Well Peter, common ground on homosexuality, being an aberration of the natural order, that in no way adds any conviction to the rest of the essay, which is simply regurgitating dogma created it would seem 50-100 years after the death of a prophet/teacher?

And not from evidential eyewitness accounts, but he said she said hearsay, or embellished invention?

Or in the case of te swiss authority you quote from, what if postulation?

You also deny the existence of a creator?

And given everything in the known universe is energy, simply transformed, you could be wrong?

Could it be you just can't accept a creator and the aberration of the natural order that is homosexuality?

I find it impossible to accept the big bang theory, given from nothing you get nothing, nor am I enamoured of the theory of evolution, given when compared to absolute chance resulting in a hugely complex and at times self aware organisms? Then on odds alone, there is more chance of a whirlwind whipping through a junkyard and from the chaos, creating a fully functional and flyable 747.

We are carbon based organisms, and just to produce a planet with all the necessary chemical components requires a number of perfectly timed steps, as stars are born then die, to create a periodic table.

And if life as we know it, emerged from primordial slime?

Where are the deposits of carboniferous coke the would be evidential?

We can create viruses (Pseudo life) in the laboratory. However, never by chance, but in a completely controlled environment and via planned essential steps, and always overseen by an organising intelligence!

I find it more convincing that we were created as a product of transformation of dark energy, than from nothing came the universe and then from pure serendipity, everything that followed.

And given we may well be something emanating from the transformation of dark matter or energy, can the universe think?

Well you and I can, and we are an integral part of the unified field of energy that is the universe and everything in it!
Rhrosty.

I'm not getting into the debate of whether homosexuality is natural,or not but I get really confused by the premise that people who are attracted to someone of the same sex should not be condemned to a life without sexual release but someone who is attracted to children, to a close relative, to animals etc must totally abstain from any sexual activity.
And no, I'm not promoting pedophilia, incest or beastiality, just struggling with the concept that one group of people with uncommon sexual desires has more rights that other groups.

well I suppose you have as much chance as praying the gay away as you have of praying the adultery or the paedophille away.

This article comes at an appropriate time with the ongoing testimony of Cardinal Pell this morning. Broader excuses by the Catholoc Church that priests were fallen or in sin tends to diminish their responsibility.

Earnest collections of priests in Ballarat obviously failed to pray, their own gay, away. The boys were preyed on.

News.com reports 50 minutes ago, March 1, 2016: http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/pell-warned-on-culpability/news-story/1908d1ed277114e4c6732f669bd50ea4

"Pell warned on culpability"

"Cardinal George Pell has faced an ominous warning from the head of the child abuse royal commission, being told he would be culpable if it was found he knew about the acts of a pedophile priest in Ballarat in the 1970s."

"It has now been established that a small proportion of men and women find themselves same sex attracted."

NB: A SMALL PROPORTION of men and women find themselves in this unenviable dilemma. They are not the trendoid freaks, poncing about in Mardi Gras who are the really disgusting creatures creating controversy and division

Pedophiles are not just attracted to boys, but little girls as well!

Little doubt that these folk are the real sickos in the community, or the, hiding in plain sight, pious priesthood, not the gays keeping themselves to themselves; and like almost everybody else and some self declared gay priests, indulging their sexual preferences with other consenting adults, behind closed doors.

Even so, extroverts inside the Gay community are apt to be in your face, as it were, during the gay parade, and after years of discrimination and gay bashing, just for being who and what they are, understandable!
Rhrosty.

strange how their has been many that have been made sexually whole and come out of homosexual lifestyles. One guy I recently met has had over 100 partners. Since being made whole he has been married and had a couple of kids. Oh well, his narrative does not fit the regressives dogmas. Simple biology just thrown out the window when it comes to this issue. Keep promoting, keep confusing, keep dumbing down is very common for the regressive narrative that is totally bigotted towards anyone with a different view.

Hi Peter,

I suppose the bigger the lie, and the more often you tell it, the more it is likely to be believed by simpletons.

So "fluidity of sexual orientation has now become scientifically established just as the heliocentric universe was in Galileo's time."

Says who ?

Just trying to deconstruct, to be critically analytical, to understand :)

Joe

Loudmouth what are you a flat Earther or something?

