La Bossiere Theory Of Homosexual Sex

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0. HOMOSEXUALITY AND AQUINAS’ NATURAL LAW THEORY: A CRITIQUE.

Since homosexual matters resurged in the early part of the 20th century after undergoing a low social profile, several aberrations have been accrued to it. There are views that those who engage in homosexual sex are people with mental challenges, and that, they are either bestial or social deviants who, by their sexual preference cum orientation, necessarily constitute a class of animals different from humanity. Homosexuality as a sexual style, many believe, violates the natural purpose of sex, which according to them, is aimed at propagating the specie and sustaining man in existence. To holders of the view that homosexual sex affronts the natural aim of sex, a sexual

We argue that, the position that homosexual sex is unnatural is highly inadequate in addressing an atheistic view which simply, may hold that, if one is not religious, one is not under any kind of moral obligation to abide by the sexual tradition purported to have been caused by God for the sake of sustaining the specie.

Literally, the unnatural argument are divided into three versions as Micheal LaBossiere claims; the literal version, the metaphorical version and the form version. In the literal version, the unnatural argument rests on three assumptions, the first is that there are natural ways things should be, the second is that one should act in accord with the natural way and the third is that unnatural things and actions are morally wrong. There is the assumption that if something is not done in nature or does not exist in nature then that thing is wrong.

The above cannot be understood if the definition of natural is not explained

Copulation with a thing of undue species such as bestiality.

3. Copulation with undue sex called the vice of sodomy, by not observing the natural manner of copulation

4. Either by undue means or as to monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.

In the era of Thomas Aquinas, only effeminacy which is having desires with a boy or teenager that has a feminine body but without copulation. The case of masturbation is not mentioned. Does this make masturbation natural? Or would one state that the scope of study of the Saint then did not cover masturbation? If masturbation is not mentioned and it does not involve copulation but is adduced as natural, what then makes homosexuality which is like a secondary masturbatory act unnatural?

If copulation with undue sex is unnatural and this includes, homosexuality which is copulation of a male to a male or a female to a female, what then do we say of those who copulate with males and females interchangeably?

Bestial and undue manners of copulation are also seen as unnatural, Augustine in his book on Anti-Pelagian writings states when he replied the argument of Julianus on the question: what is the natural use of a