The Purpose of Sex: Masturbation, Aquinas, & New Natural Law - John Corvino
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- John Corvino discusses the views of the 13th Century philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas and some of his intellectual heirs today-self-styled "new natural lawyers" like Robert George of Princeton-who provide the intellectual basis for much of contemporary social conservative thought.
Dr. John Corvino, also known as the "Gay Moralist," is a writer, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. He is the author of What's Wrong with Homosexuality? and the co-author (with Maggie Gallagher) of Debating Same-Sex Marriage, both from Oxford University Press.
Find the book here: amzn.com/019985....
Video by Chase Whiteside. Read more at JohnCorvino.com.
Dr. John Corvino, also known as the "Gay Moralist," is a writer, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. He is the author of What's Wrong with Homosexuality? and the co-author (with Maggie Gallagher) of Debating Same-Sex Marriage, both from Oxford University Press.
Find the book here: amzn.to/ZuIF2A.
Video by Chase Whiteside. Read more at JohnCorvino.com.
Claiming that sex should only be for procreation is like saying you should only eat for sustenance and enjoying it is immoral.
Bad analogy. Sex is for both unitive love/pleasure AND procreation; and likewise food is for both pleasure AND sustenance. A better analogy would be bulemia-- eating food for pleasure and then removing it's other natural purpose-- sustenance-- by vomiting it out.
Exactly. Its kind of a contradiction in itself considering you must enjoy sex to get a final result...ejaculation.
6:20 ish
John Corvino: "(...) the experience not just of gay couples, but of straight couples who engage in noncoital sex - which I'm told many do."
Strong Thurmond, standing up and slamming the table: "NO THEY DON'T"
Food for thought :
The Council of London in 1102 wanted to enact ecclesiastical legislation which declared - for the first time in English history - that homosexual behavior was a sin, and they recommended that offending laymen be imprisoned and clergymen be anathematized. But Anselm as Archbishop of Canterbury (now Saint Anselm) prohibited the publication of their decree, advising the Council that *homosexuality was widespread and few men were embarrassed by it or had even been aware it was a serious matter* (which voids the argument that homophobia is an instinctual response). Anselm's experience was during the last flowering of homosexual love before fanatical anti-gay prejudice swept across Europe in the twelfth century.
+spectaclereplication I think you will find that legislation (and Anselm's comments) reflect a desire to prevent scandal - such as the child sex abuse scandal of late - affecting public trust in the church. To my knowledge, your claim about its beling the first such law is not correct: English law codes drew heavily on the law in the Torah from the time of Offa, Alfred the Great etc., so it seems unlikely that that there was a great "flowering of homosexual love" in Britain before the High Middle Ages.
Philip Crouch
You are projecting your desire to conflate homosexuality with pedophilia with your absurd claims and you are also desiring to make it seem like Anselm's commentary was about preventing scandal.
Why do you have a problem with gay people?
We need that back
1. To infer that Aquinas (a priest not a monk) regarded 'masturbation [as] worse than rape' ignores that his comparison between unnatural and preternatural sexual acts was explained 'amongst the species of lust', meaning vices against chastity; but rape is still worse because it's also a sin against justice, which, unlike chastity, is a 'cardinal virtue'.
2. Finnis et al don't 'reject Aquinas' who himself said sex is sinful when acting 'against the good of marriage' & who spoke of the good of procreation AND 'fidem' (one-flesh union).
3. Digestion isn't always 'intended or possible' but bulimia is still sinful because it uses digestive organs contrary to digestion in much the way that non-coital sex uses reproductive organs contrary to reproduction. Such teleological reasoning that grounds morality in our OBJECTIVE nature is the only way to establish an OBJECTIVE ethical framework, as demonstrated by Corvino condoning all 'sexual acts you find mutually fulfilling' which can, of course, be used to condone incest, paedophilia, polygamy etc.
Sex, and the bits involved, can have more than one purpose. Look at bonobos for example, they are all bisexual. They use their "bits" and sex as a social tool to diffuse conflict.
True, sex would not exist without the necessity to procreate. But it can, and sometimes does, make good evolutionary sense to have particular species engage in homosexual sex.
