tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post6692902724524690361..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Aquinas on homosexualityStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-33769534716259444732016-06-11T00:30:05.986+00:002016-06-11T00:30:05.986+00:00Stephen,
I wish I had your kindness,
JoelStephen,<br />I wish I had your kindness,<br />JoelAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04145644924579970336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-39316449049939476762016-05-01T19:15:03.050+00:002016-05-01T19:15:03.050+00:00for me, it's really just love...i just want to...for me, it's really just love...i just want to love and be kind and be supportive of the person i'm attracted to...to the soul i'm happy and compatible with...if two strangers have it for each other, are they harming themselves? are they harming anyone? <br /><br />two people just want to take care of each other...what is the evil in this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-67810513333481238222016-03-09T05:51:09.181+00:002016-03-09T05:51:09.181+00:00Dear Dr Stephen Law,
I bought your book as this ar...Dear Dr Stephen Law,<br />I bought your book as this article was published on great philosophers and read the one on Aquinas and this article matches that chapter. Per your chance that some of RC stance on sexual ethics might be off or misrepresented in the article, I did read in Pope St John Paul II's encyclical (a great modern Thomist by the way) Veritatis Splendor, paragraph 47- ; and then paragraph 112 are an invite to go deeper or beyond the merely biological/ empirical sciences when it comes to morality and Church's view on the natural law. I recommend it.<br />Thank you for your kind attention,<br />Rene LAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-4761321427522790942015-11-13T09:06:55.617+00:002015-11-13T09:06:55.617+00:00Josephus - if the proofs are there in Aquinas, why...Josephus - if the proofs are there in Aquinas, why are only less than 15% of professional philosophers theists (let alone theists who think Aquinas's arguments succeed)? Are they blinded by sin?Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-66622376999360873372015-11-13T09:04:45.783+00:002015-11-13T09:04:45.783+00:00Thanks Patrick. What about ear plugs then?
Thanks Patrick. What about ear plugs then?<br />Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-80886845726597568192015-11-12T22:00:00.978+00:002015-11-12T22:00:00.978+00:00From a philosophical stand point there is necessit...From a philosophical stand point there is necessity and accident to be considered.<br />Necessity of function would be that which the limb, (leg for example)was created for. In this case to walk or otherwise motivate the body. Without that function the leg is useless. Accidents are those uses which the leg could function very well without. Take supporting a musical instrument, for example. A sin would constitute any deliberate impedance of the necessary function. To deliberately disable the leg would be a grave sin. The necessary function of semen is to reproduce the species. To deliberately impede that function is sin.Patrick B. Maxwellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-67617531823272587972013-07-15T12:45:21.659+00:002013-07-15T12:45:21.659+00:00Just a note that Aquinas does prove that God exist...Just a note that Aquinas does prove that God exists in the very beginning of his 'Summa Theologica' by giving 5 proofs. Also, the Catholic Church takes it as a doctrine of faith that God's existence can be proved by such proofs basing itself on Romans 1:20 (which speaks of people who rejected the evidence of God and thus were allowed to turn to others of the same sex for sexual gratification contrary to nature). Regarding foreskin, it's role is relatively insignificant compared to the role of semen.Josephushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18215902234205682301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-69259686288946393202013-07-15T12:45:12.454+00:002013-07-15T12:45:12.454+00:00Just a note that Aquinas does prove that God exist...Just a note that Aquinas does prove that God exists in the very beginning of his 'Summa Theologica' by giving 5 proofs. Also, the Catholic Church takes it as a doctrine of faith that God's existence can be proved by such proofs basing itself on Romans 1:20 (which speaks of people who rejected the evidence of God and thus were allowed to turn to others of the same sex for sexual gratification contrary to nature). Regarding foreskin, it's role is relatively insignificant compared to the role of semen.Josephushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18215902234205682301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-91895441418838828312012-12-05T18:35:18.470+00:002012-12-05T18:35:18.470+00:00What is the purpose of foreskin. Why is it removed...What is the purpose of foreskin. Why is it removed. Is this not a sin?