Parable of the Brown-Eyed Son

[Cerebrum123]

Not true--same-sex marriages have been noted as far back as ancient Rome and Ming dynasty China. Which makes not only your assertion false, but also the assertion that "Marriage has always been a covenant between one man and one woman" an outright lie.

You need to read more carefully. I said that marriage has always involved AT LEAST one man and one woman, not that it has always been a covenant between one man, and one woman. Also, AFAIK, even in Rome they did not refer to homosexuals who had a relationship as marriage, and they even still expected a homosexual to marry a woman, and have children. I could be wrong on that one, but that was my understanding of the issue.

[technomage]

You need to read more carefully. I said that marriage has always involved AT LEAST one man and one woman, not that it has always been a covenant between one man, and one woman.

I id not assert that you had said it. It has been said. It is false, and for far more reason than the historical incidents of gay marriage.

Also, AFAIK, even in Rome they did not refer to homosexuals who had a relationship as marriage

You are incorrect, but as Nero was the earliest recorded case, you might feel that this does not make for a good recommendation. However, there were other Romans who married same-sex partners--and yes, it was referred to as marriage.

and they even still expected a homosexual to marry a woman, and have children.

No modern parallel. With very few exceptions, we do not condemn couples who get married but have no children. (Those few exceptions are frequently from the segment of Christianity that says "sex is evil except to produce progeny," and such is viewed as an aberrant belief within mainstream Christianity.)

More to the point--we as a species legalized, endorsed, and benefited from slavery for millennia, yet today we no longer consider slavery to be a moral good (or even morally neutral). Morals change as culture changes, and not all traditions are morally good traditions.

[technomage]

You need to read more carefully. I said that marriage has always involved AT LEAST one man and one woman, not that it has always been a covenant between one man, and one woman.

I id not assert that you had said it. It has been said. It is false, and for far more reason than the historical incidents of gay marriage.

Also, AFAIK, even in Rome they did not refer to homosexuals who had a relationship as marriage

You are incorrect, but as Nero was the earliest recorded case, you might feel that this does not make for a good recommendation. However, there were other Romans who married same-sex partners--and yes, it was referred to as marriage.

and they even still expected a homosexual to marry a woman, and have children.

No modern parallel. With very few exceptions, we do not condemn couples who get married but have no children. (Those few exceptions are frequently from the segment of Christianity that says "sex is evil except to produce progeny," and such is viewed as an aberrant belief within mainstream Christianity.)

More to the point--we as a species legalized, endorsed, and benefited from slavery for millennia, yet today we no longer consider slavery to be a moral good (or even morally neutral). Morals change as culture changes, and not all traditions are morally good traditions.

[Jedidiah]

More to the point--we as a species legalized, endorsed, and benefited from slavery for millennia, yet today we no longer consider slavery to be a moral good (or even morally neutral). Morals change as culture changes, and not all traditions are morally good traditions.

So your logic says that because one thing our society has been wrong on, and corrected itself, we are wrong on the one thing you have strong emotions about? I admit that slavery was evil. Many Christians worked to end it, and to help escaped slaves because they recognized it was evil. I for one do not see denying what I see as special provisions as evil.

[technomage]

So your logic says that because one thing our society has been wrong on, and corrected itself, we are wrong on the one thing you have strong emotions about?

No, Jed. My only argument with that particular statement is that tradition is not always an accurate moral guide.

I for one do not see denying what I see as special provisions as evil.

I'm going to have to ask you to re-parse this sentence, friend--I can't follow the antecedents.

[Jedidiah]

Sorry about that. In my opinion what you are asking is for special provisions for homosexuals. I do not see denying this as evil.

[technomage]

special provisions for homosexuals

What's "special" about it? I n the laws already passed in those states that have passed them, homosexuals are allowed to marry under precisely the same conditions, and with precisely the same responsibilities, as heterosexuals.

[technomage]

But there is this--I already know that there are moral systems that do not rely directly on Biblical law that condemn homosexuality. I am quite well aware of this. We will not be able to agree that Aquinas' concept of natural law is a reasonable basis for morals that we can both agree on--nor could we come to such an agreement concerning beliefs based directly or indirectly on Wiccan precepts. You're going to have to go with something that we can both agree on.

Soyeong (or anyone else who wants to jump in),

I am truly interested in this question--is there any basis of morality, acceptable to all parties, that can be used to decide upon the morality of homosexuality?

[Soyeong]

Aquinas' natural law was not "reasons outside the Bible"--Aquinas, especially, was most careful to make certain that his conclusions on natural law, for he felt that post-fall man could not understand Eternal Law, so natural law had to be supplemented with revealed law.

