tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post5464966677953880198..comments2023-10-30T08:00:43.585-05:00Comments on Shameless Popery: A Utilitarian Argument for Catholic Sexual EthicsJoe Heschmeyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-25007874605881821042010-07-20T14:46:07.249-05:002010-07-20T14:46:07.249-05:00Hey Steve,
I answer you here:
http://catholicdef...Hey Steve, <br /><br />I answer you here:<br />http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2010/07/utilitarian-argument-for-catholic.html<br /><br />Hope this helps!<br /><br />Joe.Joe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-52345614602594070662010-07-20T10:45:09.019-05:002010-07-20T10:45:09.019-05:00There are several ridiculous arguments here, but P...There are several ridiculous arguments here, but Policy consideration #4 is a real clinker: homosexual sex and non-intercourse "come with the costs of emotional bonding and enhanced risk of STD... [and] the benefits for the sexual partners are fleeting." Wrong. You point out yourself, "if person A and person B only ever sleep with one another for the duration of their lives, there's virtually no chance of either acquiring an STD." Regardless of whether persons A and B are both men, both women, or one of each. (In fact, even nonadulterous polygamy also carries no risk of STD: if virgin A marries virgins B and C, and none of the three ever commits adultery, there is no risk of STDs.) Nor are the sexual benefits any more fleeting for a married homosexual couple than for a married heterosexual couple (fertile or not).<br /><br />I suggest you justify yourself honesty. Catholic sexual ethics follows directly from the assumption that the church is infallible. It's a simple argument: it's right because the church teaches it and the church is infallible. The only reason to fabricate a non-religious justification for Catholic sexual morality (as you try to do) is to justify it without assuming an infallible church. But that's impossible. Catholic sexual morality is logically flawed without assuming an infallible church. So why bother (unless you don't believe in your heart that the church is infallible)?<br /><br />On one point I'm sincerely curious: you state that when "there is no possibility of children," the phenomenon of emotional bonding poses "a very real danger to those being bound to one another." What danger are you talking about? What danger is there for, say, a woman who has undergone a hysterectomy and a man who is infertile due to cancer treatment, if they become "emotionally bound" to one another.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14920869631724472667noreply@blogger.com