Unfortunately, this twit believes this convoluted, perverted homosexual agenda crap. Nothing short of a frontal lobotomy, or a conversion to believe in God's word will mutate his hell-bent, cockeyed theories.
But the people said nothing."
Following this logic, is any conjugal act between a married, post-menopausal, heterosexual couple (where the female is definitely past child-bearing age) an act contrary to natural moral law, since no progeny will result?
He actually is stupid enough NOT to see the complementary design of the reproductive system. I wonder where he was in his Junior High Health Class?
The only thing his homosexual couplings will EVER produce are hemorrhoids and disease. (horror"oids")
Not true. The Church teaches that the Mosaic Law was abrogated by Christ's sacrifice. It is in baptism into Him that we participate in the New Covenant and are freed from the twin slaveries of sin and the Old Law.
The freedom obtained in baptism is intended to make room for a new guide or principle. That new guide is Jesus. And nowhere does His testament condemn homosexuality.
Again, not true. There are other New Testament condemnations of homosexual behavior, but St. Paul vigorously condemns homosexual behavior in 1 Corinthians 6:
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. (emphasis added)
(sounds like a Democrat convention, doesn't it?)
There is only one "natural moral law" that stands the test of time and runs as a seamless thread through all cultures.
There is a Natural Law that indeed stands the test of time, but it is curious that this person would cite it. The seamless thread through all cultures does not show any traces of homosexual marriage, for example. It simply does not (and did not) exist as a common or natural practice in any culture. Citing Natural Law does not, therefore, aid the author's case. Why start to do now what has never existed in any other culture, that, according to this person's argument, therefore contradicts natural moral law?
What the author might be straining to do is to support his argument with pagan references. In pagan cultures, particularly in Roman and Greek ancient cultures, homosexuality was not strenuously condemned. I have the impression from reading (Suetonius, for example), that permanent homosexuality was not considered truly normative. It was regarded as an acceptable aberration, as it were.
The norm in ancient times was to have children. When birthrates declined for whatever reasons nations tended to fall (like what is happening in Europe and here).
From Bill Bennett's The Broken Hearth:
Well, rejoin homosexual rights activists, if procreation is central to marriage, then for the sake of consistency we should not allow sterile or older couples to marry either. As debater's points go, this is exceptionally weak. One can believe that procreation is the primary purpose of marriage without insisting that only people who can and will have children be allowed to marry. Aristotle defined mature as "that which is, always or for the most part." A person may be born without a hand, but it remains natural that humans have two hands..Just so, heterosexual couples who remain childless do not violate the norm, or change the essence, of marriage. Two men who marry do.BTW, I highly recommend the book.
The inevitable moral equivalency argument. The critical factor overlooked here is that there is more than a logical dimension to this argument; there is a moral component as well. Putting it in logical terms, the union between the post-menopausal couple takes place between two people who once WERE capable of producing progeny, but no longer are since doing so would be inadvisable. Sex between two people of the same sex could NEVER produce progeny; it is not a function of age, but of biology. And the biology exists because people of the same sex were never intended to produce progeny. That inability is more than coincidental.
However, even if you remove the logical argument entirely, the fact remains that Judeo-Christian law condemns homosexuality. It should be rejected not because you can build a good argument against it, but simply because it's WRONG!
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. May God have mercy on your soul.
FMCDH
If I was living in sin I would want you to tell me, so I guess I should tell you that not just in levetics but in the NT same sex acts are called a sin..