quote:

It's a rather conservative group here.... myself excluded.... sorry guys..

I don't look at you as a liberal, Wanda; just a future conservative.

quote:

You're right in that we seem to need a bogeyman...someone to blame all our frustrations on.

That's human nature. And who are gays blaming their problems on? Right. We're all homophobes. Between these two extremes there is an interesting and vital discussion that needs to take place.

Since this topic is fodder for presidential politics and back front and center, I thought I'd revitalize the thread a tad.

First, let's consider the natural law perspective that requires that sexual activity be 1) unitive 2) procreative 3) conjugal 4) heterosexual and 5) consensual. That's my oversimplification. I think, however, one can easily and readily employ those criteria to see how they rule out: a) masturbation b) premarital and extramarital sex c) rape and incest d) homosexual activity e) artificial birth control and natural family planning, and so forth, inasmuch as they all fail to meet one or more of the natural law criteria.

Perhaps it would be useful to consider how it is the Church and its moral theologians have responded to some other "grave disorders" before tackling homosexual activity.

a) One approach to changing our understanding of the natural law would be to drop or add certain criteria (or even natural law altogether). You might try this exercise on your own but I wouldn't linger there inasmuch as I really doubt that is going to happen in reality (nor would I want it to).

b) Another approach would be to redefine, for instance by more broadly or more narrowly conceiving, a certain criterion, or by more highly nuancing it. For instance, re: artificial birth control, if the procreative aspect could be nuanced to apply to the totality of a relationship over its duration rather than to individual acts, then the problem with artificial birth control resolves. Also, if the procreative aspect got more broadly conceived to include not just the physical-biological generative dimension but also the spiritual dimension, then that, too, would mitigate against certain other disorders. By spiritual dimension of procreation, we could mean all manner of life-enhancing, life-giving, life-enriching endeavors that come out of relationships; just for instance, don't we talk about how the number one job of a spouse is to help the other spouse get to heaven?

c) Another approach would involve not tinkering with natural law definitions, interpretations and applications per se, but rather changing our pastoral response to certain disorders as motivated by compassion and understanding for us humans in our fallen but redeemed state. This is the approach taken by the Magisterium in its approval of natural family planning, which is distinguishable from artificial birth control only insofar as it is a temporal barrier to conception and not rather a chemical (the pill) or spatial (diaphragm or condom) barrier. Given our 20th Century understanding of the radical continuity of the space-time-mass-energy plenum, such distinctions between barriers, spatial vs temporal vs chemical, are rather disingenuous, facile to say the least. Further, as in every moral act, which includes 1) an act, 2) an intent and 3) morally relevant and specifying circumstances, only the most Clintonesque parsing of terms could serve to discriminate between the intent of those couples using the pill (nonabortifacient varieties) or condoms and those practicing NFP (natural family planning).

Further, regarding both artificial birth control and masturbation, for example, the Church has advocated, to confessors, a compassionate approach to penitents, in the latter case even listing numerous and very common exculpatory circumstances.

d) Yet another approach might employ a combination of dropping/adding criteria, better nuancing of criteria, redefining criteria or changing of pastoral responses to certain disorders.

e) In addition to the above natural law matters, which comprise what we call a deontological approach to ethics (see definitions and amplifications at the beginning of this thread), the Church will also take into account a teleological approach, which is also called consequentialistic, which means just what it says: what are the consequences to individuals, families and society, of defining/classifying various disorders? For example, Paul VI, in Humanae Vitae (the birth control encyclical), in addition to carefuly setting forth its natural law interpretation, also listed the consequences to society should artificial birth control become widely practiced. Debates rage on as to whether Paul VI was prophetic in this regard or whether the sexual revolution and its aftermath are more overdetermined than some moral theologians seem willing to admit (some certainly stepping out of their area of competency when venturing into sociological analyses).

All that said, I end this post and then return to look at the issue of homosexual activity in light of these "options."

pax,
jb

a) One approach to changing our understanding of the natural law would be to drop or add certain criteria (or even natural law altogether).

Regarding homosexual activity, what would happen if we retained the criteria for unitive, procreative, conjugal and consensual, simply dropping heterosexual? Can you see how this would require a more broadly conceived notion of procreation, for instance - spiritually or even vis a vis adoption options?

b) Another approach would be to redefine, for instance by more broadly or more narrowly conceiving, a certain criterion, or by more highly nuancing it.