Peter as always you need to focus on the big questions in religion...how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin?

As for the Gay stuff, who cares what consenting adults do... we are moving ever more to a free society that tolerance diversity, and that a good thing.

Hi Cobber,

As a sort-of-Marxist atheist, I admire Galileo for his courage in the face of torture and all manner of threats from people who would cripple his freedom of belief, for his integrity to stand up for what he believed in, and for what turned out to be correct, perhaps refined a bit by Newton and Einstein, but still substantially correct.

There are no angels.

It is not a flat earth.

I support the right of homosexual men to have anal intercourse etc., but I don't have to like it. I don't HAVE to believe that it is normal behaviour, simply that it is legal. That's my opinion and I have a right to it. So up yours. Or do homosexuals have some proprietorial claim on that phrase ?

Unless, of course, 'freedom of belief' means that I MUST believe everything that you believe. Is that your position ?

My point is that Peter is begging the question: asserting precisely what needs to be demonstrated, proven.

Can you do that ?

Joe

Cobber the hound, "As for the Gay stuff, who cares what consenting adults do.."

So you are saying that the taxpayer shouldn't be worried about those 'bare-backing' Gays? Someone has to consider the consequences and costs to the stupid and to the community that has to pay for their treatment and medication.

The taxpayer shouldn't be stumping up for the public health campaign to get them to wear a condom if they really must indulge in their risky, CHOSEN, behaviour, you say?

No, that is where you'd very soon find that they should be provided with the very best treatment regardless of cost, with the impossible goal of restoring them to the complete health and wellbeing they themselves were so casual about and put others at risk as well.

The community is right to warn and be warned against sexual and any other practices that are known to be harmful and could result in permanent incapacity, even death.

In normalising risky sexual behaviour such as anal sex the media, Hollywood producers and others who should know better have magnified and finally realised the risk of HIV jumping across to the young fertile heterosexual population. The penalty of the risky sexual experimentation being encouraged in youths (and in schools in Victoria!) is highly likely to be severe and affect their future partner and children they may wish to produce

Thanks, Peter, for an interesting contribution to this topic. Natural law theory has indeed played an important role in the church’s thinking on this issue, and I agree with you that “the application of natural law theory to sexual ethics has been a disaster.”

It is possible, though, to construct an argument using “natural law” type reasoning that is less hostile to homosexual relationships. As you say, modern science now understands homosexuality as intrinsic to a person’s being, not an aberration or lifestyle choice. We can be pretty certain that homosexual attraction has existed in all human cultures and periods of history. We also know that homosexual activity occurs in the animal kingdom.

Homosexuality is part of the diversity of the created order. Christians have no business condemning people for being who God made them.

Rhian:

“As you say, modern science now understands homosexuality as intrinsic to a person’s being, not an aberration or lifestyle choice. We can be pretty certain that homosexual attraction has existed in all human cultures and periods of history. We also know that homosexual activity occurs in the animal kingdom.”

If the only thing that is required for a sexuality to be legitimate is an attraction then why are things like pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia etc not acknowledged as legitimate sexualities with all the rights that homosexual and heterosexuals enjoy?

Just because homosexual attraction has always existed does not tell us anything except that it has always existed. Leprosy has always existed too.

What conclusion can we logically conclude from the fact that it occurs in animals? What is the point of telling us that unless you are trying to say that because it exists it must be a good thing? Just because something exists it does not automatically mean that it is good. Is every behaviour good behaviour? If you are not trying to present an argument in favour of homosexuality then why are you telling us that it happens in the animal kingdom? All you are saying is that this behaviour is good simply because it exists and that is not an argument at all.

Rhian and Phanto,

" .... lifestyle choice. We can be pretty certain that homosexual attraction has existed in all human cultures and periods of history."

Even then, it may not be either/or: What "has existed in all human cultures and periods of history" can still be a "lifestyle choice." Not one or the other.

I wish people would make up their minds over what we are all supposed to believe, without question, and to avoid the disapproval of right-thinking people: is homosexuality 'natural', in-born, genetic, and therefore good ? Or is it just another lifestyle choice, and therefore good ? Or is it learnt behaviour, from the influence of teachers, the internet, bullies, etc., and therefore good ? Is anal intercourse natural, or a chosen behaviour, or learnt, and therefore good ?

