Monday, May 27, 2013

An apology

        I've just removed an article that I wrote about the Boy Scouts situation because I really did not understand the case at all, and I'm sorry for what I wrote. Before I understand what's going on, I'll need to do some research. The case, it appears, is not at all what everyone claims that it is.

Saturday, May 25, 2013

The Essence of Marriage: Part 4

X: Hi, Socrates. It's been a while since I've seen you.

Socrates: And it's been a while since I have seen you. We really must chat more often.

X: Sorry, Socrates. I'm low on time.

Socrates: Low on time? Do you mean that we'll have to cut our conversation short instead of letting it wander down its natural course? 

X: Er, yes.

Socrates: That is very disappointing. But since you are short on time, let's get started, shall we?

X: OK. Here's my question. What harm does homosexuality do to people and to society?

Socrates: Well, let's start with the most obvious answer. Isn't homosexuality sterile by nature?

X: Yes.

Socrates: So if everyone were homosexual, what would happen?

X: Man would die off. It's as simple as that.

Socrates: Exactly. So wouldn't it appear that homosexuality is not at all the way for man to fulfill his nature, since he does not even replace himself by it?

X: I think so.

Socrates: All right. Now, what is the basic building block of society?

X: The individual.

Socrates: Is that so?

X: No, Socrates. I'm just trying to provoke you to ask more questions.

Socrates: An interesting tactic. I don't need to be asked to ask. Well then, where does the individual come from?

X: A pair of parents, obviously. A man and a woman.

Socrates: And what do a pair of parents and their children together constitute?

X: A family.

Socrates: So isn't the family--and not the individual--the basic building block of society?

X: Yes.

Socrates: Then wouldn't it appear that whatever is changed here and whatever is taught here will affect the entire structure of society?

X: Yes.

Socrates: So if, for example, all children are taught and shown that they must love each other no matter what, then society as a whole is likely to be much closer to the ideal?

X: Correct.

Socrates: Now, let us apply this new principle to a less agreeable topic. What happens when children are taught and shown that homosexuality is "OK"? Won't children probably come to assume that sex is all about pleasure, and not about love and family?

X: Yes.

Socrates: Why, then, will these children--when they become adults--feel inclined to put the effort into raising a family if they are not taught that sex brings responsibility along with it? Won't they be inclined instead to not have any children--or very few--and wouldn't they use people as objects for their own gratification?

X: Yes Socrates. Homosexuality, like contraception, separates pleasure from procreation, which the Church absolutely forbids. The separation of pleasure from procreation causes people to treat each other as objects; it causes people to see other people as means to their own pleasure. But this selfishness would not be exclusive to sex. It would permeate every aspect of life. Therefore, the promotion of homosexuality leads to injustice in society, since people would now only use each other.

Socrates: Very true. You've become quite a logician.

X: That's practically the only syllogism I can crank out right now. Thanks a lot for the talk, Socrates. It was very refreshing and enlightening.

Socrates: You are leaving? This is all too soon. A philosopher like me is short on people with whom  to converse. Thank you for your time, all the same.

X: You're welcome. Next time I hope that we will finally accomplish our object. We were supposed to define Marriage, remember?

Socrates: Yes, and we began to stray down many other paths instead. But why should you see that as a waste of time? All those questions you asked helped us to come closer to the truth, and that is never a waste of time.

X: Very true, Socrates.











Thursday, May 2, 2013

The Essence of Marriage: Part 3

X: Hello again, Socrates. I'm afraid that we'll be talking about some sticky subjects today. 

Socrates: Sticky subjects? Oh, don't worry about that. Most of the time, topics aren't what bother me--people are.

X: That's a relief to hear. Now for the topic. Socrates, once again I might sound dumb, but I know that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong, and I'm not entirely sure how to convince myself or others that it is so. What is wrong with it? Why must it be forbidden? What possible harm could it do?

Socrates: You've just asked a load of excellent questions. Now I'll ask some of my own. To begin with, what is the reproductive system for?

X: For producing new people, of course.

Socrates: (Sigh. How few people today know that.) Are married couples able to procreate children?

X: Yes.

Socrates: Does this give them both pleasure and responsibility? Are they responsible for caring for their children, and for feeding them and clothing them and educating them and giving them their time and love?

X: Yes to both questions.

Socrates: Do homosexuals inherit any of these responsibilities?

X: No. Their unions are sterile. They get enjoyment without responsibility. You know, this is all very well, Socrates, but I still don't have quite the strong argument that I'm hoping for.

Socrates: Don't worry; you're building lots of little ones right now. Let's move on. In nature, do we not observe that all animals follow the laws to which they are subjected?

X: They do.

Socrates: Does this not apply to their reproduction? There are no such things as "gay animals", are there?

X: No, of course not.

Socrates: Why, then, do men break the laws of nature, which even the beasts do not disobey?

X: Well, Socrates, men have the odd ability to disobey some laws at will, the moral and natural law.           You asked just a minute ago what the reproductive system is for. What is wrong with the way that homosexuals use their bodies?

Socrates: Well, first of all, we know that the primary purpose of the reproduction system is the procreation of children, correct?

X: Correct.

Socrates: The opposite sexes were created to complement each other for this purpose, were they not?

X: They were.

Socrates: And yet homosexuals do not use this system for its intended purpose?

X: No.

Socrates: What meaning can their "union" have then? Can we even call it a "union"?

X: Oh, I see that now. Neither male nor female homosexuals can call their activities "union" of the physical kind. In neither case do their bodies complement each other. They simply cannot unite at all. (Males would claim that they can, but of course this is not true. They only have union by unnatural means.) To say that they could unite is like saying that a key can be used to unlock a key or that a lock can be used to unlock a lock. Their acts are devoid of meaning. Why did I use the word "union" to describe these acts?

Socrates: You're not using it anymore; that's an improvement.

X: Sorry, Socrates. Gotta go.

Socrates: You're always so abrupt.