Can you discern how the additional nuancing of procreative vis a vis both a) the totality of the relationship as well as b) other generative aspects (such as rearing children, albeit adoptive, and advancing each spouse's salvation) might militate against disorderedness?

c) Another approach would involve not tinkering with natural law definitions, interpretations and applications per se, but rather changing our pastoral response to certain disorders as motivated by compassion and understanding for us humans in our fallen but redeemed state.

The Church has made great strides in its outreach to homosexuals but could it go further regarding their sexual activity? For instance, even though the Church did not change its essentialistic understanding regarding the intrinsic disorderedness of NFP, it did change its pastoral response.

Now, insofar as the Church has never really recognized a parvity of sexual matters, which is to say it always considered all sexual sin as gravely disordered - no one type of sexual sin more or less serious to one's immortal soul than the next - then what would be the essential difference, pastorally and compassionately, between extending some latitude to homosexual couples and extending some latitude to NFP-practicing heterosexual couples?

1) Well, for starters, there is the criterion that a couple be conjugal , not one that any sane ethicist would want to drop? This would require some official recognition of the "union" or some blessing , so to speak.

2) Can you see how this is far more problematic than looking the other way such as in NFP? how the sanctioning would take place on a whole other level, not just being distinguishable as negative vs positive sanctioning or approbation?

3) Further, there is the additional issue of how a sacrament operates as sign and symbol? What might you see as consequential for the sacrament of matrimony as sign and symbol should same sex unions be blessed , which is a step further than sanctioning?

e) In addition to the above natural law matters, which comprise what we call a deontological approach to ethics (see definitions and amplifications), the Church will also take into account a teleological approach, which is also called consequentialistic, which means just what it says: what are the consequences to individuals, families and society, of defining/classifying various disorders?

There is much talk about how marriage and family life will be degraded and devalued as an institution should homosexual unions be sanctioned by the state (much less blessed by the Church). There has also been much talk, over the years, about how the Church might oughta get out of the marrying business. Whatever the case may be, what does it mean to say that the institution will be degraded and devalued? What are some concrete examples of what will happen, of how people will behave differently, in the wake of approval of gay marriage and/or civil unions? Would that change your relationship with your spouse? What about the case where a person is at a stage of sexual maturation where they are confused? or bisexual? or even doesn't have a true genetic predisposition toward a homosexual orientation? Could there arise compelling circumstances for other same sex marriages or civil unions as motivated strictly out of economic reasons, or tax reasons, or estate and inheritance reasons, or child custody reasons, where the marriage is but a sham on paper with no sexual ramifications but only ulterior motives, some sinister others more benign? This happens all the time in heterosexual marriages, n'est pas? So, perhaps this wouldn't be unexpected in homosexual marriages and shouldn't be construed against them either?

Seems to be one sticky widget to me!

Should we be amending the Constitution on this issue? Why or why not?

pax,
jb

First, let's consider the natural law perspective that requires that sexual activity be 1) unitive 2) procreative 3) conjugal 4) heterosexual and 5) consensual. That's my oversimplification. I think, however, one can easily and readily employ those criteria to see how they rule out: a) masturbation b) premarital and extramarital sex c) rape and incest d) homosexual activity e) artificial birth control and natural family planning, and so forth, inasmuch as they all fail to meet one or more of the natural law criteria.

I might also go at this from the perspective of not accepting all the precepts of natural law to begin with. Perhaps our morals change with the times and need to change with the times. In the Bible were men who had more than one wife. And they used to stone people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, right? That sort of thing. So maybe, just maybe, homosexuality, while not the norm, is not inherently sinful. Maybe it�s time to bring them under the umbrella of the other laws that govern sex, particularly since sex, so much so for human beings than other animals, is less a procreative thing and more a bonding thing. Certainly I would think that homosexual sex would benefit from being unitive, conjugal (if that makes sense), and monogamous.

That�s one non-Catholic perspective, anyway. And goodness knows, God keeps creating people in that way so perhaps it has a purpose and is not inherently bad.

I might also go at this from the perspective of not accepting all the precepts of natural law to begin with. Perhaps our morals change with the times and need to change with the times. In the Bible were men who had more than one wife. And they used to stone people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, right? That sort of thing. So maybe, just maybe, homosexuality, while not the norm, is not inherently sinful. Maybe it�s time to bring them under the umbrella of the other laws that govern sex, particularly since sex, so much so for human beings than other animals, is less a procreative thing and more a bonding thing. Certainly I would think that homosexual sex would benefit from being unitive, conjugal (if that makes sense), and monogamous. That�s one non-Catholic perspective, anyway. And goodness knows, God keeps creating people in that way so perhaps it has a purpose and is not inherently bad.