It's such hard work trying to keep up with how one is supposed to think, and to agree with the in-crowd these days :(

Joe

Hi Phanto and Joe

I was merely pointing out that, even within the logic of natural law, it is possible to construct an argument that does not condemn homosexuality. “Natural law” holds basically that the “laws” and norms of nature reflect divine intent. Hence, some theologians argue that homosexuality violates God’s divine plan because the purpose of sexual activity is to procreate. Aquinas argued that masturbation is a greater sin than rape, because it denies the possibility of the sexual act leading to conception.

This is also the basis of the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to contraception. By this logic homosexual sex is a sin, but equally so is heterosexual sex using contraception.

I’m not as vehement as Peter in rejecting theologies that see God’s handiwork in nature, but I don’t accept the “natural law” argument regarding sexual morality. Like Peter, think it has done a lot of damage.

Meanwhile, away from philosophying about some dead astronomer 100s of years ago there is Today's News about GAYS of the Church in action and young boys.

"Cardinal George Pell admits the offences of Australia's worst pedophile priest were sad, but not of much interest to him."

https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/30976323/pell-back-in-rome-witness-box/

I forgot the OLO chatterati have no comments because it'll take days to sink in...

“God blessed them and said to them, `Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'”

This was supposed to be a blessing, not an order, certainly not a curse - and by now it is wholly fulfilled, all long done - enough is enough!

It is man who first wanted to procreate and dominate, then according to Genesis, God went along, accepted his desire and blessed him to have what he wished for.

The question was raised by Big Nana and Phanto: "why are things like pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia etc not acknowledged as legitimate sexualities", but perhaps the question should instead be, why heterosexual behaviour is still acknowledged as legitimate despite the fact that it floods this planet with excessive human bodies.

The reason paedophilia and bestiality are not accepted is the claim that they hurt children and animals. The reason that necrophilia is not accepted could be that historically one could have picked the germs from the corpse and caused a plague. Sexual attraction is always a legitimate private matter, but all forms of sexual behaviours, including heterosexuality, should be reviewed from time to time to check whether they still/now hurt others - which is the only legitimate reason to disqualify a behaviour, sexual or otherwise.

Plantagenet, you seem confused about the difference between 'gays' and paedophiles?
Paedophiles like to have illegal sex with children under 16, either one gender, or BOTH boys and girls.

Gay adults like to have legal sex with people of the same gender as themselves. It is illegal for ANYBODY, gay or not, to have sex with children under 16 of either sex...or they are quite simply paedophiles.
Gay people are no more likely to be paedophiles than heterosexuals are. We all know of the many convicted Paedophiles who were previously Christian, married heterosexuals who messed with both their own kids, and others. What will we call them?

If you had bothered to check out the stories of the people who were abused as children by the disgusting priests and brothers of the Catholic Church in the Eastern States that are under investigation at present, you would know that girls were abused by some clergy who also abused boys.

In your strange mind, that would label them as what.....a heterosexual paedophile?
Any paedophile is disgusting and will badly affect their prey both physically and mentally. Paedophile clergy are the lowest of the low in paedophile circles because they secure their kiddies from their 'flock', of whom they are supposed to be showing 'moral guidance' through their supposed religious activities.

Dear Suse,

"Paedophiles like to have illegal sex with children under 16"

Interesting hypothesis: if what you write is correct, then the best strategy for preventing paedophilia is to make it legal, then they will no longer enjoy it!

Do we have any statistics to back this statement up, on how many people become attracted to children simply because it is illegal?

However, the statement: "Gay adults like to have legal sex with people of the same gender as themselves", must be incorrect - otherwise, how come there were homosexual adults even before homosexuality became legal?

It is unclear from your post whether you believe that paedophiles are disgusting because they have sex with children or because they do something illegal. Similarly, would you also consider homosexual activity between adults as disgusting had it still been illegal?

Beauty and disgust are in the eyes of the beholder. As far as I am concerned, doing things that are illegal is beautiful - so long as no one is hurt.

Suseonline:

“Paedophile clergy are the lowest of the low in paedophile circles because they secure their kiddies from their 'flock', of whom they are supposed to be showing 'moral guidance' through their supposed religious activities.”