+HitomiAyumu We are talking about human beings, as animals capable of understanding things like causality and purpose, who can act in a deliberate manner, whatever their instinct or inclination might suggest. Bonobos presumably can't understand these things, otherwise we'd be competing with them for Nobel Prizes and such, so what they do might well be instinctive yet irrational. The natural law tradition, applied to same sex attracted humans, would basically characterise sex acts between members of the same sex (or between children and adults, or humans and other species, or humans and inanimate objects etc. for that matter) as being in this way, if those acts are based on instinct. Can you think of a reason why bonobos behave as they do, or do you think it is just the result of instinct, not reason?
Philip Crouch I dont know what you mean by "natural law tradition". So I can not understand your question.
You have completely misunderstood his message. If you watch more of his videos each of these things will be explained however as you are unlikely to do so I'll correct you here. His message is "any mutually fulfilling acts between two consenting adults practised in a safe manner". This does not include most forms of incest as procreation resulting from incestuous relationships can cause a number of health/genetic issues. It does not include paedophilia as that is by definition not mutually fulfilling, non-consensual and not between adults. He has created a video addressing (briefly) why polygamy may not be a sustainable system as a legal form of marriage or the dominant social practice, so while he does not oppose casual polygamy he is not necessarily in support of it as more than that.
Coital sex completely neglects the primary pleasure centres of males (the prostate) and females (the clitoris) so non-coital sex is actually necessary to use those organs for their intended purpose (pleasure, pair bonding, stress reduction, hormone regulation, pain relief, etc). Also if health is a basic good we should not be denying ourselves orgasms as they have many positive effects on mental and physical health and help prevent some forms of cancer (particularly in men) and as many people, for various reasons, are unable to achieve orgasm through coital sex not engaging in other sexual activities is going against the basic good of health. I'd also like to point out that other forms of sexual activity are needed to avoid injuring the female during coitus, so again not engaging in non-coital sex is going against the basic good of health.
amen
False teacher here
Hi, false teacher.
My guy... marriage is designed to be between man and woman. Thats the design. We can talk about what has been legalized but that doesnt change the design. And i believe you have gravely misunderstood Aquinas. Please
@@RandPersonn every Christian is to be okay with lgbtq rights.
But to be 'okay' with two men or two women coming together in the marital embrace is really dangerous. It cries out to the heavens for vengeance.
@@RandPersonn male and female He made them. Look at the teachings of the church in it. I won't manage to explain everything.
I do however wish to stress that they are loved.
Well John I discovered by chance your channel and let me tell you , Is fun to watch you , plus really very well thought! I am glad you are helping to get into reazoning to many people who only repeat fraces or ideas without much of thinking about .... Very happy to know you my friend !! Kudos for your channel !! Te saluda Miguel .
"New Natural Lawyers" sounds like a fancy new way of saying homophobes.
They are afraid that people will ejaculate in non procreative ways?
This is one intelligent man. Bless him.
Nice try John. Of course you're going to support your own sexual preference, too bad you have to take things out of context to do it.
Perhaps if you could quote a document of the Church we could better help you. That being said, as wonderful a theologian as he was, the Angelic Doctor found his Achilles Heel in the Immaculate Conception. Every word of a theologian, no matter how grand his gifts may be, can be taken as the Gospel truth outside of the greater body of Catholic thought.
Now, to clarify Aquinas' position. Within the confines of sexual disorder, he placed masturbation as more disordered according to Natural Law due to the complete inability of conception in the act. It is less disordered to have sex with a female than masturbate as the primary reason for sex is procreation, the spiritual unitive acts being secondary. This can be hard to swallow, but the two acts are being compared specifically in one category: Lust, and NOT Justice.
When compared with respect to intent of the actors, as opposed to the physical acts themselves, masturbation as a habit would be less disordered than rape involving incest because of the injustice done to another person. Scholasticism is filled with nuances and must be examined carefully.
Aquinas made it clear rape is far worst. Read on John, however we know you'll report only that which supports your agenda.
The extreme confidence of adherents of a church with a positively massive rape and pedophilia problem to evangelize their own sexual ethic (and admonish those who don’t share it) never ceases to amaze me.
