There has only been one substantial reply to my long post on Homosexuality and the Natural Law, this was by the man named Anthony.
Here is what he wrote:
"There are many things in this post that I do not agree with. I'm sure much of my disagreement comes from my lack of belief in a god of the type that is described in the post which is a difference I have with the great people referred to in the post. I'm sure I would disagree with many of them on many things.
The one clarification I wish to make is this: Matt, you seem to believe that same-sex relationships are entirely based on sexual relations. I will admit that many young homosexuals are a bit promiscuous and like to have sex. This is in great part because they hide their sexual preferences until they are older and then explore them while heterosexuals explore their sexuality earlier. Anyway, most committed same-sex couples are no different than opposite-sex couples. The actual sexual congress happens infrequently and is not central to the relationship. I spend most of my time in bed sleeping not having sex. You stated that I could choose not to give in to temptation and choose not to act on my homosexual desires. Well, I could. I could live my life celibate if I chose. I could kill myself if I chose. I could eat human flesh if I chose. I could even worship a god if I chose. I choose to participate in a loving partnership with a wonderful human being who, unlike me, has great conviction in his religious belief. I choose to be a good person who donates to charity and works to help those less fortunate than myself. I choose to lavish gifts upon my niece and love my mother, father, their parents. I choose not to judge people based on their beliefs and would wish that people not judge me on mine.
We disagree on many things and I don't think that any online conversation (or face-to-face conversation) will resolve our differences. You are obviously a well read individual and have great faith in your beliefs. I respect that. I disagree with many of your views but I hope that we can continue to participate in our courses respecting that we disagree and that our disagreement is not likely to be resolved."
Below is my reply, and I think it will be the last thing I say on the subject.
"I reiterate: I am not enjoying this conversation at all, and wish it were not happening. I bear no animosity toward you. I do not think the acts you commit make you any worse than me, or any one else. And as I said, I did not expect to convince anyone, but you said two things that I think are not true:
1. "Anyway, most committed same-sex couples are no different than opposite-sex couples. "
I take it that by that stamement you mean everyone, regardless of who they sleep with gets up in the morning, goes to work, takes out the trash, pays their taxes, etc. I agree that far. But on a deeper, cosmic level, what you said is not true.
When men and women form a marriage there is the sacrifice of self. By this I mean there is on the part of the male, who is an expression of Masculinity, an embrace of the Feminine, and on the part female, who is expression of Femininity, an embrace of the Masculine. Each must be willing to admit that they are not, in themselves, holistic pictures of Life. And in that admission, like a seal of approval, there is the hope of procreation.
This is not the case with homosexual unions. In them, the male is enthralled with Masculinity, unwilling to cede self to the Feminine. Likewise, the female is seeks self-reflection in another expression of the Feminine. Essentially, it is existence in a hall of mirrors. And that, as the tale of Narcissus, he who was enrobed in self-love teaches us, is the way of death.
So, to put it succinctly, homosexual couples are indeed, "different" from heterosexual couples. The latter affirm reality and life. The former negate reality and embrace death.
2. "I'm sure much of my disagreement comes from my lack of belief in a god."
I don't think so. The Natural Law is not the same as Divine Law. Thomas Jefferson was a deist. Plato was an atheist. The Dalai Lama is an atheist. Yet all of them see the Natural Law and all of them are in agreement that homosexual acts are fundamentally disordered. And they reach that conclusion, not by investigating Divine ordinances, but by observing the world (in the case of Plato, probably, experiencing homosexuality) and by applying reason to the observations. Lack of belief in a god is no excuse.
I am willing to stop this unhappy conversation and move on to other things. As far as I am concerned, everything has been said that should be said."
No comments:
Post a Comment