Kiddies would not be part of the flock if their parents did not introduce them to the flock. Kiddies do not turn up at church or at church schools of their own volition. The parents put them in harm’s way when there is no good reason for doing so. Adults do not need to be religious – it is their choice – and one of the consequences of such a choice is that kiddies become exposed to the possibility of being abused by clergy. If you put your kid into a dangerous place then you should take responsibility for what happens to them and not try and fob of the responsibility by blaming the Church. By all means blame the individuals for abusing children and blame some church officials for not acting when they knew about the abuse but you cannot blame them for your decision to become a member of that church and your decision to drag your kids along with you.

Nor can you blame individuals in the church for not showing ‘moral guidance’. It is not their responsibility to show moral guidance – no one has that responsibility unless you freely apportion that role to them. It means you have renounced your own responsibility to work out what is moral and handed it over to someone else. You can’t complain if they abuse the power which you have freely given them. They have no moral authority unless you give it to them. Just because they claim to have moral authority does not make it true until you agree with them. If someone says the moon is made of cheese and you have decided to agree with everything they say you cannot blame them when it turns out otherwise. You have to blame yourself for being so gullible.

Cont.

“Paedophile clergy are the lowest of the low...”

The lowest are parents who sexually abuse their own children. This is mostly fathers. Fathers have a responsibility to care for the basic needs of their own children. Kids cannot provide for themselves and so they are stuck at home until such time as they are able to do so. Fathers can take advantage of this and force their kids to do all manner of unspeakable things because of this power they have over them. It is way more power than any member of the clergy could ever have except maybe where they had control in orphanages and homes.

All parents have tremendous power over their kids because of the need to survive and this power is abused in many ways as well as sexually.

The lowest of the low is the mothers who stand by and do nothing when they discover the abuse of their own child. Most kids have two parents. If the father is abusing the child the child will instinctively turn to the mother to protect them from this abuse. If one adult is failing them then at least they have another to turn to but when their last recourse to safety and survival denies their claims of abuse they are faced with the most terrifying prospect of having to endure such behaviour until they are able to fend for themselves. One cannot imagine what that place is like for a child. They are condemned to years of the same terror and by the time they are ready to fend for themselves they are fit only for a mental institution.

Mothers know that their refusal to do something has condemned their own child to a life of misery. Mothers who prefer their own security of relationship with the fathers to alleviating the absolute terror of their own child – that is the lowest of the low.

Yuyutsu,

Big Nana wrote, " .... I'm not promoting pedophilia, incest or bestiality, just struggling with the concept that one group of people with uncommon sexual desires has more rights that other groups."

which you deliberately misquote as " .... "why are things like pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia etc not acknowledged as legitimate sexualities ?"

Her question is quite reasonable, but it's necessary, it seems, to point out that homosexuality is quite legal these days - although there is no legal compulsion on other people to like it and promote it, any more than there is for those other activities, if they believe they are equivalent. Heavy drinking is legal too, but some of us may find it distasteful, even objectionable.

To stress to the teenagers on this forum, legality does not mean full social approval, or any desire, let alone requirement, to promote behaviour that we might find distasteful. We don't have a totalitarian system just yet.

After all, some of us may be vegetarians but those people are social enough, usually, not to condemn people who are meat-eaters - who, in turn, don't condemn them for not liking meat, nor require them to eat it, let alone to promote it. Mind you, they don't know what they're missing :) Both vegetarianism AND meat-eating are legal in Australia, which doesn't mean we have to approve of or promote as 'normal' the behaviour which we don't choose.

Good heavens, I just implied that homosexual behaviour was a lifestyle choice. I deeply and insincerely apologise.

As for your statement, Yuyutsu, that " .... the best strategy for preventing paedophilia is to make it legal, then they will no longer enjoy it!" - is so idiotic that I'm stuck for words.