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10110971523130867697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-24658898959460752452012-09-24T05:55:25.764+00:002012-09-24T05:55:25.764+00:00Imagine things are the other round. 99% of the wor...Imagine things are the other round. 99% of the world population is homosexual. Human kind will be extinct. Given this scenario, then wouldn't homosexuality be unatural because by reason, it will lead to the descrution or discontinuation of life. On the other hand, we are made to be hetrosexual...and as such have the ability to procreate and produce more humans that promotes the continuation of human kind. <br />What is your counter argument to this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-6818014880267988222009-10-14T03:20:39.042+00:002009-10-14T03:20:39.042+00:001. It is sinful to use a part of the body contrary...1. It is sinful to use a part of the body contrary to its intended function.<br /><br />2. Therefore, it is sinful to not use a part of the body for its intended function.<br /><br />3. Catholic priests are forbidden to use their reproductive organs for their natural function.<br /><br />4. Therefore, Catholic priests are sinful?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15394024402072845444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-7306997643859006512009-06-27T00:01:24.475+00:002009-06-27T00:01:24.475+00:00If we lack grounds to say god exists or god is rig...If we lack grounds to say god exists or god is right, why even bring god into it, if we lack the moral grounds to say anything is wrong, we also then lack the moral grounds to enforce laws against slavery, to which common sense dictates certain things are needed for social cohesion of which homosexuality is still un-necessary and unwanted. Which is more wrong, 90% of society to request 10% to conform. Or 10% of society to demand 90% be forced to comply, Talk'n bout dominate and subjugate, homosexuals are bought and sold by homosexuals for a pack of cigarettes while in prison for homosexual rape of a child, man/boy & woman/girl. <br /><br />Intellectualy inclined people understand that consciousness of the human condition dictates that rules must be established so people can live in a humaine society and that animalistic behavior is unacceptable and any compromise regardless of science or technology still undermines civilized behavior and that homosexual deviation includes dominative and subjugative behavior more so than heterosexuality, especially when 80% of that 10% homosexual population have criminal obsessive compulsive emotional disorders & that the 2% of clean-cut prudent homosexuals fail to admit too in open debate.<br /><br />Philosophy is not exclusive to only the moral minded, it can be used or should I say abused by individuals lets say like Hitler's nazi propagandists in such as saying common sense is just foolishness, by simply reversing the lies you can judge the self evident truth. If homosexuality were outlawed and criminalized, society would loose nothing, its self-evident. If homosexuality were legalized and enforced society would see more sex crimes become decriminalized and civilization would be put at risk, just because of 10% of the human populations sexually obsessive compulsive demands for the abnormal being accepted as normal, this too is self evident and again only corrupt persons would want this.<br /><br />It is to this question that you must ask yourself, consider that the argument against is correct, and assume the evidence is undeniable and make the same conclusion that the other side is either lieing about not understanding, refuting the truth for personal reasons or just is not able to comprehend the reality envolved. <br /><br />A decision must be made without compromise or the controversy will never be concluded because it concerns the human condition. Where is the weight of the issue, and how many will be adversly affected by the final analysis.<br /><br />The proper solution simply solves the most problems and causes the least problems, without having to continue a forced existence.Ed Nighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05968301845008190120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-73311595499875997512009-06-27T00:00:28.758+00:002009-06-27T00:00:28.758+00:00Aquinas justified the basic understanding of what ...Aquinas justified the basic understanding of what homosexual acts consisted is quite clear in the statement, that the different organs of the human body had a specific function. Therefore it is redundant to specify that the anus was not ment to be used as a vagina and so on. Also it was quite understood that disease was related to deviant sexual behavior including prostitution, it was also well known that incest was not a healthy practice, nor was sex with animals. The lack of these deviant behaviors mentioned by Aquinas were well documented by other philosophers and because the intellectuals of the time understood these things simultaniously while discussing the finer points of this Incontrovertible evidence, in that these deviant behaviors had no value or place in a civilized society. <br /><br />The idea that contraceptives are not the proper solution is because of the abuses involved with prostitution, rape, sex-slaves, child-rape, disease and crime connected to the sex industry and that polygamy causes inbreeding and incest, both major problems that are perpetuated and civilizations suffer along with humans. And again the intellectuals involved need not explain these effects because it is already understood as the purpose that these things be prevented in society and thats a fact.