This is so incorrect it hurts
As always, John eviscerates muddy ideas with refreshing and incisive wit and logic... not to mention a few nice doses of humor! Keep it up, sir!
paolung as always? I heard logical fallacies, poor arguments and misrepresentations of counter-arguments.
Sex (done correctly, willingly, and freely) feels very very good! Not all sex produces babies; we are capable of much more than this with our hands, our mouths, and other body parts. Female/female and male/male sex is possible, as well as male/female which do not lead to fertilised ovum. Only one specific sex act leads to fertilisation and the growth of a new organism--everything else is pleasure.
+Esteban Guitierrez this is a very sensitive topic. You cannot take your own feelings about sex into consideration. When you take your own feelings out of context, you'll see that the ultimate purpose of sex is to have babies and ensure that your genes don't die after you die. It's survival, and that goes for all creatures on this earth. Sex being extremely fun and pleasurable is a defense mechanism of the body to ensure the survival of genes. It's easy to get the things mixed up, as you mostly feel pleasure when having sex, but come on we are smarter than that. With that being said, it is not wrong to use sex for pleasure, it just has to be with the person that you intend to have babies with. If you have sex with somene for 10 years and you never have any babies, your unconscious mind will start telling you that there is something wrong. One of the ways the unconscious mind communicates is through depression, look around and you'll see it in couples everywhere. That is the nature of the human body my friend.
Ahmad alwazzan
The ultimate purpose of ingesting fluids is to stay hydrated, as the body is some 70% fluid. Thank the gods there are billions of kinds of fluids (water, fruit juices, wines, sodas, milk, etc.) to serve this purpose, adding variety to a necessary biological process so that we need not see the body's various functions as purely utilitarian.
See how that works? Sex is the same way.
+Esteban Guitierrez what you just said made my point stronger. drinking all those fluids serve the purpose of staying hydrated. having sex with same sex can never serve the purpose of producing children. So as far as the body and soul unconscious brain are concerned, its a waste of time and energy.
Ahmad alwazzan Not for Me & all the other Gay folk out there it doesn't, look at the over population on Earth 'already, imagine if all Gay ppl that ever lived became str8 by some force & got married & had 3/4 kids on avarage, how many ppl would be over populating the Earth by now? Maybe wer'e here to slow humanity down somewhat from destroying the very host Planet U need to live on, mow suppose Natural selection through evolution made some of Mankind 'Into same sex & contributing just as much (if not more with much more money to spend in the high st) See how GayMen & Women are helping to slow the over population down so we' working paying our taxies fighting in the Military for the likes of U who would say that bullshit, Why shouldn't I have love of another as I have, though U think ime wrong, why? What have I or My Partner of 32 yrs done to U? Our love is stronger than a Mans love for for his Wife! We are all made in the image of God! Are U without 'Sin!
Welp, I guess it's time for me to get my furry costume out of the closet!
these arguments sound like highfalutin excuses made up to justify their discomfort with people who are doing nothing to hurt anyone.
God ordained the goodness and holiness of sex between adam and eve... but not between adam and steve... sure.... you've heard this a million times... yet, for another million times over and over again.... no one can change the divine will of God. sophism simply does not work by twisting and ranting contrary to revealed truth... which is an absolute....unchangeable... eternal.
And then Eve made Adam eat from the tree of knowledge.... probably making Adam realize he should never have trusted that woman, and go looking for the nearest biblical gay bar! 🤣
@@littlekiwi9724 😂🤣😇👌🏾
I like your video but you don't need to smack your lips so loudly at the start of a sentence
I never noticed the lip-smacking until you pointed it out. However, what I DID notice is the fact that he spoke fluently for seven minutes without cuts. No errs or umms either. Now that is damn difficult to do. Try it yourself sometime.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on Prof. Timothy Hisao's paper "a defense of the perverted faculty argument"
OMG, you're hilarious!! The post-credits scenes are on a Marvel level!
I sure hope everyone stays to the very end. Bravo, John!
the idea that masturbation is worse than rape according to Aquinas is a strawman and the result of taking Aquinas out of context
It's from a passage where Aquinas is talking about different kinds of sin. There are, for example, sexual sins; sins against justice; sins against charity; sins directly against God. Any sinful act can fall under one or more categories.