Joe

Two things I struggle with are repeated statements that homosexuality is natural and that gays are born that way and cannot change.
Taking the second point first, that is a very incorrect statement. Gays do change. They change from heterosexual and into heterosexual and there have been hundreds of documented cases where people spontaneously changed their orientation. Doing some reading on this, apparently the number going from gay to heterosexual is the largest group but it is rarely discussed because of a backlash of hatred from the gay lobby. Apparently ex gays don't exist!
The point about it being natural is also confusing. What does natural mean? That it has always existed? That the human body evolved to adapt to this?
Well for a start, the very efficient human body wasn't designed for sodomy, which requires artificial assistance to work properly, causes medical problems long term and is the greatest risk of infection, which is why AIDS was so prevalent in the gay community.
If it's natural because it has always been done, well beastiality, necrophilia, incest, pedophilia, sadism etc have also always existed but does that make them natural acts or deviations from normal?
Personally I feel it is a learned response to adverse social/family conditions or forgotten trauma, but that's just me.

Big Nana, why do you think homosexuality is now legal in most of the world, but the other sexual behaviours you mention are not? Could it be that gay sex between too consenting adults does not hurt anyone?
The other forms of sex you mention are illegal for obvious reasons to most intelligent adults I would have thought?

As for the good old 'oh it can't be natural' comments, well we all know anal sex is also used between heterosexual adults, so where do you stand on that? The adult male penis apparently is able to fit into the adult female or male rectum, so who says it isn't natural for some consenting adults?
All sexually transmitted diseases can also be caught by heterosexual people too, including AIDS.

Surely, what two adults get up to legally in their own sex lives is no one else's business?

Big Nana:

“Personally I feel it is a learned response to adverse social/family conditions or forgotten trauma, but that's just me.”

It’s not just you. Many people have problems with homosexual behaviour for a variety of very good reasons but the atmosphere is so toxic now that you dare not voice any opposition for fear of being declared ‘homophobic’ which is akin to ‘mass murderer’.

You would think that homosexual people would want to discuss homosexuality at least in an objective sense. You would think that they would be interested enough in their own sexuality to want to understand it but it seems their only desire is to silence any discussion. Heterosexuals do not feel the need to shut down discussion on heterosexuality because they are interested in their own make-up as human beings.

Homophobia is seen as a negative thing and just about the worst insult you can give anyone but why? People either have phobic feelings about homosexuality or they do not. How can someone’s feelings be either wrong or right? They just are. People have phobias about many things. Do we insult someone because of their fear of spiders? That fear may seem silly to you if you do not have the same phobia but it can be so real to them that they literally break out in a sweat.

Why would anyone be so afraid of someone else’s feelings about spiders to the point where they needed to denigrate that person? That is what happens when anyone expresses a fear or revulsion or even a dislike of homosexuality.

It's hip to inflict a dribbling bum, permanently damaged, on your female partner, apparently. She can expect discomfort and tears, anal fissures, as well. There is a big chance of that, because the rectum isn't designed for anything but elimination of soft stool. It is easy through poor diet even for a day to cause damage to that area.

That and compromise her health and limit her future offspring with nasty STIs.

Health authorities are rightly concerned about the number of young women who are being forced into anal sex by men who claim that anal sex is common, OK and safe. As has been promoted with very few challenges, all scoffed at on Q&A and other podiums provided by the ABC in particular and over many years.

Doesn't the ABC have much else to fill the time available?

At the very least the publicly-funded ABC should warn young women viewers of risks - not as a general statement but specific to them as young fertile women - where unsafe practices such as anal sex are being dismissed glibly by interviewees as OK and risks are being discounted.

Dear Joe,

My statement that "the best strategy for preventing paedophilia is to make it legal, then they will no longer enjoy it!" was conditional on the veracity of Suseonline's earlier statement that "Paedophiles like to have illegal sex with children under 16". I have no statistics as to what percentage of paedophiles do so because it is illegal, or at least that the fact that it is illegal is a contributing factor for their deeds. Do you have any such statistics? On the face of it, it seems believable that for some, the illegality of an act can in itself be a sexual thrill.

I agree with you that homosexual attraction can be changed if its owner so wants... if they want... it they want... but if they became gay about it, then they also have pride and social investment in their homosexuality, so they are less likely to want to change that. It's not that I care either way about people's sexual attractions, but I oppose making a social big deal about it, about ANY sexual tendencies - life is not about that!

Hi Suse,

I was intrigued by your assertion that " ....The adult male penis apparently is able to fit into the adult female or male rectum, so who says it isn't natural for some consenting adults? "

So if it fits, it's natural ? [You might suspect where this is going :]. Coke bottles, in the case of your Trot colleagues ? Or tomato paste bottles or olive jars, in other un-mentioned cases, and everywhere in between ? Without mention Muslims (because that would be culturally insensitive and all cultures are equal), perhaps goats, donkeys and chickens ?