Please forgive me for quoting Edward Feser in response, but it seemed appropriate:

From an Aristotelian point of view, the essences and final causes of things are knowable simply by studying the things themselves, without any appeal to the existence of intentions of a creator. (Indeed, thought Aristotle himself thought that the existence of a divine unmoved mover could be proved he did not, as Aquinas later would in his Fifth Way, try to argue that the final causes of things, specifically, required an explanation in theological terms. Aristotle's own arguments for God were variants of what Aquinas called the First Way.) But at least the core of the theory of natural law follows directly from these metaphysical notions. Hence it seems clear than at least a substantial part of morality can, on a Thomistic account, be known in principle without appealing to God. If we know that the will is naturally ordered to pursuing what the intellect perceives as good and know that what is in fact good is what realizes our natural ends, then we can know that if we are rational we ought to pursue those ends. Moreover, since those ends can themselves be known through reason, we can arrive at some knowledge of what it is specifically that the natural law requires of us even if we have no knowledge of God. To be sure, if Aquinas is right that God alone can be our ultimate end, then without knowledge of this fact, our understanding or morality will be deficient, to say the least. Still, we would nevertheless have some substantial understanding of it. And while if there is a God he will, of course, be the ultimate explanation of the natural law (since he will be the ultimate explanation of everything), lack of knowledge of God wouldn't prevent us from knowing something about natural law, any more than it would prevent us from discovering various scientific truths.

(There is also the fact that Aquinas' view of "natural" indicated the pre-fall state of Man, an element from Christian theology.)

"Natural" for Aquinas does not mean "statistically common," "in accordance with the laws of physics," "having a genetic basis," or any other of the readings that a mechanistic view of nature might suggest. It has instead to do with the final causes inherent in a thing by virtue of its essence, and which it possesses whether or not it ever realizes them or consciously wants to realize them.

Aquinas' natural law is nothing more than his views of Biblical law, rehashed.

If Aquinas doesn't cite the Bible and arrives at his views from the logical implications of what we can know, then I don't see how you can hold this view.

But there is this--I already know that there are moral systems that do not rely directly on Biblical law that condemn homosexuality. I am quite well aware of this. We will not be able to agree that Aquinas' concept of natural law is a reasonable basis for morals that we can both agree on--nor could we come to such an agreement concerning beliefs based directly or indirectly on Wiccan precepts. You're going to have to go with something that we can both agree on.

There's a logical basis for natural law, whereas as far as I know, we can't arrive at Wiccan precepts through logic. No one is forcing you to accept their logic if you don't want to, but that is not the same as to say that it's no common ground.

[technomage]

Please forgive me for quoting Edward Feser in response, but it seemed appropriate:

Not really. Despite his evasions, Aquinas still made certain his interpretations on "natural law" comported with Biblical standards. He could not do otherwise, any more than I could create a logical argument that was contrary to my worldview.

If Aquinas doesn't cite the Bible and arrives at his views from the logical implications of what we can know, then I don't see how you can hold this view.

Because to Aquinas, natural law was an explicit extrapolation from "eternal law."

There's a logical basis for natural law

To be sure, there is a logical basis--as in "a basis that can be logically extrapolated depending upon one's preconceptions."

whereas as far as I know, we can't arrive at Wiccan precepts through logic.

Are you actually familiar enough with Wiccan precepts to make that statement?

[Soyeong]

Not really. Despite his evasions, Aquinas still made certain his interpretations on "natural law" comported with Biblical standards. He could not do otherwise, any more than I could create a logical argument that was contrary to my worldview.

If you make a logical argument that is sound that is contrary to your worldview, then it behooves you to adjust your worldview accordingly.

Because to Aquinas, natural law was an explicit extrapolation from "eternal law."

It would be more accurate to say that natural law is the extrapolation from the manifestation of eternal law. It is not needed to be familiar with the Bible to do this.

Are you actually familiar enough with Wiccan precepts to make that statement?

I do not know much about Wiccan precepts other than a comparative religions class I took a number of years ago, which is why I qualified the statement with "as far as I know". If you can indeed arrive at Wiccan precepts with logically sound arguments, then I would be happily wrong and willing to look at your beliefs based off of them.

[technomage]

If you make a logical argument that is sound that is contrary to your worldview, then it behooves you to adjust your worldview accordingly.

You assume Aquinas started with a blank sheet. Hardly.

It would be more accurate to say that natural law is the extrapolation from the manifestation of eternal law. It is not needed to be familiar with the Bible to do this.

There is no need, certainly--but he was, and his work shows it. Had he started off with no familiarity to the Bible, he would have ended up with a radically different account. The problem with natural law theory is its sheer subjectivity, as can be seen by the radically different approaches different authors have taken on it in the past. Even between Christians, no two authors can agree on a good number of principles--when you include non-Christian authors, "natural law theory" becomes a smorgasbord from which you can pick and choose any solution you wish.

No, if we wish to discuss the moral status of homosexuality, we need a common basis for discussion, not one person dictating and one person listening (no matter which direction the dictation is going--it would not be proper for either f us to dictate terms to the other). Can you think of a common basis?

