Lets discuss: Homophobia

[useless]

So should infertile couples have their marriage anulled? And anyway, marriage is a social construct with an incredibly "Rose tinted view of the 60's nuclear family" image. Definitions change (look at mixed race marriages!)

 

[Jehoshua]

Infertile couples remain open to the possibility of life despite their infertility. Homosexual unions invalidate any possibility for life. Either way marriage is a social construct that has been nigh universal since recorded history. Furthermore your not addressing my point that homosexual marriage fails in fulfilling the goals of a familial, marital structure.

and for the enlightenment of Holy_King here is some explanation on the natural law

The Natural Law is described as a law whose content is set by nature and is thus universally ingrained within each human person. As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.

There belongs to the natural law, first, certain most general precepts, that are known to all; and secondly, certain secondary and more detailed precepts, which are, as it were, conclusions following closely from first principles. As to those general principles, the natural law, in the abstract, can nowise be blotted out from men's hearts. But it is blotted out in the case of a particular action, insofar as reason is hindered from applying the general principle to a particular point of practice, on account of concupiscence or some other passion. But as to the other, i.e., the secondary precepts, the natural law can be blotted out from the human heart, either by evil persuasions, just as in speculative matters errors occur in respect of necessary conclusions; or by vicious customs and corrupt habits, as among some men, theft, and even unnatural vices were not esteemed sinful.

perhaps this wording will aid in your comprehension.

 

[holy king]

The natural law has nothing to do with national jurisprudence beyond that it preferably should be ingrained in its judicial structure.

Furthermore you once again failed to address my previous posts regarding evidence for the natural law. By simply responding in kind with an accusation. Perhaps you would like to trawl back through the posts and actually respond to where I address this because I am not going to sally forth when all you are doing is failing to actually respond appropriately to my post. To do so would be a waste of my time and ultimately an exercise in irritation as I would have to perpetually deal with your idiocy in responding without getting an adequate response in turn which is actually respondind to what I have said.

please show me the post where you proved natural law exists, because i am apparently too stupid to recognize it.

 

[holy king]

Infertile couples remain open to the possibility of life despite their infertility.

if she has no ovaries anymore? if he has no testicles anymore?

 

[holy king]

The Natural Law is described as a law whose content is set by nature and is thus universally ingrained within each human person. As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.

There belongs to the natural law, first, certain most general precepts, that are known to all; and secondly, certain secondary and more detailed precepts, which are, as it were, conclusions following closely from first principles. As to those general principles, the natural law, in the abstract, can nowise be blotted out from men's hearts. But it is blotted out in the case of a particular action, insofar as reason is hindered from applying the general principle to a particular point of practice, on account of concupiscence or some other passion. But as to the other, i.e., the secondary precepts, the natural law can be blotted out from the human heart, either by evil persuasions, just as in speculative matters errors occur in respect of necessary conclusions; or by vicious customs and corrupt habits, as among some men, theft, and even unnatural vices were not esteemed sinful.

fine, that's a definition. not proof of existance.

 

[Jehoshua]

It also incidentally shows how it is determined, through rational insight into human nature. If your expecting a smoking gun of proof on light of some shining giant letters in space saying "THE NATURAL LAW EXISTS" your not going to find it. Proof in this case requires rational intellectual exertion and actually reading the text. (as in the one above) Its principles of the natural law are defined logically from insight into human nature and the natural purpose of various acts.

As to a testicleless man typically the sexual act is either impossible or undesired by that man, as to a woman without ovaries it may be the same case (I am unsure) but presumably such an act would be contrary to the natural law.

As to showing you the post where I addressed it previously why should I do such a thing when clearly you have the intellectual capacity to click a button and search for a post. Although then again since you failed to address it to begin with it is rather presumptuous to presume you would percieve my response once again.

 

[holy king]

i think the decision who here lacks the ability for rational intellectual assertion i can safely put in the hands of the readers of this thread.