So whatever can be done by one human to another, is natural, and therefore good ?

I know the general thrust of right and wrong, good and bad, with volition or without, can be hard to grasp (no pun intended), but surely you would not advocate 'whatever is natural' as a life-principle ?

Please forgive me but I just don't see it that way. Relations between people, being so crucial to social cohesion, and to mutual love, seem to me to be more nuanced than that. My dear old very refined English grandmother used to insist, quite gratuitously, that arseholes had one purpose only, and I've striven to abide by that advice.

Joe

'At the very least the publicly-funded ABC should warn young women viewers of risks'

the abc otb as you know is made up largely of lesbians and men practicing homosexuality. It very much appears that their main concern for kids is to indoctrinate them in this filth.

Loudmouth, what is it to you or me what 2 consenting adults legally do in the privacy of their own bedroom? These sorts of activities may not be to our liking, but obviously some people do weird things in the pursuit of pleasure!

As long as it is not a criminal act, then why is it anyone else's business?
If these adults want to use whatever they like to insert in their orifices, despite medical opinions that might question that activity, then how is it any different to idiots wanting to ride a motorcycle over several buses for example? Or any other dangerous activity?

Let them do as they please, and we will do as we please.

Hi Suse,

Yes, you're right - why should we care, as long as it's legal ? We don't have to like it, or throw ourselves on the battlements for it. Just as long as people don't shove it in our faces. It's legal to drink till you're blotto, but not many of us would advocate it.

And perhaps not for our kids through a "Fun Schools" Program, if one ever got up.

Joe

Hi Suse,

Intriguing. You rightly suggest,

"If these adults want to use whatever they like to insert in their orifices, despite medical opinions that might question that activity, then how is it any different to idiots wanting to ride a motorcycle over several buses for example? Or any other dangerous activity?"

I agree that people should be able to do whatever is legal, perhaps in the appropriate context, no matter how dangerous it may be, or how "idiotic" or distasteful or reprehensible we may consider it, the bottom line being that we don't have to like it or support it, merely the right of people to do dumb things.

As you suggest, nobody else should have to express their unconditional support for it: that is one of the differences between what is legal, what is our particular choice, or what we may find revolting.

Maybe I'm fairly common for blokes in that I have far more sympathy for lesbian relationships than for male homosexual relationships. My only slight regret is that almost all lesbians I've known (not many, consciously) have been very attractive and yet are thereby impervious to my charms. But on the other hand (and I don't know if this works with male homosexuals), some lesbians of my acquaintance have later married or been involved in heterosexual relationships quite happily. So while there's life, there's hope.

Perhaps male homosexuality is much more a matter of genetics, while lesbianism is much more a matter of choice, even a temporary arrangement ?

Cheers,

Joe

I must admit that I too find lesbians a much more interesting group than gay males Loudmouth. It is certainly far more difficult to suggest all lesbians are born with that sexual orientation when women are far more likely to happily have a foot in both camps!

I have to say though that the thought of lesbian sex to most heterosexual women is as abhorrent to them as gay sex is to most heterosexual men, so maybe bisexual females are more common than bisexual males?
It is all very interesting, but I am still sure that genetics are involved somewhere...

Hi Suse,

I have to say, from observing the behaviour of many blokes, that I can understand why some women may not want to enter into what might turn out to be an abusive, exploitative relationship for life. As you suggest, women may find solace and relatively equal and reciprocal treatment with other women.

So it could be that women are far more likely to be either semi-bisexual, or temporarily lesbian, than homosexual men are to change from homo- to heterosexual. I don't know, not ever having sny homosexual interests. Heterosexuality has been happily and bountifully adequate for me :) Mind you, I suspect that my late wife was tempted occasionally to abandon me for almost any other option available out of sheer frustration. Many times, probably.

Cheers,

Joe

Rhian writes; " “Natural law” holds basically that the “laws” and norms of nature reflect divine intent." This is the view of Thomas Aquinas. The element of "divine intent" is not a universally accepted tenet within Natural Law. As I see it, Natural Law derives from all we observe in the chemistry and physics of existence, how we describe and define the observed phenomena and draw inferences and conclusions therefrom.

