Unraveling the Church Ban on Gay Sex

[cbayer]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/unraveling-the-church-ban-on-gay-sex/?_r=0

By GARY GUTTING MARCH 12, 2015 3:20 AM


Students in San Francisco last month protested morality clauses issued by Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone for Catholic high school teachers.Credit Tim Hussin for The New York Times

Last month, Salvatore Cordileone, the archbishop of San Francisco, made controversial changes to a handbook for Catholic high school teachers in his jurisdiction. The changes included morals clauses, one of which forbids those teachers from publicly endorsing homosexual behavior. There are plausible legal and educational objections to this move. But there is a deeper issue, one that raises fundamental questions about Catholic teachings on homosexuality and other sexual matters.

The archbishop has justified of his decision on the grounds that homosexual acts are “contrary to natural law.” Unlike many religions, Catholicism insists that its moral teachings are based not just on faith but also on human reason. For example, the church claims that its moral condemnation of homosexual acts can be established by rigorous philosophical argument, independent of anything in the Bible.

The primary arguments derive from what is known as the “natural-law tradition” of ethical thought, which begins with Plato and Aristotle, continues through Thomas Aquinas and other medieval and modern philosophers, and still flourishes today in the work of thinkers like John Finnis and Robert George. This tradition sees morality as a matter of the moral laws that follow from what fundamentally makes us human: our human nature. This is what the archbishop was referring to when he said that homosexual acts are contrary to natural law. This has long been a major basis for the church’s claim that homosexual acts are immoral — indeed “gravely sinful.”

The problem is that, rightly developed, natural-law thinking seems to support rather than reject the morality of homosexual behavior. Consider this line of thought from John Corvino, a philosopher at Wayne State University: “A gay relationship, like a straight relationship, can be a significant avenue of meaning, growth, and fulfillment. It can realize a variety of genuine human goods; it can bear good fruit. . . . [For both straight and gay couples,] sex is a powerful and unique way of building, celebrating, and replenishing intimacy.” The sort of relationship Corvino describes seems clearly one that would contribute to a couple’s fulfillment as human beings — whether the sex involved is hetero- or homosexual. Isn’t this just what it should mean to live in accord with human nature?

more at link

[AlbertCat]

1. which begins with Plato and Aristotle,

From a culture that didn't care too much about homosexuality.... because they saw it as natural.

[cbayer]

2. Homosexuality wasn't even a recognized term until the 19th century

and the ancient Greeks don't even appear to make a hetero/homo distinction.

[AlbertCat]

3. And "teenager" wasn't coined until the 1940's

so teenagers didn't exist before then....right?


Pu-leez



Freakin' disingenuous beyond belief.

[cbayer]

5. C'mon AlbertCat. I wasn't trying to make the case that homosexualtiy

didn't exist. I was making the point that it was not an important distinction in ancient cultures and was supporting what you just said.

Are you so hell bent on finding what I say wrong that you can't even see when I am agreeing with you?

[AlbertCat]

7. The wall you are banging your head against...

.... is not me. It's Catholicism. And its apologists.

[cbayer]

8. No, I am banging me head in response to you.

You completely misread what I said to you.

I am 100% opposed to the Catholic church and other organizations that use their religion to opposed GLBT civil rights. I think the article is well written and I was supporting your response.

[Humanist_Activist]

4. One thing I notice is that the Church is extremely wrong about, well, the nature of human nature...

this is why argument from natural law never made sense to me. In addition, the people who seem to argue from it justify their adherence to it based on its age, which is a logical fallacy, I believe.

[AlbertCat]

6. One thing I notice is that the Church is extremely...

.... ridiculous!

What could be more unnatural that the supernatural.... and its cults?????

Certainly more unnatural than homosexuality!

[Humanist_Activist]

9. That's not there argument, not defending them...

they have there own argument for the nature of human nature, and it is based on some assumptions about "purpose", some try to tie it to evolution, but it predates knowledge of that by centuries. They will even claim a deity isn't necessary to make this argument, though I don't see how.

I'm simplifying things here, and they are, like I said, wrong about the assumptions they make.

[mr blur]

10. Do you support this disengenuous, mealy-mouthed Catholic bullshit?

I mean that as a serious question. You are, I am told, not a "believer" Yet you seem to accord respect to the people who spout this bigoted, homophobic drivel as if the very fact that they are religious and believe this hateful stuff means that they are worth listening to.

If you condescend to reply to this (so hard to keep up with who you're ignoring, who you're threatening to ignore and who your crew just manage to keep you safe from) then please forego the lectures, the pseudo-analysis, the pontification and the faux outrage and just answer the question.

[p style= text-align:center;color:#06a481;][font size="1"](note for jury - because I'm sure that there was a stampede to call you in to put the atheist in his place: Oh, never mind...Religious Privilege trumps everything. Even for those who proclaim that they're not religious).

[okasha]

11. Suggest you read the article.

You've just wasted another popped blood vessel.

[mr blur]

12. To borrow a meme from your sidekick, please don't talk to me.

You have gone way beyond amusing and are now just...sad.

[okasha]

13. But somehow you just feel

compelled to read and wail "Get off my lawn!"

Here's a clue. If you don't want me to answer you, don't address me. Simple, no?