 

[Azash]

It also incidentally shows how it is determined, through rational insight into human nature. If your expecting a smoking gun of proof on light of some shining giant letters in space saying "THE NATURAL LAW EXISTS" your not going to find it.

Okay, so basically you have no credible objective reason why 'natural law' should be taken seriously. I think you would do well to put half the energy you invest in reading dictionaries to reading some encyclopediae and philosophical or scientific works instead.

Proof in this case requires rational intellectual exertion and actually reading the text. (as in the one above) Its principles of the natural law are defined logically from insight into human nature and the natural purpose of various acts.

The principles of natural law are defined in a subjective manner from how one sees the acts in question.

As to a testicleless man typically the sexual act is either impossible or undesired by that man, as to a woman without ovaries it may be the same case (I am unsure) but presumably such an act would be contrary to the natural law.

Presumably? Certainly undermines your idea of the principles of natural law being defined via insight.

As to showing you the post where I addressed it previously why should I do such a thing when clearly you have the intellectual capacity to click a button and search for a post. Although then again since you failed to address it to begin with it is rather presumptuous to presume you would percieve my response once again.

Acting belittling to reinforce your shaky appearance of having any idea what you are talking about is hardly a hallmark of a good debater.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

what you fail to do is prove that natural law exists. you say it manifests itself, and in what way. that is not proof it exists, that is saying it exists and nothing else.
you know, argumentum ad lepidum.

you simply act as if it was some kind of axiom with which you can prove homosexuality is immoral. this is not the case.

What's worse is that he is proposing that homosexuality isn't compatible with Natural Right theories. The primary building block of natural right law is life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. None of these are violated if you are homosexual. Natural rights have nothing to do with reproduction. Nor is there a single natural right theory that explicitly claims that homosexuality should be illegal. This, of course, would violate an individuals natural right to the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Jehoshua]

Okay, so basically you have no credible objective reason why 'natural law' should be taken seriously. I think you would do well to put half the energy you invest in reading dictionaries to reading some encyclopediae and philosophical or scientific works instead.

I have pointed out how the principles of natural law exist objectively in addition to insight on human nature with respect to the natural faculty of any particular act. Thus we have the immorality of homosexual acts being objectively determinable via its incompatibility with the natural procreative purpose of the sexual act.

The principles of natural law are defined in a subjective manner from how one sees the acts in question.

Within the parameter of an objective understanding of the natural faculty. Thus again with homosexual acts as it denies the natural purpose of the sexual act under natural law it is immoral.

Presumably? Certainly undermines your idea of the principles of natural law being defined via insight.

clearly you have no penchant for understatement.

Acting belittling to reinforce your shaky appearance of having any idea what you are talking about is hardly a hallmark of a good debater.

And commenting on the speaker instead of the point is irrelevant to this argument. Is it not natural to be frustrated at the inability of a certain individual of his own capacity to search back and read through ones posts.

 

[Jehoshua]

What's worse is that he is proposing that homosexuality isn't compatible with Natural Right theories. The primary building block of natural right law is life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. None of these are violated if you are homosexual. Natural rights have nothing to do with reproduction. Nor is there a single natural right theory that explicitly claims that homosexuality should be illegal. This, of course, would violate an individuals natural right to the pursuit of happiness.

I am not talking about natural right theory am I. I for one disagree with the principle of natural right theorty as simply conductive to hedonism.

 

[Azash]

I have pointed out how the principles of natural law exist objectively in addition to insight on human nature with respect to the natural faculty of any particular act. Thus we have the immorality of homosexual acts being objectively determinable via its incompatibility with the natural procreative purpose of the sexual act.

You've pointed out your own view on what is natural. You've given no basis or reason for why it would be objectively correct let alone 'natural law'.

 

[El_Machinae]

fine, that's a definition. not proof of existance.

Not really.

The first paragraph is a description of something that exists. It's merely a rephrasing of a universal morality, which that can be used by people. It's a trivial description, more of a definition. But it's describing something that exists.