Big Nana writes;"If it's natural because it has always been done, well beastiality, necrophilia, incest, pedophilia, sadism etc have also always existed but does that make them natural acts or deviations from normal?" If this is a "one-or-the-other" question then the activities you list are indeed all natural acts and deviations from the normal as well, though their always existing does not necessarily make them so. If you are offering an alternate description of "natural acts" in equating them with being "deviations from normal" then please be assured that "natural" and "normal" are not synonymous. Cont......

Cont......
Suseonline writes; "The adult male penis apparently is able to fit into the adult female or male rectum, so who says it isn't natural for some consenting adults?" Let me first thankyou for your timely admonishment of Plantagenet in the gay/pedophile issue. Your question about "natural" goes to the crux of the argument. Everything we are as a member of the Animal Kingdom [which is just one feature of all existence] is within nature and, to use a metaphor, is permitted by nature within its laws that derive from the chemistry and physics mentioned above at the beginning of this post. Everything in existence is a part of the whole. Humankind is a miniscule part of that whole and for this reason is incapable of anything un-natural.

We are still babes in a vast metaphorical sand-pit, projecting our curiosity beyond the little Ark we inhabit in a seemingly infinite Cosmos. So unprepared, naively trusting our intellects to eventually get it right before we set forth. We are constrained by nature's laws to explore, to be dissatisfied with our lot, to quench a persistant thirst for knowing, burdened with and driven by a force we call Life.

Humankind has embellished this rather glum scenario to make life more palatable. Our existence is now an heroic page in the Cosmos's history because we expect to write that history! I want with a vehement passion to be an observer a thousand years from now to see if we succeeded and to see if we have become just a little nobler for the experience.

Sellick writes; "The purpose of sexual acts is to produce children:" He presents this as a statement of "fact" from Humanae Vitae. It is not disputed that the production of offspring is accomplished by sexual engagement. But is it the sole purpose of sex? To illustrate, one may equally ask; "What is the purpose of playing golf?" and answering that the purpose for playing is solely to finish with the lowest score. There may well be other concurrent reasons or the score may be totally irrelevant. Like golf, sex is a pleasant way of exercise and more than just pleasant many would argue. It seems to me that in a modern society any way of minimising or extirpating the tedium of exercise is to be welcomed. Erecting taboo and superstition around sex seems to spring from an attitude of deprivation, that dreadful stricture imposed on catholic clergy. In a pervasive atmosphere of reducing numbers of trainees in catholic theology a powerful case could be made against celibacy in the piesthood. Let those who preach the catholic dogma on sex practise what they preach.

Sellick's own words; "Nature is morally neutral and chaotic; there is no plan to it." Nature is far from chaotic and/or random. And attributing a moral position to nature is pure partisan contrariness. As I am an a-theist, nature is a-moral. As I have no god/deity, nature has no morality. Nature has no plan that could be attributed to a divine agency for we can identify its components, measure and weigh them using the sciences of physics, chemistry and mathematics. Nature is particularly susceptible to human involvement in all of nature's aspects from the quantum to the cosmos.

Hi Pogi,

Looking back over my own family tree, thanks to that accursed and wonderful Ancestry.com, apart from a fair sprinkling of convicts and other footpads and layabouts, I noticed the occasional marriage after the birth of a child and the occasion al placing of babies in work-houses if the mother couldn't look after it, i.e. couldn't get married and share the costs of raising a child with a male partner, ideally the father of the child. ie. the alternatives for a pregnant single women were pretty stark: get the bloke to marry you or stick the baby in a work-house (yes, it happened to my grandmother).

So it struck me that, until recently, marriage, to the extent that it was necessary at all, was a sort of insurance for young women, i.e. of child-bearing age, that if they could persuade the putative father to marry them, they could be more assured of being looked after and their child being raised in their joint care - after all, with so few types of jobs available to women until recently, there weren't many options for women apart from being a full-time housewife - certainly not from my socio-economic class and that of my ancestors.

I suppose that would represent a minimalist position on marriage, rather than the super-maximalist 'all-in' position being advocated these cays.

Just throwing it out there :)

Cheers,

Joe