<br /><br />Walking on your hands is the most asanine arguement for the simple reason that evan as an infant we learn to walk from using our hands to crawl upon not to mention climbing a mountain rock face or even as far as suggesting the way primates use their hands in walking on all fours, it would be a better argument to say technologies in use today are not naturally occuring either, but we use it and abuse it also. Com'on use your common sense and quit making lame excuses for deviant behavior like animals do it, animals also kill and eat their young should that be accepted in human society just because cannibal pigmys do it. Mentally retarded and genetically diseased people should not procreate for common sense reasons also, and you still have sexually deviant acts committed against them, should this be allowed in a civilized society, NO! it should not.<br /><br />More asininity in claiming an occasional homosexual fling is harmless, its sheer absurdity by the logic that it only takes one time to contract an S.T.D. & in Aquinas' time there was no penicillan. The intellectuals knew that If you are dumb enough to risk your life, then evolution and common sense dictates survival of the fittest and that it is useless explaining a thing to someone who refuses to learn a thing, Therefore deviation from a natural thing equals the wrong way to do a thing and so an unnatural thing is wrong. If you can explain a wrong into a right, then someone can explain random homicide as right, when it is clearly a wrong simply by self evident truth. <br /><br />Simply because we have technology and that pacifistic propaganda surrounds the most deviant behavior of all, it is still not accepted as normal and just because it is politically incorrect to not be openly against homosexuality it is wrong to say it is accepted by more people because those people are afraid to say so. An unnatural act is- to standby while a crime is being committed when preventing it is possable, therefore it is wrong. It is easy to say religion is wrong because it is corrupt when It is correct to say corrupt people hide behind religion to gain their degenerate desires, & it is wrong to say otherwise and only a corrupt person would do so.Ed Nighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05968301845008190120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-78294485727821871562009-06-26T23:51:45.167+00:002009-06-26T23:51:45.167+00:00You butt surfers should listen to the excuses of m...You butt surfers should listen to the excuses of murderers and rapists, they have purposes too!Ed Nighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05968301845008190120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-36623402683826442932009-06-06T21:46:18.091+00:002009-06-06T21:46:18.091+00:00Prohibition of condemn use is a very small part of...Prohibition of condemn use is a very small part of Catholic teaching on sexuality, and I think it only makes sense in the context of the complete teaching. If all of humanity followed Catholic teaching on sexuality, which includes prohibition of sex outside of marriage and the permanence of marriage, there would be no AIDS epidemic.Greg Grahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11290074804358990591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-31604596700771679892007-10-27T20:08:00.000+00:002007-10-27T20:08:00.000+00:00Thanks to author.Thanks to author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-66259954599210047972007-10-26T19:19:00.000+00:002007-10-26T19:19:00.000+00:00Good job!Good job!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-16625224199776453662007-09-17T04:54:00.000+00:002007-09-17T04:54:00.000+00:00Car Finance Team agreed to Aristotle’s vision of t...<A HREF="http://financial-research-organization.blogspot.com/2007/05/auto-finance.html" REL="nofollow">Car Finance Team</A> agreed to Aristotle’s vision of the world<BR/>Clearly, some naturally things do have a function. Legs are for walking and running. Teeth are for biting and chewing. Hearts are for pumping blood. But what of clouds, pebbles and mountains? Are they, too, for something? of course...and so on<BR/><BR/>That is simple thinking, i am a simple person. So homosexuality is no way...it's very complicated to me...lol...