Rejecting certain natural law criteria is certainly one way of approaching this and, when we do, we need to follow our logical argument, which now has new premises, all the way through to its proper conclusions and practical consequences. You or others might wish to examine what those are for your proposal.

I would think that all secular psychologists and many moral theologians, too, for instance, would hold that masturbation is not an intrinsic evil or inherently bad. Rather than make so many allowances for it and coming up with so many different ways to declare someone exculpable of that grave evil, it might occur to one who is sociologically and psychologically informed that it isn't a disorder to begin with, especially once considering that it is practiced, at one time or another, by 95% of the population.

While having more than one wife is an intriguing option, btw, it is having more than one mother-in-law that could be troublesome. Just kidding. I love both of my mothers-in-law, one the birth mother and the other the adoptive mother, now deceased and still beloved.

pax,
jb

Something tells me that the debates between Bush and (probably) Kerry are not going to be as substantive as the exchanges above.

I think the "bottom line" line here is that an overwhelming majority of Americans are simply not ready to recognize gay unions as marriages. The reasons for this are many, I'm sure, and some are not thought-out very deeply. Many just find the idea of a man having sex with another man (or women with women) repulsive and disgusting; that's an emotional response, but it's a hard one for some to shake off. I confess that this is still my reaction, even though, intellectually, I'm able to make different affirmations about what's going on. So the idea of sanctioning gay relationships by calling them "marriages" is a hard pill to swallow for it is granting a legitimacy to homosexuality that counters one's emotional response to the reality.

(Interesting side-note here: some of the same people who extol the value of "emotional intelligence" would have us discount it when it comes to issues of this kind.)

I think a constitutional amendment on this issue will probably be necessary. Kerry wants to leave it to the States, most likely because that's a softer position than Bush's, and he doesn't want to completely alienate the gay vote (which I suspect is predominantly Democrat). But suppose things continue as they are now, with some states granting unions, some marriages, some neither, etc.? Suppose a gay couple marries in one state then moves to another and takes up residence there. Are they legally married in that state? If they divorce and one sues for benefits, do they have the same rights as marrieds?

Different laws between states for important social issues has prompted constitutional amendments in the past--e.g., civil rights laws and prohibition. It would probably be necessary to have such an amendment for this situation.

Something tells me that the debates between Bush and (probably) Kerry are not going to be as substantive as the exchanges above.

Sad thing is, neither will the economic and miltary debates. In the first place, presidents have limited influence over business cycles but, inevitably, are forced to deal with them politically, alternately taking credit and blame for that which they have little or no control over. Sheer demagoguery in both directions! Foreign policy is another matter of course but look at the lack of substance coupled with the inordinate amount of time and attention of the debates on Kerry and Bush's records from three decades ago, which are less relevant than many other factors. Look at the superficial wavering of Kerry on Iraq even as Dubya hasn't been very articulate himself on his administration goals and policies at times. Well, this is a segue back to the political forum.

Meanwhile, from a moral theological perspective then, Phil, setting emotions and subconscious homophobia aside, what do you make of the range of pastoral responses or natural law reinterpretations and redefinitions that could be possible as consistent with our outline above? What are the societal consequences of Rosie O'Donnell and her wife raising children?

pax,
jb

Rejecting certain natural law criteria is certainly one way of approaching this and, when we do, we need to follow our logical argument, which now has new premises, all the way through to its proper conclusions and practical consequences. You or others might wish to examine what those are for your proposal.

Well, it could take the controversy of homosexuality off the table and allow us to focus on monogamy and healthy sexual conduct without the sneaking suspicions of the left that it's all about excluding or bashing gays. Again, since I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, I realize this might be somewhat wishful thinking. But what if great strides could be made in getting people to teach about abstinence for kids (children even) side-by-side with contraception - instead of starting from the assumption that abstinence is the creed of whacko Christians who are just too Puritanical and repressed when it comes to sex? What if people got it in their heads that parents have a right to know if their daughter is having an abortion, not because they're enemies of sexuality, but because they're actually concerned about the fragile make-up of kids when it comes to early sex?

