way of life.” Isn’t that the definition of all scandal?
Consider the catechism entry, for we all are tempted by scandal and the destruction and casual slaughter of it:
2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.
2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”86 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.87
2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.
Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to “social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.”88 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,89 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.
2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. “Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!”90
Carl has stated the homosexual argument correctly. And it explains why morality is crumbling. Their argument is pure solipsism. That is, every person is the sole determiner of their own morality. I determine what is moral for me. And if I am the sole determiner then no one can ever tell me that I am wrong.
Of course such thinking is simply anarchy. If everyone determines their own morality then there is no morality, there is only power.
This is being written offhand and without having read the whole article.
It seems to me Holloway only partially states the natural law objection (albeit correctly, as far as it goes). At least to my way of thinking, the rest of it is that the commitment of marriage is what it is under the natural law; we cannot redefine it at our whim without substantially confusing and undermining our practice of it. Commitments in the nature of the case are larger than the individuals involved; they define us, not the other way around. It may be that there are people who truly flourish in same-sex relationships. That’s irrelevant to our understanding of the practice of marriage, as the practice involves much more than personal happiness. There is also generativity and fidelity across the generations. Again, it is peculiarly and [b]normatively[/b] important to the practice of marriage that this is the natural generativity of my body in relationship with my spouse, inherently involving a lifelong commitment of fidelity. I believe JPII was eloquent on this subject in The Theology of the Body. Bracketing for the moment what we do under civil law, I believe we must, in the church, be able to speak clearly and definitely about that commitment. Our attempts to rationalize same-sex relationships have deeply confused things.
Homosexuality is never approved in Scripture…but forbidden.
It is against God’s design and God’s commands.
It is sin and sin can always be translated harm.
Harm, shame and pain is the outcome and the underlying cause or reason for homosexual feelings. It is a compensatory behavior driven by feelings of shame, rejection, inadequacy, deficient sense of identity, damaged or distant relationship with the same sex parent and/or same sex peers, of molestation and/or sexual trauma.
To see the evidence of harm/sin, one need look no further than the CDC reports on extremely high incidence of sexually transmitted diseases in same-sex behavior populations and the research published in medical and mental health journals outlining the correlation of homosexuality with depression, suicide, addiction and violence. Police statistics also show increased violence and murder in this population.
These negative outcomes only increase in incidence per capita in areas where these behaviors and lifestyles are accepted and approved.
Approval and giving these angry children what they say they want will not help them thrive and be happy nor will it benefit their eternal souls.
Hogwash? I thought the author was actually fairly politically charitable. If Gays wanted legal and public recognition, and the freedom to be and act as they wish, they have that. Wanting ‘marraige’ exposes that there remains some further anxiety that in turn points to the restlessness of a condition up against ‘natural law.’ I personally find appeals to natural law difficult ones to make. But what he writes is logical. If being Gay is the goal, then it has been achieved. Wanting ‘marraige’ whose goods are related to procreation only signals that ‘being Gay’ is not enough, and on his logic, this is because it is against natural law.
I was referring to Carl’s comments.
NShands, where does Carl’s argument have flaws in it? I think he is right on target. If the goodness of an action is up to the individual’s authentic desires, then whatever he or she desires is good to them, and we cannot oppose them except to say, “I do not like that.” What rational opposition could be mounted?