Aquinas' point is that, considering only the sexual element, an unnatural act is worse than a natural one, and that's why he says masturbation is a worse sexual sin than rape. However masturbation is essentially only a sexual act, and rape has other sinful elements - it is also a sin against justice and a sin against charity.
It's like we are grading sins on many scales. Masturbation scores worse than rape on the sex scale, but it doesn't score at all on the charity or justice scales. Rape on the other hand scores moderately on the sex scale, but very badly on the justice and charity scales.
Overall, rape is worse than masturbation. The church has never taught anything different.
Catholic teaching on sexuality stresses both the procreative and the unitive aspects of the sexual act, the two must go together. Regarding sterile couples, they're exceptions, not the rule, as you yourself put if further. And still, sterile couples are still male-female, their sterility is a defect of their procreative capacity, not a defect of their sexuality. While same-sex attraction is a defect of sexuality itself.
The difference between catholic sexual morality and the modern-liberal sexual "morality" (which Corvino has dedicated his work to defend it). Is that catholic sexual morality says that the purpose of the sexual act is procreation and the union of the spouses, this in the context of love, and more importantly on the context of God's creating love, sexual pleasure acts as a medium to reach to those purposes. Modern-liberal sexual "morality" stresses that the purpose of the sexual act is pleasure and pleasure only, therefore making all types of consensual sexual acts ok. I suggest watching Fr. Robert Barron's video "Sex, Love and God". After watching that video, ask yourself the question, which one has the reductionist view regarding to sexuality?
+Carlos Ramirez I can see it's difficult to break free from preferred paradigms. "same-sex attraction is a defect of sexuality itself." Nope. Same-sex couples who have sex can be as loving and selfless to each other as heterosexual couples. Singling out same sex couples' sexuality as inherently broken is incorrect because it fundamentally misunderstands who queer people are, how we are made, and who we are made for. Your argument presumes selfishness which in many cases is simply not true, and you know this because the 60 year old woman who gets married after a hysterectomy to a man and will never procreate is not selfish when they have sex. Focusing on a lack of procreative capacity but not morality in a heterosexual couple, and refusing to acknowledge the possibility of the same in a same-sex couple is where this argument crumbles. That's Corvino's point, and you completely missed it or refused to see it.
boicetar I have NO problem with same sex couples being loving and selfless. The problem IS when a same sex couple "has sex" and wants that to be called "marriage".
The nature and purpose of sexuality is the complementarity between man and woman, which results in the procreation of children, and that is a biological FACT. The completed sexual union of male and female is always ordered toward procreation, even if the couple does not actually conceive a child. Age or illness or a defect in the reproductive system may make individual unions infertile, but that doesn't change the nature of the act, which is ordered toward generation. Infertile couples are exceptions caused by outside factors, not the rule. On the other, a same-sex sexual act is sterile because the sexual act doesn't work in the first place (because that's not the way sexuality works), not by a defect on their reproductive systems.
"That's not the way sexuality works". No, the primary purpose of sex is to deepen the bond between the couple. Humans are only fertile for about 1/4 of their lives but tend to be sexual for 3/4 of their life, which is an overwhelming reality that cannot be ignored and shows that sex is geared to intimacy and bonding, not procreation. Procreation is a blessing that may occur in sex, but not always and not forever. Bonding can and should always happen during sex. Besides, restricting marriage because of procreation reduces a couple to the likes of breeding dogs or prized cows, and it turned their children into products of consumption. This is frankly creepy!
What's more is that this ideology ignores the innate nature of queer people. It's becoming well known that the overwhelming consensus of homo/bisexuals is that we are born gay. God has made us queer, and are often made for someone of the same sex. Because God has made humans good and we are born fundamentally good, you cannot say that what God has made (including homosexuality/bisexuality) is bad. This is the fundemental misunderstanding here, both in natural law and theology.
Sex is both geared to intimacy, bonding AND procreation. The nature and purpose of sexuality is the complementarity between man and woman, which results in the procreation of children, and that is a biological FACT. The completed sexual union of male and female is always ordered toward procreation, even if the couple does not actually conceive a child. Age or illness or a defect in the reproductive system may make individual unions infertile, but that doesn't change the nature of the act, which is ordered toward generation.