I'm not absolutely convinced that "giving in" to homosexuality opens the floodgates to Sodom and Gomorrah. I do realize the power influences of social standards and that the cure to problems is not simply to redefine every problem away by calling it moral. But I do suggest that conservatives and the religious save their ammunition for the most important battles. That's one reason I hate to see the right waste its energy on such things as a flag burning amendment � or even a marriage amendment. Job #1, as far as I'm concerned, is to expose the intolerant assault on religion in this country and to bring a balanced education back to schools. Equipping our kids with good moral values and the intellectual strength to question intelligently the very things we teach them is of prime importance.

We should think hard about what is both the compassionate and the right thing to do. Sometimes it's tough love. Sometimes it's just recognizing the obvious: gays exist and that they need to be folded into the large cause of moral integrity and personal responsibility. That's hard to do when they're intentionally shunted to the side thus empowering their victomhood status. Let the Democrats be the party of demagogues and users. Let the religious and the right strive for what is fair and moral. That does not, and should not in my opinion, mean anointing the far-left whacko gay movement as mainstream. If one's sexuality is to be of no more consequence then one's handedness then we need sponsor no parades of weirdoes down mainstreet.

That was a very reasoned analysis, Brad. Sounds like a compassionate conservatism. Sometimes, George Bush sounds just like Brad.

Yes, very good post, Brad. Thank you.

JB, re. moral analysis: I think you've already shared some very good reflections above. The main problem in Catholicism, here--as with all our teachings on sexual morality--is the strong reliance on a natural law approach in which the objective structure of the sex act is the basis for determining moral values. Aside from the problems which arise when the natural law is too rigidly defined, I just don't think this is a very Christian approach to things.

At the heart of Biblical morality and spirituality is not the natural law, but the covenantal principle, which constitutes human beings and God in relationships of profound "belonging." The 10 commandements come to us in reference to covenant--what you have to do or not-do to preserve the covenant and allow the relationships to deepen and grow. New Testament morality is also referenced to covenant. What must we do to act as though we are brothers and sisters in Christ? In a nutshell: love one another! There is mention of acts which go against nature, but no developed ethical system which trumps the covenantal principle. Presumably, these acts which go against nature damage the covenant, which is why they are condemned.

So how does homosexuality stand up in light of an ethics referenced to covenant?
- can such relationships reflect God's love and goodness?
- do they foster the growth and development of the individuals in them?
- do they contribute to the good of the community?
There are unitive and procreative dimensions to these questions.

In light of the above considerations, I think a case could be made for homosexual unions being ethically conscienable . . . except where the issue of children is concerned. While it is true that the Church will marry a couple who is beyond child-bearing age, many bishops will not consent to marrying a younger couple who state that they are not open to having children. Homosexual couples cannot bear children, and that is a problem. There is also the issue of whether children have a right to a male and female parent and whether that is better for their development.

Reflecting on these kinds of issues in light of the covenantal principle is a work that needs to be done. Perhaps we can carry the task forward somewhat here. I am still searching my own mind and heart on these questions.

Thanks, Phil and Brad. Good thoughts. It ain't simple but I think we'll eventually see a softening on this issue by society at large. As for the Magisterium's take on natural law, with its deemphasis on the existential, lived-out experiences of people and over-emphasis on the essentialistic, philosophical angle, there is not likely going to be meaningful change in our lifetime regarding women priests, artificial birth control, homosexual activity as sin (much less homosexual marriage), etc There may be some movement on married clergy and celibacy issues since they aren't dependent on natural law? It does come down to discerning accidentals versus essentials, preserving the latter and being flexible with the former. Not as easy a task as it may appear on the surface.

On one hand, I suppose the Church's glacial movement has served it well in many ways, even if certain segments of the membership pay different types of prices for the advancement of this common good in preserving Her constant tradition . OTOH, I do fear, regrettably, that some of the glacial movement is due to what Scott Peck would call a dysfunctional attempt to preserve a sick identity structure at all costs (in People of the Lie) and that that dynamism is also responsible for the sexual abuse crisis and ensuing scandal.