<BR/><BR/>Good luck...that I like it...https://www.blogger.com/profile/10950569793348232314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-53384951530539849822007-09-06T09:11:00.000+00:002007-09-06T09:11:00.000+00:00HiHiEulenflughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14366125102920752332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-20732279386965994842007-08-29T02:00:00.000+00:002007-08-29T02:00:00.000+00:00I am not interested much in motives, but in what v...I am not interested much in motives, but in what views are held and whether they are correct.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-49438886083282040552007-07-27T17:54:00.000+00:002007-07-27T17:54:00.000+00:00Mike said... "I believe you have your reasoning ba...Mike said... <BR/>"I believe you have your reasoning backwards when you speak about Aquinas presupposing the existence of God ..." and "...it is the intrinsic purposes within natural things that points to the existence of a God directing them...".<BR/><BR/>Then later Anonymous said...<BR/>"And assuming there is a God and He is the creator and the Bible presents the accurate story of of what He did and His laws, then what Aquinas says is entirely consistent."<BR/><BR/>There we go, a theist presupposing the existence of God to support Aquinus. What a surprise!<BR/><BR/>Here's the general gist of the thist argument:<BR/><BR/>1 - Declare that god exists because something like Aquinus's "Fifth Way" proves it (or scripture or some other dubious source)<BR/>2 - Various philosophers/logicians demonstrate how flawed are the arguments therin.<BR/>3 - Drag up more similar poor arguments...<BR/>...<BR/>N - Still insist that God exists - How?...<BR/>N+1 - Hope everyone has forgotten point 2 and declare He exists because Aquinus in his "Fifth Way"...<BR/>QEDAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-19486938932969319592007-07-26T19:03:00.000+00:002007-07-26T19:03:00.000+00:00So what's your non-theistic justification for mora...<I>So what's your non-theistic justification for morally condemning the actively homosexual?</I><BR/><BR/>I think that for many people working in the tradition of natural law, God does not play a central explanatory role in setting up moral prohibitions against homosexual "activities". It has more to do with a correct account of human goods, as Finnis argues here: <BR/><BR/>Finnis, John (1994) “Law, Morality, and ‘Sexual Orientation’” <I>Notre Dame Law Review</I> 69, pp. 1049-1076Timmohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04095596090336782085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-54903181874447797152007-07-26T12:32:00.000+00:002007-07-26T12:32:00.000+00:00Hi onthesideoftheangels. Just dragged this into a ...Hi onthesideoftheangels. Just dragged this into a main posting. Hope you don't mind.<BR/><BR/>So what's your non-theistic justification for morally condemning the actively homosexual? I am intrigued to find out!Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-45232086719399002032007-07-26T12:11:00.000+00:002007-07-26T12:11:00.000+00:00You ask"why are you persisting in saying that the ...You ask<BR/><BR/>"why are you persisting in saying that the church says it's fine for hiv+ infected people to have sex with their spouses providing it's without a condom ?"<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying that. Where did I say it?<BR/><BR/>I was asking.<BR/><BR/>So your view is: if condoms could prevent infection, their use would be acceptable in marriage.<BR/><BR/>So now let's suppose condoms are 90% effective in preventing infection. That seems an underestimate, in fact. Here's one quote I found: (see http: //www.thebody.com/content/art17057.html)<BR/><BR/>"In a study of discordant couples in Europe, among 123 couples who reported consistent condom use, none of the uninfected partners became infected."<BR/><BR/>Seems condoms are pretty effective, when used properly, doesn't it?<BR/><BR/>In which case, were those having sex outside of marriage in Africa to use them, millions of cases of infection could be prevented.<BR/><BR/>That is current medical opinion, isn't it (at least among non-Catholic experts)?<BR/><BR/>Let's suppose that is the case, and let's also suppose what seems v likely, that very many Africans are going to continue to have sex outside of marriage, whatever you or the Pope happen to say.<BR/><BR/>Then why not say, "We'd prefer you not to have sex, but if you are going to, please use a condom"?Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-90448617283045759402007-07-26T11:49:00.000+00:002007-07-26T11:49:00.000+00:00You ask:"Primarily where did I accuse you of attac...You ask:<BR/><BR/>"Primarily where did I accuse you of attacking and vilifying?"<BR/><BR/>Well, you earlier said:<BR/><BR/>"Why do you have to see us as bastards?"<BR/><BR/>didn't you? So I understood you to be suggesting I was presenting Catholics as bastards. That I consider Catholics of less than good "intent" and homophobic was also somewhat implied by your later comments.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.com