Marriage has an essence, a meaning. It has always been a certain kind of union of persons, specifically a conjugal union rooted in biology itself; it is complementary and heterosexual by its very nature. The particulars of marriage contracts have varied over time and cultures, but the essence of male/female has not. Brides have always presupposed grooms. The fact that marriage is a “universal” throughout human history indicates something huge, namely the recognition that this one particular type of personal relationship is unique among all others: It is naturally ordered toward procreation. That children result from the union of man and woman (now mother and father) is the foundational reason that human societies have had an interest in protecting, elevating, and/or providing benefits for this type of union. Without this sexual complementarity, and without the ability to consummate a marriage, there can be no marriage. With bodies of the same sex, the marital act cannot be completed and consummation is not possible. A bride implies a groom in the same way that a lock implies a key. Two locks make no sense together. Two keys make no sense together. The union of husband and wife, like the integration of lock and key, is a relationship different from any other.
Homosexuality is wounded sexuality, just like blindness is a wounded sense of sight. And there's nothing to be ashamed of in being wounded because EVERY human being on earth is wounded on one way or another in our human nature. God didn't make homosexuality, that's a result from our fallen human nature which is the consequence of sin.
"Rooted in biology itself Really? Like we're sea turtles who just lays a bunch of eggs in the sand relying on the numbers and statistics for the survival of the species. How obtuse! That is simply not how we were designed, nor is it even our very nature since not all humans are fertile. A theology that requires millions of people to be erased to make it work is useless. If procreation was the primary aspect of sex then why is it never mentioned in the main biblical teachings of human sexuality like Genesis 2, or Song of Songs? That silence is pretty telling, don't you think? No, your theology is geared toward reptiles. Nothing you've said is representative of humans made in God's image to be in communion with Him and each other. But don't worry, you're simply clueless. And being wounded intellectually, logically, and blinded by your own self-importance and ideology is okay since we are all sinners. I think it's okay for people to be ignorant, but it is never okay to use cluelessness to harm others. Feel better?
2nd reply: I didn't notice you added 2 comments before, and I just read this one. Corvino addresses your argument (which is the more traditional natural law view) partially here, as well as in his full-length video. You should respond to Corvino's claims. But clearly one source of the difference is the ambiguity of "purpose" as such: does it derive from essence, or from human intention? Finnis et al try to account for the latter while affirming the former. What do you think?
Love and thanks, John Corvino. Love AND thanks.
“I don’t care what anything was designed to do, I care about what it CAN do!”
Bit of a straw man argument there. Unconvinced.
Great stuff. You deserve more subscribers.
Being open to life has benefits.
Believe it or not, I once did believe something very similar to what you're saying, though I'm finding your articulation of that viewpoint not quite intelligible. Could you suggest a source that describes and argues for this viewpoint at greater length?
ultimately Aquinas and his abstract, arbitrary, sentimental moral system of natural law is really nothing more than pathetic Deontological reasoning; saying things are wrong simply because they are wrong, or because they break a rule, which really doesn't explain anything and just begs the question.
This is all likely just for the sake of trying to reconcile religious ideals with philosophy and reason.
*****
fair point
It's more than that. Aquinas believed that we desired to perfect ourselves, and that perfecting ourselves involves fully actualizing our potential. I'm still learning about this, but basically, it seems like Aquinas thinks having sex while actively trying to avoid having children is an attempt to avoid the perfect use of your natural functions. In other words, you are not perfecting yourself, but limiting yourself, which leads to you being unhappy.
***** There is a good video on this subject you might enjoy called _Edward Feser: Natural Law & Sexual Ethics._ I am personally just starting to look into this and I am undecided on this issue, but that's the best defense I've seen so far
0:52 - Why did your voice squeak when you said "Aquinas?" :)
For reasons that should be obvious.... that makes me smile.
This is brutally weak on so many levels.
If anyone wants a really good critique of Aquinas I recommend reading Aquinas himself. He always states his thesis then provides arguments which contradict his thesis, then he answers those arguments one by one.