Well, I suppose I have taken this thread into places some may wish to avoid.

pax,
jb

OTOH, I do fear, regrettably, that some of the glacial movement is due to what Scott Peck would call a dysfunctional attempt to preserve a sick identity structure at all costs

I wouldn�t think it scandalous or uncommon that any large institution suffers from many of the shortcomings of an entrenched bureaucracy. Surely, though, good men and women know the right thing to do. No one is preventing them from doing it. Is the structure really so smothering that one can simply excuse individual misdeeds because of the system? Perhaps, though, it is analogous to teachers unions (or old-style unions in general) where the more talented (or competent, or righteous, or whatever) are not necessarily rewarded and thus there is never any reward for sticking one�s neck out. In fact, there could be heck to pay if you do. THAT would be an institutional dysfunction. I do wish the press spent half the amount of time they spend on the problems of the Church on the waste, inefficiencies and downright theft that goes on at all levels of government almost everywhere.

Just to show that I haven't become immobilized by concerns for political correctness, I am calling attention to this web site.

H.O.M.E.(Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment) was founded with one main purpose in mind: to expose all the flaws in the arguments homosexuals (and bisexuals) use to try to justify homosexual activity. Other goals are to defend heterosexual sex and marriage, and to expose the liberal pro-homosexual bias of the dominant media.

This may well be a one-man show, but some of the articles resonate with concerns raised on this forum.

E.g., "The Case Against . . " article:

For centuries, the position of "traditional value" people re homosexual activity essentially boils down to this: homosexual acts are physiologically (if not also psychologically) unnatural deviations from the reasonable heterosexual norm; and if we condone homosexual deviations then we must fairly allow other aberrant people their own particular deviations from other reasonable norms. In short, legal homosexual acts are bad and absurd legal precedents.

Can we justly discriminate in favor of some unreasonable deviations and against others? No. If we tolerate deviations from reasonable sexual standards, then we will fairly have to tolerate deviations from other reasonable standards because all of the different kinds of deviates will demand consistency from us and nondiscriminatory equal treatment.

Slippery slope?

re: Slippery slope?

In a review of Janet Smith's Why Humane Vitae was Right, O.P. Sobrino wrote:

quote:

The prophetic nature of the Church's teaching against contraception is seen in the current approval by some liberal Christians of the gay lifestyle. This outcome is not surprising because once the ban on contraception is rejected, there is no logical basis for objecting to nonprocreative homosexual acts. Even the liberal Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who favors actively gay clergy, is on record as admitting that the embrace of contraception logically and eventually leads to the approval of the gay lifestyle.

This view has some truth to it in some ways. In other ways, it is erroneous. If artificial birth control would be allowed from a reinterpretation of the natural law to accept a broadening of the procreative criterion to include the totality of the relationship and not just of each individual act, then nonprocreative homosexual acts would still be taboo. Now, one could argue that the approval of NFP logically opened the way to the approval of ABC, but even then that could be done strictly from a pastoral response perspective and not from a natural law reinterpretation. That would seem to logically pave the way for the same compassionate response for practicing homosexuals.

Slippery slope? Yes and no. Also, see arguments I've advanced elsewhere re: artificial contraception and ask why and how they'd not apply here:

It appears to me that all of our debates and deliberations will have us talking past one another ad nauseum because of a profound disagreement at the level of fundamental presuppositions regarding the proper interpretation of the natural law.

As long as some choose an exclusively essentialistic approach and disregard any existentialistic approach, we will ALWAYS disagree.

It is almost as simple as asking: Do you include an existentialistic approach in your interpretation of natural law? And, if the answer is no, then the debate is really over inasmuch as all of the responses and counterarguments will algorithmically flow from those presuppositions.

A similar and much related phenomenon occurs in the realm of metaethics where deontological and teleological approaches are concerned. If the authoritative and deontological approach is taken to the exclusion of nonauthoritative and teleological approaches, as a metaethical superstructure, then any ensuing ethical decisions, deliberations and debates are going to unfold algorithmically and reasoning appeals founded on an alternative metaethic are guaranteed to be fruitless.

What I am suggesting is that we consider why the Church should or should not supplement its essentialistic approaches with existentialistic approaches. Can we look to Thomas Aquinas, for instance, to defend the use of teleological approaches in addition to deontological approaches? Also, does consequentialistic ethics have a role in our moral deliberations?

