I consider the works of Aquinus to be quite rational, although perhaps that falls more into a practice than a belief?
As for an empiricial, scientific defense of religion, I agree with you. It’s not possible, nor perhaps should it be. We’re risking veering off into a huge monstrous topic, so… yeah.
If I thought under my own volition that Jesus was actually Satan, and what he really meant by The Golden Rule was to cause death and destruction to everyone on the planet, I think that constitutues unreasonable thinking. I guess reasonability would mean “sane-ness,” if I am pressed for a definition.
That’s not what I said at all. I merely said that I am trying but so-far cant prove the difference between the morality of postmenopausal sex and the immorality of homosexual sex, which is what this discussion is all about.
Here’s one of the roots of the problem: the Catholic position on sex is an extremely “unnatural” one. Of course one of the major functions of sex is procreative; but the major function of human sexuality is not procreative but unitive. If it were merely procreative, then it would be obvious when women were having their fertile periods (as it is in many other primates and other animals) and men would want to have sex with them only then. However, in humans the fertile period is disguised, and people want to have sex pretty much any time with no regard to when pregnancy is possible. Human sexuality rather obviously has a very substantial function in pair-bonding. Catholicism’s insistence that procreation is the most critical part of human sexuality is quite absurd from a biological point of view.
Well how about this topic: What right does Catholicism give you to prevent someone who knowingly decides to commit a sin? A case can be made that you’ve a right to prevent murder, since the person being murdered didn’t make the choice to become a victim. But in the case of homosexuality, you have to assume that both people have decided that going to hell is worth it to them (assuming they will.) Why is it not their choice to make?
Or even, what if they decided that they would both live a celibate marriage together?
People in favor of gay rights shouldn’t even engage in this straw-man debate, because it’s conceding the point that if somehow homosexuality was NOT ‘natural’, the state would have the right to pass laws discriminating against it. Don’t concede that argument.
All arguments about homosexual rights should be answered with, “None of your damned business.”, “Get out of my face”, “The state has no say in how I organize my family”, etc.
The issue should be framed purely as one of the individual’s right to his own life, including who he chooses to sleep with and form a partnership with, vs the state’s right to impose its ideas of morality on others. Period, full-stop.
Or let me ask this: If homosexuality could be ‘proven’ to be purely voluntary, and if it could be ‘cured’ through medication like a disease, or through therapy, would that make the state any more correct in punishing people who choose to live a homosexual lifestyle? NO.
Aquinas was certainly an intelligent, learned man, but at heart his arguments consist of assuming that God exists, than building on that premise to prove what has been assumed. Homosexuality has existed in the centuries since Aquinas and had existed for the untold millions of years before him, so any argument Aquinas may have made that homosexuality is unnatural is specious at best, though I invite you to supply relevant quotes as they may prove interesting.
In any event, it remains unclear that you have or can define “natural” in a way that excludes homosexuality but doesn’t also exclude any number of heterosexual acts. Even if you can, what purpose would such a definition serve? The perfectly valid concern (supported by observing the last ~150 years of human history) is that such a definition can be used to rationalize the persecution that many people already want to pursue because they dislike homosexuals; rather like pseudo-scientific racial theories used to justify the actions of people who were already bigots but wanted some veneer of logic on their side.
Anyway, I’ll read Anscombe’s essay and get back to you.
I see. I read that as “Jesuits do not value some out-of-bounds thoughts even if they are well reasoned” rather than “Jesuits value sound reasoning.” Thanks for indulging my hijack.
The Catholic theologian I know says that recreational sex between married people, so long as the possibility for procreation is kept in mind, can be taken as having primarily unitive purposes with the possibility of procreation, and is thus fine by the Church.
(She personally has expressed issues with her perception of inconsistency on the Catholic Church’s willing to bless infertile/post-menopausal unions (it’s still unitive) and unwillingness to deal with same-sex unions.)
There are many reasons why having a group of individuals who do not reproduce but aid in the reproduction of others could lead to the greater reproductive success of a society as a whole.
And, as Colibri noted, if the only purpose of sex was for procreation, then women wouldn’t have concealed ovulations and the male reproductive system would be slightly different.
I’ve never understood why people would put up with a religion that tries to micromanage their lives.
An NPR interviewee on the natural food craze - “Cyanide is natural, doesn’t mean I’d recommend eating it.”
Actually, what you said was
See, your original statement was about dividing sexual practices between “can make babies” and “can’t make babies,” and didn’t specify the quantity of penises in the bedroom at the time. If “can’t make babies” is deviant, then sex with a postmenopausal woman is exactly as deviant as homosexual sex, or sex with a pregnant woman.
Try again.
Geez, how many penises do you need? 
Seriously though, the dividing factor between any immorality of homosexual sex and of menopausal/pregant/??? sex, is the very thing that I already have claimed repeatedly that I find myself unable to satisfactorily prove, but that I am raising the beacon for help from any more experienced Catholics.
So, was that try satisfactory to you?
Dunno, how many ya got?
I was under the impression that you felt the perfect number was zero.
Barring, for a moment, that you have just ceded the debate as far as you’re knowledge is concerned; isn’t this, more or less, a rational reason to abandon those beliefs on the basis? Now, I can understand that you could take it on faith that it’s a sin, but this was not started as a debate of morality, but of the definition of the terms of “natural” as regards to homosexuality.
well then they’ll have to accept my fornication, because I certainly have the possibility of procreation in my mind! Mostly with regards to preventing it, which is also true of recreational sex in marriage. Now the obvious retort is “ok but you’re not married” but I see no inherent (physically, not culturally) reason I (or to keep this SORT OF on topic) or a homosexual shouldn’t participate in sexual intercourse, married or not.
Autolycus,
You’re argument seems to boil down to this: Sex is unnatural because the purpose of sex is procreative and unitive. Why? Because the Catholic Church says so.
Now, for someone like me, who doesn’t accept the Catholic Church as being the final arbiter about anything, let alone what the purpose of sex is, this argument is not persuasive at all. It might be persuasive to other Catholics, but then that’s sort of preaching to the choir, isn’t it?
I grew up Catholic and went to Catholic schools from junior high all the way through college.
The whole Natural Law theory is a plain old load of horseshit, created ad hoc to condemn sexual practices that someone or other found distasteful or perhaps too stimulating.
That said, not only has homosexuality existed since time immemorial but so also have sexual taboos. Don’t fuck that way, don’t fuck that person or this.
Human nature often contains such contradictions. The way to resolve this one is, as Sam Stone very intelligently explained, to tell people to fuck off. End of chat.
I agree that henceforth I shall cease using the term “natural,” in any debates involving homosexuality. Quite the misnomer apparently, but then when did the Catholic Church ever pick words for ease of use?