Humorously, his objections to his own arguments are usually FAR more intellectually rigorous than the objections of his actual critics.
I'd also like to point out that if "health" is considered a basic good then not masturbating and/or engaging in non coital sex goes against that and is therefor bad. As orgasm and sexual stimulation provides many health benefits to a persons mental and physical health and even helps prevent some forms of cancer. And as many people, particularly women, can not achieve orgasm from coital sex for many reasons masturbation and other kinds of sexual contact are needed.
As a woman, thank you for this comment 🙏😍
I would take it a step further. The primary purpose of sex (among many people animals) is relationship building, not procreation. After all, it takes a hell of a lot of relationship building (most of the time, anyway) to get even one smidgeon of procreation.
John, I have a hard time believing the New Natural Law types really "literally" believe coital sex results in the man and woman becoming a single organism. Evidence?
Also, these guys are just one branch of natural law advocates. I'd be really curious to see your take on the arguments of those advocating a "theology of the body" -- JPII, Chris West, Michael Waldstein, etc. It's both more traditional and more radical than Finnis et al.
What about fornication?
John Corvino indeed i do agree with you...xo♥
Ps."Live Fearlesly...Fear Eats The Soul-El Miedo Corroè El Alma!"
Are you being sarcastic or do you really believe this?
You better believe he’s sincere, as are the rest of us!
Aside from some misunderstanding of the rape and masturbation thing. Excellent video John!
Aquinas does seem to make a big leap when he assigns good/moral value to procreation as opposed to leaving it a morally neutral act.
"And Aquinas actually says this: masturbation is worse than rape."
Alright, I call bullshit. Let's hear a source for this assertion. Something better than ST II-II.154.12
If this preacher ain't a closet home, nobody is
+James Campos John Corvino is not in the closet. He is an out gay man and so what?
I think the natural law argument makes sense in the sense that morality has to serve basic goods such as the continuity of life. This includes things like eating and drinking, which have the natural end of sustaining the life of the individual, and sex, which sustains life over more than the individual lifespan. Sex that is not both unitive and procreative doesn't serve this purpose, the unitive element being as important as the procreative in bonding parents together so that they can properly support and raise their children. In fact, this requires more than just the bonding element of sex, but the social rules around marriage, to properly sustain a society through time, by raising children into productive, and not destructive, members of society. At best, I think you can expect that people are uninterested in people that have non-procreative sex, provided they don't damage the public conception of sex and marriage that sustains society and its health continuously through time. Tolerance of the existence of those who don't support this good, not political support for changing norms and laws that support determinate hoods. If you look at the drastic failure of the sexual revolution: "anything between consenting adults", "marriage is just an expression of love" philosophy at doing something as basic as supporting an above replacement fertility rate in most of the countries that have adopted it, you can see that this philosophy is doing active harm to the good of the continuity of human society. If you don't support collective goods, at best you can expect toleration, not support.
1. Aquinas said that masturbation is worse than rape? Citation, please? This borders on slander.
2. The new natural lawyers aren't his successors. Traditional Thomists are, but you don't address them at all.
3. Adding to the second point, it's good that you didn't try to deal with the traditional Thomists, since you proved to us that you don't understand the perverted faculty argument.
Here's a video to start you off with for that argument: ruclips.net/video/rynlfggqAcU/видео.html
Here's a full article by the same speaker, just in case you prefer text to video: drive.google.com/file/d/0B4SjM0oabZazWC1SRmN0WXVpYkE/view?usp=sharing
Homosex rules.
Is there a secular, non-faith based, non-god-based, non-religious reason for calling masturbation "immoral" and pursuing and inflicting punishment on someone who does it?
This guy doesnt understand human sexuality at all. I thought he was a professor of philosophy?
Bro this vídeo gets Aquinas totally wrong
Definitely.
Yep
How so?
No it doesn't.
@7:06 that should provide us with more than a few nightmares.
Type "define organism" into google, and you'll see that your description of sexual reproduction does not attain the elements in that definition. Therefore it doesn't make sense to call the sexual union of two people an "organism." At best you're speaking metaphorically.