Our approach presently is one-sidedly philosophical. How can we make it more Christocentric, more "anchored in charity"? It is a narrow, parochial approach. Could it be more universal [catholic] in its appeal? It is biologistic and physicalistic. How can we make it more personalistic, emphasizing the centrality of the human person? It is presented as infallible. How could it be more "modest and tentative" in its appeal? Could it be more ecumenical, drawing on other sources outside Catholicism for ideas? It is so exclusively deductive. How could it be more inductive, using the insight of laypersons? It seeks universal conformism. How can it be more pluralistic, allowing for differences according to individual cases? It has been so manualistic and minimalistic. How can it be more aspirational, "appealing to the spiritual hungers of people" vs. setting forth merely basic obligations?

These are mostly paraphrases from folks like Fathers McBrien and McCormick.

My challenge to the conservatives is to answer why things must be so one-sidedly philosophical, essentialistic, minimalistic, physicalistic, biologistic, parochial, deductive, infallibilistic?

The case to made by the progressives is how we can better aspire and give witness to the complementary values that I juxtaposed above.

end of excerpted post

Additionally, there are the issues that could be raised from a more depthful analysis of the act, intention and morally relevant and specifying circumstances. Even failing one's taking into account all of the points I've made above, there is the compassionate pastoral approach to humankind's fallen-redeemed state route, which is to say that the Church could hold on to its essentialistic, natural law interpretation while making allowances for humankind's concrete existential circumstances.

Our approach presently is one-sidedly philosophical. How can we make it more Christocentric, more "anchored in charity"? It is a narrow, parochial approach. Could it be more universal [catholic] in its appeal? It is biologistic and physicalistic. How can we make it more personalistic, emphasizing the centrality of the human person?

JB, somewhere above I proposed that Biblical morality is covenantal in focus. This is different from the usual essentialistic/objective or existentialistic/pastoral approaches, both of which are illuminated anew by a covenantal focus. I'm surprised that this hasn't been developed more by moral theologians; perhaps it has, but I've just not run across it.

Re. Janet Smith. So is she really saying that homoxexual unions are not to be allowed because a penis is not ejaculating semen into a vagina, and that neither the man or woman is using some form of birth control? That IS, ultimately, what she's saying, isn't it? And that makes sense to some people?

-----

Re. Slippery slope. No, I don't see it. What's being proposed is that marriage is a union between two humans, only now including those of the same sex. Wierdo sex habits are not obstacles for heterosexual couples to marry; same would go for homosexual couples.

Note, the above pgh doesn't imply agreement with same-sex unions on my part, only that that particular argument against doesn't wash.

Wierdo sex habits are not obstacles for heterosexual couples

This could be the title of our next Shalomplace participatory novel.

First, perhaps you could expand on this?

This is different from the usual essentialistic/objective or existentialistic/pastoral approaches, both of which are illuminated anew by a covenantal focus.

Didn't this play into, in part, making the unitive dimension a more prominent criterion? more on par with the procreative even?

Here's a First Things article just in case you missed it: The Marriage Amendment

We have been brought to the present circumstance by the astonishing success of the homosexual movement over the past three decades. Traditionally, sodomy was viewed as an act, and was condemned as unnatural and deviant. A hundred years ago, homosexuality was viewed as a condition afflicting people who are prone to engaging in such unnatural and deviant acts. Today �gay� signifies not so much an act or condition as the identity of people who say that they most essentially are what they do and want to do sexually.

I was listening to Medved the other day talking to a couple professionals about all this. One person recounted having a homosexual experience when he was a young adult and he said that he definitely was "recruited" into this behavior. The guy said that gay isn't by any means his natural inclination. I honestly don't know how prevalent this is, and I'm not saying that gays are predators. But I am saying that the acceptance of gayness could very well mean a lot of young people will have a greater opportunity to engage in something that I don't think is in their best interest. This got me to thinking. Basically I figure some people are really born gay (very gay) and trying to make them live a straight life is like trying to put a round peg into a square whole. This being the case (I presume), it seems only natural to me to make allowances for them. But I can see where this could be a "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile" scenario.

Basically, I don't think society will fall apart if gays are allowed to be married (unless we continue this extra-constitutional habit of creating laws via the courts). If society changes in such a way that people come to accept such a thing, then so be it. We're talking about a behavior between consenting adults � between (hopefully) consenting committed adults; adults who supposedly care enough for each other that they wish to enter into legal and binding agreement. I don't know how, if at all, this upsets Church doctrine or natural law. That's quite outside my domain. But if the will of the people in a democracy is to condone (or reject) such a thing via legislation then I just don't see a slippery slope � unless it is a slippery slope for the people to govern themselves.