The second paragraph seems to be a statement of faith, and is not a definition or proof. The two paragraphs don't follow. There're many physical laws that are ingrained in the reality of the universe (paragraph one), but that aren't knowable (yet) to people.

Additionally, it fails to mention scripture (for good reason). We've seen that relying on (or even using) scripture can mislead people regarding physical laws of the Universe (and, even if they don't mislead, they certainly don't help this understanding!). As well, it seems pretty easy to see the scripture can also pervert people's understanding of the natural law

People shoehorning a few lines of misguided text into their attempts to understand (not create) natural law can lead to whole levels of misinterpretation. Heck, if we try to shoehorn any of the pentateuch into real history, we're horribly waylaid. So, it's not a surprise if it can happen with moral understanding as well.

 

[LucyDuke]

and neither is the natural purpose of stone hypothetically to be carved into a beautiful building. You are simply avoiding the question by raising another which does not neccesarily hold moral implications.

Why does the sex one and not the other ones hold moral implications?

 

[BuckeyeJim]

How on earth is the immorality of homosexuality determined if homosexuality is a natural genetic occurrence, and homosexuals are acting out as a result of natural instinct? You justify that male/female heterosexual relationship on the basis of natural impulse, so how can you summarily reject the same natural impulses for homosexuals, AND simultaneously justify it as immoral using natural right theory? Also, how are you not talking about natural right theory? Your entire justification impugning and moralizing about homosexuality is based in natural right theory.

 

[useless]

Why? Because homophobia is irrational

 

[Jehoshua]

Find me irrefutable proof of the genetic nature of homosexual acts. Last I checked there was no such confirmation. Also I am not basing it on natural impulse but rather on the basis of the natural purpose of the sexual faculty. You appear to be arguing against a point I never made.

As to natural rights theory why would I argue towards a theory which is wrong?

 

[Jehoshua]

The second paragraph seems to be a statement of faith, and is not a definition or proof. The two paragraphs don't follow. There're many physical laws that are ingrained in the reality of the universe (paragraph one), but that aren't knowable (yet) to people.

on the contrary the first paragraph holds that there are laws ingrained in the reality of the universe and that these are known within general principles. But in regards to secondary principles they are not automatically known and can be determined by reasonable conclusions of the first, general principles. It of course then goes on say that when translated into acts these principles can be blotted out or obscured through descent into immorality by a consciuous aversion and turning away from the natural law of the human mind.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

Find me irrefutable proof of the genetic nature of homosexual acts. Last I checked there was no such confirmation. Also I am not basing it on natural impulse but rather on the basis of the natural purpose of the sexual faculty. You appear to be arguing against a point I never made.

As to natural rights theory why would I argue towards a theory which is wrong?

Someone asks you for proof of Natural Rights, and you say that it doesn't exist and requires mental exertion to arrive at the conclusion that they exist. Well guess what buddy, we may haven't found the genetic mutation which causes homosexuality, but we will. It simply requires a little bit of mental exertion that it is indeed a natural occurrence. And let's pretend that it's not. Let's pretend that I just wanna go out and bang a dude. I mean, I wanna get really dirty with it. I'm going in until the balls touch. So what? The same theories that you are using to say that homosexuality is immoral actually provide individuals an avenue to pursue this act without you or anybody else getting in the way of a mutual adult act with another consenting adult. Ya know, pursuit of happiness and all that jazz. Pursuits of hedonistic acts, that, provided they do not violate anyone else's natural rights, are perfectly justified and righteous. How can you argue natural right versus positive right, use natural right to say homosexuality is hedonistic, and then turn around and say you're not using a philosophical theory that you think is wrong?

 

[Azash]

Find me irrefutable proof of the genetic nature of homosexual acts. Last I checked there was no such confirmation. Also I am not basing it on natural impulse but rather on the basis of the natural purpose of the sexual faculty. You appear to be arguing against a point I never made.

Took me about five seconds to find this.