The two claims you make at the end don't follow from your argument, and seem to be obviously absurd. Would I be wrong to suspect you're trying to advocate the theology of the body, or at least its philosophical underpinnings?
I had a question, it seems that the BIble specifically values men over women. Anels are always women. Women always play a smaller role in any event. In general women seem to be second class citizens. This is in line with the Roman and Greek view that the only perfect relationship was between older and youngermen. Why are women relegated to second class if the father loves us all? Or should women just accept their status and not teach ectera? Any help is welcome.
+smedley Butler When God created humans the intent was for all humanity to be equal and live in harmony on the Earth, and that vision is still true today. In both creation stories of Genesis humans were created equal, and it wasn't until we disobeyed God that we had inequality. It's also important to point out that our inequality wasn't God's curse, but a natural consequence of our sins. In the Bible it is clear that men value men over women, but it was not God's intent. So, human sin should not be confused with God's value of us or his love. Hope that helps
I know how to do it. Or else I'm incredibly lucky. Or being duped for no good reason I can tell.
I don't think our discussion can really go any further; you seem unable to see the objective flaws in your arguments. You'd be doing yourself a big favor by familiarizing yourself with the work of philosophers who both agree and disagree with you, and critiquing your arguments in the light of that work.
I used to accept Catholic doctrine on sexuality. Now I think that tradition can and must change. A day will come when Christians will see this change doesn't contradict the witness of scripture.
I love you I love the last part with the ears you're awesome thank you Doctor you're the best.
That's actually a totally inaccurate reading of Aquinas, which comes to his work with an ideology in mind, and in no way attempts to understand the author.
This is because you quote a passage where Aquinas is talking about different kinds of sin. There are, for example, sexual sins; sins against justice; sins against charity; sins directly against God. Any sinful act can fall under one or more categories.
Aquinas' point is that, considering only the sexual element, an unnatural act is worse than a natural one, and that's why he says masturbation is a worse sexual sin than rape. However masturbation is
essentially only a sexual act, and rape has other sinful elements - it is also a sin against justice and a sin against charity.
It's like we are grading sins on many scales. Masturbation scores worse than rape on the sex scale, but it doesn't score at all on the charity or justice scales. Rape on the other hand scores moderately on
the sex scale, but very badly on the justice and charity scales. Overall, rape is worse than masturbation.
John G.
Masturbation doesn't hurt God, so no.
Thanks for the offer, but I'll pass. I'm not a relativist -- I believe in objective truth -- and I think Corvino's positions, i.e., his judgments about what he believes to be the truth, are in fact true. You've said nothing to give me even a hint that you have any greater access to truth than John Corvino. And if you're convinced you do, I think you're deceiving yourself. Ciao.
An objective flaw in your argument doesn't mean your position has been refuted; it just means that particular argument is not perfect. You may be right in your conclusions, but if you offer poor arguments in support of your position, it doesn't help anyone. I would rather read a good argument in support of a position I reject than a bad one.
I agree with Corvino's positions, and his arguments make sense to me.
I love your videos!!
Semi-off topic, but I like the way you talk. The way you pause between ideas. I don't like when you click your tongue when you start a sentence, though.
❤
Yes, I know it takes both male and female to reproduce. But the male and female are still two different organisms.
Sounds like he said "fuckin'" @6:15. Shallow point. :)
"According to St. Thomas, the natural law is "nothing else than the rational creature's participation in the eternal law" (I-II.94). The eternal law is God's wisdom, inasmuch as it is the directive norm of all movement and action. When God willed to give existence to creatures, He willed to ordain and direct them to an end. In the case of inanimate things, this Divine direction is provided for in the nature which God has given to each; in them determinism reigns. Like all the rest of creation, man is destined by God to an end, and receives from Him a direction towards this end. This ordination is of a character in harmony with his free intelligent nature. In virtue of his intelligence and free will, man is master of his conduct. Unlike the things of the mere material world he can vary his action, act, or abstain from action, as he pleases. Yet he is not a lawless being in an ordered universe. In the very constitution of his nature, he too has a law laid down for him, reflecting that ordination and direction of all things, which is the eternal law. The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct, is found in our nature itself. Those actions which conform with its tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are thereby constituted right and morally good; those at variance with our nature are wrong and immoral.