Where I think we do get into big trouble is if marriage is considered inherently discriminatory to gays. That's just nonsense. If courts come to this conclusion and enforce gay marriage as the law of the land then we basically come closer to the point of being ruled once again by kings � by royal fiat - for I can guarantee you that the way they're reading the Constitution these days they can find something in the text to support almost any notion.

But I am saying that the acceptance of gayness could very well mean a lot of young people will have a greater opportunity to engage in something that I don't think is in their best interest.

I've wondered this, myself, from a different angle. What is happening, developmentally, to young children raised by gay couples insofar as they would be witnessing a great deal more same sex PDAs (public displays of affection, meaning, in this case, anything outside the closed bedroom door) than they would ordinarily? This would be despite the fact that the children, themselves, may not be genetically predispositioned toward homosexuality (and, playing the percentages, most likely would indeed be genetically predispositioned heterosexuals)? Sexual expression and acting out is such a powerful human experience --- cognitively, affectively, spiritually --- and the confusion every human experiences in the process of going through puberty and maturation, hormones raging, is difficult enough, to be sure, without exacerbating the problem. I'm sure there have been some studies and commentary on these questions but I'm also quite sure that the studies couldn't be conclusive or exhaustive or longitudinal enough.

I just don't know and ... when in doubt, I bale out ... which is to say ... stick with tradition and the conservative position.

pax,
jb

Sexual expression and acting out is such a powerful human experience --- cognitively, affectively, spiritually --- and the confusion every human experiences in the process of going through puberty and maturation, hormones raging, is difficult enough, to be sure, without exacerbating the problem. I'm sure there have been some studies and commentary on these questions but I'm also quite sure that the studies couldn't be conclusive or exhaustive or longitudinal enough.

I just don't know and ... when in doubt, I bale out ... which is to say ... stick with tradition and the conservative position.

Well, unless one had been living in a cave these last few decades, one couldn't help but notice that the gay movement is perhaps better described as gay advocacy. I've been told (or have read) that human sexuality is better thought of as lying on a continuum rather than people being strictly gay or straight (thus I hope to avoid prison at all costs). Therefore, because of this reason and others (including some that you have pointed out), there is no need to adopt the gay advocacy line even while accepting that some people are clearly, unequivocally gay.

Let's be clear that I would be for advocating gay rights, not the promotion of the gay lifestyle. The problem is, one seems to come hand-in-hand with the other at the moment. All I need to hear from gay advocates is that it's best to assume that people are straight and to treat them accordingly and to steer them in this direction � unless otherwise shown that someone is clearly gay. Implicit in this is that heterosexuality is the preferred and healthier mode of being, all else being equal � for obvious reasons, one would think. This, to me, is a test of the integrity of the gay movement, for it they won't acknowledge the obvious (that most people aren't gay and that male and female is a more natural and healthier state of being � all else being equal) then why should I make allowances for them?

Check out this link at Free Republic.

quote:

The Mail on Sunday (London, England); 2/3/2002; Ellis, Rachel

CHILDREN raised by gay couples will suffer serious problems in later life, a major new study into parenting has found.

The biggest investigation into same-sex parenting to be published in Europe claims that children brought up by gay couples are more likely to experiment with homosexual behaviour and be confused about their sexuality.

The best way to bring up a child is within a traditional marriage, the study by sociologist Patricia Morgan concludes.

The launch this week of her book, Children As Trophies?, which contains the claims, comes as the Government is poised to change adoption laws and allow unmarried couples to adopt if it is in the child's interest.

Morgan, a senior research fellow at the Institute for t...

I haven't done exhaustive searches about this online but these links popped up right away.

Basically, I don't think society will fall apart if gays are allowed to be married (unless we continue this extra-constitutional habit of creating laws via the courts). If society changes in such a way that people come to accept such a thing, then so be it. We're talking about a behavior between consenting adults � between (hopefully) consenting committed adults; adults who supposedly care enough for each other that they wish to enter into legal and binding agreement. I don't know how, if at all, this upsets Church doctrine or natural law. That's quite outside my domain. But if the will of the people in a democracy is to condone (or reject) such a thing via legislation then I just don't see a slippery slope � unless it is a slippery slope for the people to govern themselves.

I agree with that to the extent that no serious moral principles are being compromised. A hallmark of Catholic and conservative policy is that such are to be accountable to principles, and not simply the will of the people. At any rate, it may well be that homosexuals are more helped by a principled argument than by pointing to the will of the people; signs are that the latter do not want it and almost always vote it down when given an opportunity to register their voices.

