Same-Sex Debate Outline

Excerpt from the outline Fr. Bryce Sibley (A Saintly Salmagundi) used in his debate at University of Louisiana, Lafayette. You can read the whole thing here. (Hosted on VictorLams.com)

E. Again, returning to the topic – my primary argument is from nature

1. Even without faith, rational beings should be able to discern the problem with homosexuality

2. Begin with an example: Evaluation of bestiality or necrophilia as unnatural

a. Presumes something natural
b. That natural would be man and woman

i. Cases of incest pose a problem, but are still unnatural

c. Also, why do we get embarrassed when the dog humps the sofa in front of company? Or when it humps our leg?

i. Because we know it is not natural…

3. From looking at our bodies, we can see that man and woman were made for each other

a. The man’s body complements the woman’s, and the woman’s complements the man’s
b. They are able to give themselves to each other in their bodies
c. In fact the very desire for sexual union is a natural inclination
d. The bodies of two women or two men do not complement each other
e. This is the primary argument – it is natural and it is good

4. More technically, the sexual act must be ordered toward an “end/telos”—i.e., toward its intended natural purpose

a. Looking at the sexual act, we see that it has two ends - unitive and procreative (first seen by Aristotle)

i. It must flow from a unitive complementarity (as we have seen)
ii. And must have the natural potential to be open to life
iii. This procreative urge is built into nature, and should not be thwarted
iv. Produces the “good of the child” which furthers union

b. Homosexual sex can have neither, therefore it cannot be accepted

5. However, some will say “It exists in nature”

a. It is an aberration of nature, it is not “natural”
b. Then would we call filicide and cannibalism “natural” also?

6. This is the main argument against homosexuality, and thus homosexual marriage