The norm, however, of conduct is not some particular element or aspect of our nature. The standard is our whole human nature with its manifold relationships, considered as a creature destined to a special end. Actions are wrong if, though subserving the satisfaction of some particular need or tendency, they are at the same time incompatible with that rational harmonious subordination of the lower to the higher which reason should maintain among our conflicting tendencies and desires (see GOOD). For example, to nourish our bodies is right; but to indulge our appetite for food to the detriment of our corporal or spiritual life is wrong. Self-preservation is right, but to refuse to expose our life when the well-being of society requires it, is wrong. It is wrong to drink to intoxication, for, besides being injurious to health, such indulgence deprives one of the use of reason, which is intended by God to be the guide and dictator of conduct. Theft is wrong, because it subverts the basis of social life; and man's nature requires for its proper development that he live in a state of society. There is, then, a double reason for calling this law of conduct natural: first, because it is set up concretely in our very nature itself, and second, because it is manifested to us by the purely natural medium of reason. In both respects it is distinguished from the Divine positive law, which contains precepts not arising from the nature of things as God has constituted them by the creative act, but from the arbitrary will of God. This law we learn not through the unaided operation of reason, but through the light of supernatural revelation."
No matter how you 'unpack' or defend your delusions the facts are the fact's and you cannot argue against the facts... in effect your 'liberal' society is dying; materially, spiritually and its being
+Vp P You're not talking facts. You're talking beliefs, to which you're entitled to as long as you're not trying to impose them on other.
Natural law is not a belief but rather fact based, such as in evolutionary biology and genetics.
Also, When people say that you believe what you will and I will believe in what i believe well that is a cop out. What kind of polity can survive with different forms of belief on morality?
Natural law is not a belief but rather fact based, such as in evolutionary biology and genetics.
Also, When people say that you believe what you will and I will believe in what i believe well that is a cop out. What kind of polity can survive with different forms of belief on morality?Jose Antonio Sanchez
What kind of polity can survive with different forms of belief on morality? All of them survive with diversity in beliefs on morality as long as there some agreement on basic goods.
"diversity in beliefs on morality" and then you write "some agreement on basic goods" that's a fallacy friend. Incidentally where are there these "diversity in beliefs on morality"?
Yes, of course. All this is obvious. Are you making a larger point that I don't see?
it has a dominative point don´t worry.
Loved this .Subscribed straight away !
Did... I just hear a reference to furries?
Oh hell yeah ^_^
Brilliant!
Spheretext
Spheretext
1:58
Humor man!xD
what is aquinas ? thanks for the answer.
A philosopher and theologian.
I'm a male. And a bottom. There has never been anything more fulfilling, more spiritual, more romantic, more validating, more sensual or more pleasing than when I'm made love to by a man.
I recall one special time that I joyfully remarked after sex with my man, "I literally felt like a woman." With woman parts. Although I can't prove it, if there was a way I want to almost guarantee you that what I felt was what women feel when having sex.. I wish there was a way to prove it..
anyway, my point is gay sex is, in my opinion, perfect.
and I have had sex with both men and women now and many more years with women, before I came out, and I've got to tell you, sex with a man is by far, by far- better! Better for me physically emotionally and spiritually..
so you'll never convince me that it's wrong.
Thank You.
I got the impression from your video that the catholic church allows sex for procreative purposes only. I was brought up catholic too, but I remember being taught that sex has both a procreative and a unitive function, ie to promote the loving union of both partners. Not that it alters the validity of your argument, but it just gives the wrong impression about catholicism's teachings.
Oh, the ending! LMFAO!
Real nice talk, John.
Smart, attractive, and vital.
In my opinion nothing could bind a marriage more than bring up a child. If you can't I will suggest you are a selfish person. People have recently been able to take this out of the equation successfully.
u look...clean.
So far I've learned from you that a new organism comes into being during coitus and mysteriously vanishes after ejaculation; that "sex" is not sex but marriage, but is also somehow male and female (perhaps I should conclude that male and female ARE marriage?); and that everything only ever has one purpose, but somehow also has other purposes. The mind reels.
A little logic would go a long way in your arguments.
this guy is just a genius