ThisTooShallPass
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 168
Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.
That's not what I'm saying, though. Perhaps I've been unclear. Let me attempt to explain.
Everything that exists in nature can be said to have a "form" or "essence" in which it is said to "participate" or "instantiate." This is distinct from "substance," which is simply what makes up an individual object. So my substance is flesh, bone, blood, organ tissue, etc., arranged in the form of a human male.
Note that the form (as an idea) exists independently of its manifestation in any particular object. A car seat, a bar stool, and an old wooden rocking chair are all forms of "chair." You may not be able to imagine what "chair" looks like as a form but you nevertheless are able to identify one when you see one.
(This is actually what is meant when Christians talk about the "soul": it is simply the form of the human person. Obviously, it cannot exist independent of substance: hence the importance of the teaching of the Resurrection).
It is also the case that everything in nature points toward some end. Generally this is determined by the most obvious function or feature of a thing. Chairs are for sitting (though you can obviously use them also for stacking up old books). Eyes are for seeing. Legs are for moving you around. And so on.
Natural law simply asserts that it is good for a thing to act in accordance with its end. Thus a "good" dog is one that most perfectly instantiates the essence of "dogness," which (for the most part) is loyalty and companionship, and occasionally security and protection, assistance in hunting, pulling weight, etc. Obviously this will depend on the breed and the purpose: guard dog breeds are bred for a different end than dogs bred for loyalty, for instance.
Now, "badness" does not consist in having some other feature than what its essence suggests (so that a loyal dog may also be highly intelligent, although this is unnecessary), but in positively contradicting its essence (so that a "bad" dog is one that is contrary to the end of loyalty and companionship: it would be disobedient, aggressive, timid, etc.).
The defining characteristic of the human person is his reason and will -- without these two things he would not be "man" as he is understood but simply be a relatively hairless ape. But man is not purely a creature of reason and will; he is also incorporated in flesh, and his body parts serve various ends, as well.
Specifically, his sexual configuration serves a very obvious end: procreation. It is for this reason that men have the genitals they do, and women the ones they do; it is specifically designed to promote pregnancy (even the shape of the male penis encourages pregnancy). So, too, is amorous love (which drives couples to regular sex). A pregnant woman, of course, is one in need of protection and caretaking, since her condition exposes her to a number of infirmities; the same is true of their child. This necessarily implies a degree of obligation on the part of the man, who, in order to fully realize the potential of his procreative faculty, is obliged to stick around and commit to the act of caring for his wife and raising his child. This is the simple, natural fact from which marriage arises.
Now, if it is good for a thing to act according to its end, and bad for it to act in a fashion contrary to its end, than obviously every sexual act must be ordered toward procreation. Note that this is an argument in principle, without regard to particular circumstances: it must be objectively capable of resulting in procreation, though it need not do so every time. The logical conclusion of this is that the sexual act is morally licit provided it is completed in a fashion that could result in pregnancy, even if the one of the partners is (chronically or temporarily) not fecund. By contrast, the sexual act is illicit when it is, in principle, incapable of resulting in procreation: when it concludes in a fashion that could not result in pregnancy; when steps are taken to deliberately subvert the procreative nature of the act; or when no other partner is present. Thus by definition homosexual acts are disordered: they are contrary to the order nature has ordained.
If homosexual acts are intrinsically incapable of procreation (and they are), then logically they form no basis for marriage.
Yes, this obviously means that a wide variety of things accepted today -- most sexual fetishism, homosexuality, masturbation, contraception, premarital sex (remember the sexual act is not merely ordered toward its completion but its fulfillment in the raising of children), etc. -- are morally illicit. But that a truth is inconvenient does not fail to make it a truth.
That's not what I'm saying, though. Perhaps I've been unclear. Let me attempt to explain.
Everything that exists in nature can be said to have a "form" or "essence" in which it is said to "participate" or "instantiate." This is distinct from "substance," which is simply what makes up an individual object. So my substance is flesh, bone, blood, organ tissue, etc., arranged in the form of a human male.
Note that the form (as an idea) exists independently of its manifestation in any particular object. A car seat, a bar stool, and an old wooden rocking chair are all forms of "chair." You may not be able to imagine what "chair" looks like as a form but you nevertheless are able to identify one when you see one.
(This is actually what is meant when Christians talk about the "soul": it is simply the form of the human person. Obviously, it cannot exist independent of substance: hence the importance of the teaching of the Resurrection).
It is also the case that everything in nature points toward some end. Generally this is determined by the most obvious function or feature of a thing. Chairs are for sitting (though you can obviously use them also for stacking up old books). Eyes are for seeing. Legs are for moving you around. And so on.
Natural law simply asserts that it is good for a thing to act in accordance with its end. Thus a "good" dog is one that most perfectly instantiates the essence of "dogness," which (for the most part) is loyalty and companionship, and occasionally security and protection, assistance in hunting, pulling weight, etc. Obviously this will depend on the breed and the purpose: guard dog breeds are bred for a different end than dogs bred for loyalty, for instance.
Now, "badness" does not consist in having some other feature than what its essence suggests (so that a loyal dog may also be highly intelligent, although this is unnecessary), but in positively contradicting its essence (so that a "bad" dog is one that is contrary to the end of loyalty and companionship: it would be disobedient, aggressive, timid, etc.).
The defining characteristic of the human person is his reason and will -- without these two things he would not be "man" as he is understood but simply be a relatively hairless ape. But man is not purely a creature of reason and will; he is also incorporated in flesh, and his body parts serve various ends, as well.
Specifically, his sexual configuration serves a very obvious end: procreation. It is for this reason that men have the genitals they do, and women the ones they do; it is specifically designed to promote pregnancy (even the shape of the male penis encourages pregnancy). So, too, is amorous love (which drives couples to regular sex). A pregnant woman, of course, is one in need of protection and caretaking, since her condition exposes her to a number of infirmities; the same is true of their child. This necessarily implies a degree of obligation on the part of the man, who, in order to fully realize the potential of his procreative faculty, is obliged to stick around and commit to the act of caring for his wife and raising his child. This is the simple, natural fact from which marriage arises.
Now, if it is good for a thing to act according to its end, and bad for it to act in a fashion contrary to its end, than obviously every sexual act must be ordered toward procreation. Note that this is an argument in principle, without regard to particular circumstances: it must be objectively capable of resulting in procreation, though it need not do so every time. The logical conclusion of this is that the sexual act is morally licit provided it is completed in a fashion that could result in pregnancy, even if the one of the partners is (chronically or temporarily) not fecund. By contrast, the sexual act is illicit when it is, in principle, incapable of resulting in procreation: when it concludes in a fashion that could not result in pregnancy; when steps are taken to deliberately subvert the procreative nature of the act; or when no other partner is present. Thus by definition homosexual acts are disordered: they are contrary to the order nature has ordained.
If homosexual acts are intrinsically incapable of procreation (and they are), then logically they form no basis for marriage.
Yes, this obviously means that a wide variety of things accepted today -- most sexual fetishism, homosexuality, masturbation, contraception, premarital sex (remember the sexual act is not merely ordered toward its completion but its fulfillment in the raising of children), etc. -- are morally illicit. But that a truth is inconvenient does not fail to make it a truth.
