The above is compilled by an obvious supporter of homosexulist's but contains the important parts of the dispute and includes a fine interview afterwards with Ryan Sorba who gives an excellent summary of the relevant arguments.
The recent C-PAC convention decided to include GoProud a pro-gay "libertarian" group. Much like the Log Cabin Republicans one can only presume groups like go-proud are obvious front groups.For background, GOPROUD is an organization dedicated to advancing special rights for homosexual behavior, and advocates the overthrow of the Defense of Marriage Act The speaker from go-proud obviously started the fracas by courting aproval for homosexuality instead of concentrating on the issues that unite conservatives. Even the group itself is an obvious front. Gay men and woman should simply join the larger libertarian groups that attend C-PAC and keep their sexual preferances to themselves.
Ryan Sorba is author of the “The Gay Gene Hoax” has encountered this sort of campaign before at Smith College during a lecture; there it was a few dozen student activists screaming, chanting and banging pots and pans.
Good for Ryan Sorba - Check out his excellent lecture here
I suppose he must also condemn everyone who uses contraception of any sort, since this does not result in procreation and is thus a "purely animalistic act"?
ReplyDelete"I suppose he must also condemn everyone who uses contraception of any sort, since this does not result in procreation and is thus a "purely animalistic act"?"
ReplyDeleteEm writes, I'm afraid your not familiar with the time tested arguments from natural law.
The act itself does not always need to actually produce a child, but rather be of the kind of act that can.
However: he did not condem but simply explained why homosexual acts dont have a natural purpose..
Reproductive organs are in fact for reproduction. Using them for pleasure alone is simply animalistic in the ssense of self gratifying and nothing more.
You do hit apon an important point, Nobel prize winning aconomist David Akenhof has done excellent work showing how artificial birth control has contributed drastically to family breakdown and wanton sexuality.
Reproductive organs are in fact for reproduction.
ReplyDeleteThat's not quite accurate. All of our organs are "for" reproduction, as is every other part of our bodies. We are simply vessels that pass on our genes, in perpetuity, if possible.
All the things that we do that do not lead to, or assist with, passing on our genes are a distraction from what we are "for." Homosexual sex, masturbation, and contraception fit into that category, as does listening to music, reading poetry, growing flowers, or living past the age of fifty.
Following Sorba's logic (and, it seems, Fitz's), if we simply used our bodies to do nothing but spawn, tend to our broods, and die to make room for the next generation, then we are avoiding commiting an "animalistic" act.
No Phil - All are organs are not for reproduction, the point of a heart is to pump blood, the point of lungs are to take in oxygen to the body, the point of legs are for locomotion.
ReplyDeleteAnd your neo-darwinian contortions do not change that fact.
Men and women are members of a class that can produce children. While any member of that class may not or cannot produce a child, they remain members of a class that can produce children. Same sex pairings can never produce children. They are members of a class that always and everywhere are incapable of producing children.”
Therefore same sex “marriage” necessarily severs marriage from procreation. It both androgynizes the institution and separates it from any necessary link to childbearing.
Quoting Professor Germain Grisez
:
“Though a male and a female are complete individuals with respect to other functions – for example nutrition, sensation, and locomotion- with respect to reproduction they are only potential parts of a mated pair, which is the complete organism capable of reproducing sexually. Even if the mated pair is sterile, intercourse, provided it is the reproductive behavior characteristic of the species, makes the copulating male and female one organism”
“it is a plain matter of biological fact that reproduction is a single function, yet it cannot be carried out by an individual male or female human being, but by a male and female as a mated pair….”
And notes a though experiment by Grisez
Imagine a type of bodily, rational being that reproduces, not by mating but by some individual performance. Imagine that for these beings, however, locomotion or digestion is performed not by individuals, but only by biologically complementary pairs that unite for this purpose. Would anybody have any difficulty understanding that in respect to reproduction the organism performing the function is the individual, while in respect of locomotion or digestion the organism performing the function is the united pair?
No Phil - All are organs are not for reproduction, the point of a heart is to pump blood, the point of lungs are to take in oxygen to the body, the point of legs are for locomotion.
ReplyDeleteFitz, you're the one who brought natural law into this. You can define any organ or body part as you see fit; that doesn't change the fact that, if we're looking to the laws of nature to determine what is right, we are simply vessels that exist to pass on our genes.
The heart pumps blood so that we can grow from infancy to sexual fertility and spawn. The legs provide locomotion so that we can escape from predators, so that we can grow to sexual fertility and spawn. And so forth.
If you want to ascribe some other meaning to our lives, then you're just being poetic. And poetry, like music, homosexual sex, masturbation, contraception, and botany, is "animalistic."
#1. You seem to have no familarity with natural law & have conflated it with Darwinian evolutionary theory.
ReplyDelete"Perhaps the most depressing and fruitless feature of the current debate about homosexuality is to treat all version of this argument as the equivalent of bigotry. They are not. In an appeal to "nature," the most persuasive form of this argument is rooted in one of the oldest traditions of thought in the West, a tradition that still carries a great deal of intuitive sense. ... And at its most serious, it is not a phobia; it is an argument. And as arguments go, it has a rich literature, an extensive history, a complex philosophical core, and a view of humanity that tells a coherent and at times beautiful story of the meaning of our natural selves."
Andrew Sullivan,
Virtually Normal, pp 21-23
#1. You seem to have no familarity[sic] with natural law & have conflated it with Darwinian evolutionary theory.
ReplyDeleteI conflated "natural law" with the "laws of nature." If you're admitting that natural law has nothing to do with the laws of nature, then I'll admit that I was being unfair.
Phil (writes)
ReplyDelete"I conflated "natural law" with the "laws of nature." If you're admitting that natural law has nothing to do with the laws of nature, then I'll admit that I was being unfair."
I am not familar with anything called the "laws of nature"; there is something called natural law, it is very ancient and long standing running through Palto, Aristotle, Aquinas, and our Founding Fathers to today.
The "natural" in natural law denotes that which is evident by reason alone - as opposed to "revealed" as true (theological truth).
You are nto so much being "unfair" as you are simply not familiar with the intellectual tradition.
It is this adherance to reason that distinguishes it.
So anything other than straight vanilla sex is to be condemned, if I am understanding this correctly. No more homosexuality, but also no more blow jobs from your girl, no more going down on your beautiful wife? How boring! And you are saying that this comes down to us from the likes of Plato and Aristotle, of the ancient Greeks who so ardently and fully appreciated their young men? That's kind of funny.
ReplyDeleteEm, speaking for myself, I believe sex is for marriage (that's something between a bride+groom... and nobody else). I think married folks should enjoy lovemaking in various forms, and often. Quickies, all-nighters, and everything between. They should do whatever helps them enjoy each other, bond, and affirm the beauty of their marriage and their bodies - it is fair game as long as it isn't hurtful, harmful, or degrading and is consensual.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not advocate using law to attempt to keep consenting adults, in general, from having sex or engaging in like behaviors outside of marriage, in private. But I also do not believe I should be compelled to pay for their health care (sexually transmitted infections and injuries), abortions, contraceptives, etc., or that I should be compelled to celebrate their behavior.