I do not know much about Wiccan precepts other than a comparative religions class I took a number of years ago, which is why I qualified the statement with "as far as I know". If you can indeed arrive at Wiccan precepts with logically sound arguments, then I would be happily wrong and willing to look at your beliefs based off of them.

They are (more accurate to say "they can be"--we have our screwballs and loose cannons, just as Christendom does), but so far we have had no Wiccan Aquinas. (I'm doing what I can, but it takes time.)

[Soyeong]

You assume Aquinas started with a blank sheet. Hardly.

Our worldviews should yield to logically sound arguments, which is true regardless of Aquinas.

There is no need, certainly--but he was, and his work shows it. Had he started off with no familiarity to the Bible, he would have ended up with a radically different account.

As I said earlier, Aquinas did think that natural law is deficient without knowledge that God alone can be our ultimate end, but a substantial part of morality can, on a Thomistic account, be known in principle without appealing to God.

The problem with natural law theory is its sheer subjectivity, as can be seen by the radically different approaches different authors have taken on it in the past. Even between Christians, no two authors can agree on a good number of principles--when you include non-Christian authors, "natural law theory" becomes a smorgasbord from which you can pick and choose any solution you wish.

To take just one example, when we consider the human beings have intellects and that the natural end or function of the intellect is to grasp the truth about things, it follows that it is good for us - to fulfills our nature - to pursue truth and avoid error. Consequently, a rational person apprised of the fats about human nature will see that this is what is a good for us and thus strive to attain truth and to avoid error.

Natural law is a complex subject and not every principle of morality is as simple and straight forward, which allows for disagreement, but its foundation is objective.

No, if we wish to discuss the moral status of homosexuality, we need a common basis for discussion, not one person dictating and one person listening (no matter which direction the dictation is going--it would not be proper for either f us to dictate terms to the other). Can you think of a common basis?

What to you think the essence of marriage is?

They are (more accurate to say "they can be"--we have our screwballs and loose cannons, just as Christendom does), but so far we have had no Wiccan Aquinas. (I'm doing what I can, but it takes time.)

Care to provide an example?

[technomage]

Our worldviews should yield to logically sound arguments, which is true regardless of Aquinas.

"Logically sound arguments" can be sound, but erroneous, if they are based on a false premise.

Notice, however, that I am NOT arguing that Aquinas' view of natural law is (because it is based in the assumptions of a Christian worldview) necessarily false. I happen to believe that it is, but that is a separate argument--one that I never intend to make in full form, here or elsewhere. I have no intent or desire to attempt to refute Christianity. Indeed, if I were an archaeologist, and found the bones of Jesus Christ, I would be hard pressed to publish my findings.

As I said earlier, Aquinas did think that natural law is deficient without knowledge that God alone can be our ultimate end, but a substantial part of morality can, on a Thomistic account, be known in principle without appealing to God.

Without overtly appealing to a Christian worldview. You ignore the underlying assumptions.

Natural law is a complex subject and not every principle of morality is as simple and straight forward, which allows for disagreement, but its foundation is objective.

No, Soy--that statement can only be considered true if the tenets of Christianity were assumed as objective truth.

What to you think the essence of marriage is?

In a word--Love. Procreation can be part of that love, and frequently is, but is not necessarily so.

Care to provide an example?

Not in this thread, nor in this sub-forum. If you have a moment, repeat the request in the "Wiccan-Pagan" subforum. It will not be a simple topic, I fear--I fully expect a thorough grilling, and I don't want to disrupt this thread.

[Soyeong]

"Logically sound arguments" can be sound, but erroneous, if they are based on a false premise.

A sound argument is one that is valid with true premises.

Without overtly appealing to a Christian worldview. You ignore the underlying assumptions.

The works of Aristotle were lost to the West and it was only during Aquinas' lifetime that they became available to him. Islam was taking the world by storm, and along with it came the translated works of many thinkers. Just as Aristotle was originally perceived as a threat to Islam, Aristotle was also originally perceived as a threat to Christianity. Aquinas was asked to write the [i]Summa Contra Gentiles[i] in response to all of these new ideas, so there is no doubt that Aquinas adjusted his worldview during this time, which is as it should be.

No, Soy--that statement can only be considered true if the tenets of Christianity were assumed as objective truth.

Again, the assumptions he makes when establishing the foundation for natural law have nothing to do with the tenets of Christianity.

In a word--Love. Procreation can be part of that love, and frequently is, but is not necessarily so.

If love was all that was necessary for marriage, then we would see a past of any two people in love getting married, which is not the case.

Not in this thread, nor in this sub-forum. If you have a moment, repeat the request in the "Wiccan-Pagan" subforum. It will not be a simple topic, I fear--I fully expect a thorough grilling, and I don't want to disrupt this thread.

Fair enough.