By the way, no, I am not against same-sex marriage
All things considered, I think permitting SSM is probably for the best.
But I am not at all certain I am right about this. I have carefully contemplated Aquinas's reasoning on sexual morality for a number of years. I don't think he got this right, but I am certain his was a serious bit of moral reasoning, and not just "Gay sex: yuck!"
One bit of evidence here: per Aquinas's criteria, masturbation is clearly a worse sin than gay sex. Aquinas posits three goods that are the τελοσ of sex: pleasure, intimacy, and procreation. (Note: Aquinas considers pleasure a good that sex achieves!) Well, clearly, gay sex can achieve two of those ends, while masturbation can only achieve one. So if Aquinas is a "homophobe," then clearly he is even more so an "onanophobe." And loveless heterosexual intercourse done with the aid of contraceptives is also obviously worse on Aquinas's terms than intimate, loving gay sex.
Again, I suspect Aquinas's reasoning is flawed here (I will post why another time if you would like), but while I am pretty arrogant, I am not quite so arrogant as to be certain that I have out thought one of the most brilliant human beings who ever lived.
And thus, while I am not an opponent of SSM, I am an opponent of demonizing those who accept the reasoning of Aquinas, or something of the sort, as "evil homophobes" who deserve to be denied the right to even make a living for differing from me in my evaluation of this issue.
If some CEO declares "Gays should be stoned in the public square," that, I agree, calls for a boycott. But someone who merely says, "I think marriage should be regarded, as it has been for thousands of years in almost every human society, as something between men and women"? Well, no, isn't liberal tolerance actually supposed to mean something?
But I am not at all certain I am right about this. I have carefully contemplated Aquinas's reasoning on sexual morality for a number of years. I don't think he got this right, but I am certain his was a serious bit of moral reasoning, and not just "Gay sex: yuck!"
One bit of evidence here: per Aquinas's criteria, masturbation is clearly a worse sin than gay sex. Aquinas posits three goods that are the τελοσ of sex: pleasure, intimacy, and procreation. (Note: Aquinas considers pleasure a good that sex achieves!) Well, clearly, gay sex can achieve two of those ends, while masturbation can only achieve one. So if Aquinas is a "homophobe," then clearly he is even more so an "onanophobe." And loveless heterosexual intercourse done with the aid of contraceptives is also obviously worse on Aquinas's terms than intimate, loving gay sex.
Again, I suspect Aquinas's reasoning is flawed here (I will post why another time if you would like), but while I am pretty arrogant, I am not quite so arrogant as to be certain that I have out thought one of the most brilliant human beings who ever lived.
And thus, while I am not an opponent of SSM, I am an opponent of demonizing those who accept the reasoning of Aquinas, or something of the sort, as "evil homophobes" who deserve to be denied the right to even make a living for differing from me in my evaluation of this issue.
If some CEO declares "Gays should be stoned in the public square," that, I agree, calls for a boycott. But someone who merely says, "I think marriage should be regarded, as it has been for thousands of years in almost every human society, as something between men and women"? Well, no, isn't liberal tolerance actually supposed to mean something?
Comments
Post a Comment