While I don't think the slippery slope argument works well concerning the opening of a door to sanctioning all kinds of deviance, there is another angle to it--namely, the negative consequences which society could face. This page has some provocative info about that, as does this one, this one, and this one. Would granting more social acceptance and legal sanction to the gay lifestyle exacerbate these consequences? Would that be good for the republic? Do these negative conseqences imply some kind of deviation from moral principles?

And again, what about the children--especially those of gay parents? Problemmatic?

Do these negative conseqences imply some kind of deviation from moral principles?

Most of those consequences, as identified in the articles to which you linked, result from promiscuity and could be largely mitigated by a monogamous lifestyle, which the article seems to suggest is not usally practicable? Whoa! Many of the other problems identified in the articles very much seem to be intractably difficult.

The question you posed above can evoke any number of responses regarding the deontological, intrinsic evil of a moral act from the essentialistic angle versus the teleological, consequentialistic evil from the existential perspective. Most would agree that AIDS isn't a punishment sent from God, for example, so neither are other STDs. OTOH, engaging in high risk behaviors to oneself and others, including driving too fast, is a sin against the fifth commandment.

I would say that the negative consequences of the homosexual lifestyle do not contribute to a proper essentialistic analysis of the intrinsic evil of individual sexual acts, especially if one makes the proportionalist distinction between moral evil and premoral, nonmoral or ontic evils.

The negative consequences of different acts do contribute to any existential analysis that is based on a consequentialistic analysis, which is where proportionalism could come in to play. Such an analysis, however, could be at odds with Veritatis Splendor, which insists that there are absolute moral norms, which exclude some acts in any and all circumstances. The proportionalists would counter that, even per their theory, where proportionate goods are weighed, some acts are indeed virtually exceptionless when it comes to identifying moral evil.

So, I would say that the negative consequences identified in those articles do not inform us regarding the deviation from moral prinicples entailed in the sixth commandment, but could be invoked regarding the fifth commandment, in which case the deviant act itself would not be intrinsically evil but the morally relevant and specifying circumstance would instead be entailed in the high risk, reckless aspect of the behavior, which itself could perhaps be otherwise mitigated.

This is complicated and I fear I didn't explain my points very well, so feel free to reinterpret this and say in better terms what it is you thought I was trying to say, Phil.

I haven't done exhaustive searches about this online but these links popped up right away.

Interesting report, JB. Of course, the rights of gays to get married and for them to adopt children are, technically, two different issues. There are pretty strict standards right now on adoption and, political correctness aside, perhaps we could see shifts in current policies if it is proven that it's a bad ideas for gays to raise children. I'm not holding my breath for such a judgment anytime soon. Having said this, I find it interesting that some leftist "truths" are apparently not refutable by scientific evidence, and yet it's often only Christians who are criticized for a faith-based morality.

The negative consequences of different acts do contribute to any existential analysis that is based on a consequentialistic analysis, which is where proportionalism could come in to play. Such an analysis, however, could be at odds with Veritatis Splendor, which insists that there are absolute moral norms, which exclude some acts in any and all circumstances. The proportionalists would counter that, even per their theory, where proportionate goods are weighed, some acts are indeed virtually exceptionless when it comes to identifying moral evil.

JB, this is already an open/shut case with the Catholic hierarchy for the reasons you cited above, mostly V.S. and its ultimate reliance on objective moral criteria rooting in an essentialistic approach. I think the web site I referred to is speaking more to those inclined to view homosexuality and homosexual unions as something more or less equivalent to heterosexual practices, only between two members of the same sex. The approach, we would say, is consequentialistic, but that doesn't mean it's not valid. Consequentialistic/probablistic reasoning was largely responsible for the previous constitutional amendment prohibiting the sale of alcohol; same goes now for laws against possessing and selling many drugs. It's understood that compromises are being made to individual rights, but for the sake of the common good. IOW, legalizing drugs would probably lead to consequences that would be bad for the community. The web site is proposing something of the same for sanctioning homosexuality and homosexual unions.

My question about whether some deviation from moral principles is implied by social disorder is more rhetorical than not. It seems to me, however, that there is a connection, and perhaps the best way to get at that sometimes is through examining consequences . . . the assumption being, here, that living in harmony with moral principles brings about harmony and goodness.