Abortion and Other Evils

Philosophy on Homosexuality

Disclaimer: I will have to write about sex to some extent (although not to a graphic degree). I felt uncomfortable writing it so if the reader easily gets uncomfortable about such topics, I do not recommend this post. I certainly would not recommend this for anyone younger than ten or maybe twelve. Also, if the reader is easily offended, do not read this. My own views on homosexuality are not exactly popular nowadays.

So we speak of homosexuality, a sensitive issue nowadays. By homosexuality I mean specifically sexual activity between two men or two women, rather than how it is sometimes used to mean the simple sexual attraction, over which people often have little or no control.

When discussing marriage and whether it is a necessary property of marriage to be between one man and one woman, it would first be right to define marriage. There is all this controversy as to which persons should marry which, yet rarely do persons bother to define terms. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary has this to say:

1 a: the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

b: the mutual relation of married persons

c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected. especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3: an intimate or close union

The definition of marriage as the mutual relation of two married persons is the classic definition of a word by itself. As for “the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage”—seriously? This is how they define marriage? Now definition 1a basically says that law must recognize what is or is not a marriage, which is not useful for discovering what is intrinsically moral or immoral, as the State often errs by passing laws contrary to the moral law (a prime example of this in our modern day would be the practice of slavery). If it means the moral law, what that is is exactly what we mean to determine. Definition 2 is more like it, “an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected.” But one can still question what constitutes such a rite or ceremony and so it helps us little. The final definition, “an intimate or close union” is most helpful to out purpose, as we are talking about a lasting marriage, not the act of matrimony. Still, I do not think it a good definition, as there are many things I could call an intimate or close union of which the term “marriage” is doubtful. After all, if I were to adopt a child (if I am legally allowed to do so at my age), it would not be a marriage. Yet it would be a close union and I would promise to love my child to the rest of my life. The best addition to this which I could add would be that marriage is an intimate or close union wherein sexual behavior is permissible.

So (as much as I hate to write about this as I am an erotophobic Christian teenager) the question we must ask is: when is sex permissible? To answer this, one must discover the core purpose of sex. Now some would call it intimacy. However, I have an intimate union with my family and friends. Surely, the fact that I love my family does not mean that I can have conjugal relations with them. If you do think I should have such relations with them, you are a creep because that would be incest. So with this said, I would say that the core reason which has led us to evolve sexual attractions is to procreate. This is why the most common attraction is heterosexual. It is natural. Indeed, without heterosexual relations, humanity would die out, but without homosexual relations, the species would survive. The natural way for humanity to continue is through heterosexual relations. Nowadays, of course, it is possible to make babies artificially, but this can hardly be said to be derived from nature, since without advanced technology it would be impossible. To put it another way, I have various systems in my body, all of which are complete without another person except one, that being the reproductive system. Homosexual relations have no biological purpose other than sexual pleasure. But the purpose for which humanity was given sexual pleasure was for procreation.

So with this in mind I would say that marriage is an intimate union the prime object of which is to maintain and multiply human life. As noted earlier, I needed to add to the definition that this is a union in which sex is permissible, because not all love-relationships involve sex. People frequently say when defending homosexuality “Let them love each other. Love is love, is it not?”—although not in these words. But I love my parents, yet I cannot have relations with them, since such a practice would be incest. I would also not have relations with my best friend, although I would love him (if I had one) deeply. I will probably be accused of being a right-wing homophobe for writing this, but before you angrily comment saying so, please try to be respectful of other people’s views.

Bonum Certamen Certemus

I am the Catholic of Honor

On Non-Christians

What Makes Us Greater Than the Animals?

Most people would immediately say intelligence, but think about it. Pigs, elephants, and dolphins are extremely intelligent. Research suggests that in some ways chimps are our intellectual equals or even superiors.1 Besides, if intelligence really does give us worth, would that not make smarter people more people than those who are less intelligent? In that case, are not intellectually challenged individuals non-persons? Or if there is a line somewhere between personhood and non-personhood, what right have we, humans, to place that line?

So what makes us people then? Culture? Even bees and ants have a culture of a sort, and in that case, were our ancestors who were hunter-gatherers not people as yet they had none? Yes, we can do things that animals cannot. We can speak in long and dull phrases that are supposed to be thought eloquent. We can sing of elves, dwarves, and gods. We can fly airplanes and we invented the internet. We have developed the skill of reading and writing. But what could possibly give us personhood from that? I could not develop all these things on my own. How can the ability to make the most complicated tech of all the animals make us more special? I heard someone say that we are people because unlike bees we can function by ourselves and unlike chimps we can function in large civilizations. But what gives us personhood on account of that? How is it that because we can function in more scenarios than most animals that we have more personhood and worth? Even we cannot function entirely secluded for long stretches of time or we would go insane. We, humans, can have others too close together as well. We need our private space. What of empathy? There is some evidence that other animals such as pigs, can empathize.2 In that case, do psychopaths count as people? Emotion? Animals have emotion of their own sort although perhaps less complicated. How can somewhat more complicated emotion give us personhood? Some humans are better with both emotion and empathy than others, and there is much we do not even yet know about how various animals think and feel. Besides, if all these things sprouted as a product of evolution, why do they give us personhood and therefore dignity? And if we are really descended from animals as the current scientific theory holds, why should we declare that we have greater personhood than our ancestors? In that case, should not humans of races who are thought to be more evolved have greater personhood? Is that not how Hitler justified the Holocaust, calling himself ethnically superior to Jews? How on earth can Nature generate personhood? Yes, perhaps we are more complicated, but why should that make us more people? In that case, a chainsaw is more a person than a rock and a computer is more a person than a chainsaw which is ridiculous. Yes, there are many traits that separate us from animals, but why should they make us better than animals? Most of these traits seem to me devised by researchers pointing out that various attributes about us cannot be found in animals. Therefore, that must be the trait that gives us personhood. But then, various attributes of any given species can also not be found in other animals, and there is much we still do not know about the minds of various animals. Think for a moment. Do you really think these human researchers are non-biased? Do you really think that they do not go with the assumption that we are greater and then seek to prove it? And why on earth should any evolutionary difference give us worth?

So you might, if you have followed my line of reasoning, be wondering at this point whether we ought to treat animals, at least the more intelligent ones such as chimps, dolphins, and pigs, as persons. What might not have occurred to you is the question as to how persons actually ought to be treated. Why is it actually wrong to walk down the street and shoot someone? The average reader would argue that it hurts people. But what is wrong with hurting people? What gives people dignity enough that it would be wrong to do them injury? Yes, society would crumble, but why is that a bad thing? If human society were to crumble, that might do good to nature and bring an end to global warming and pollution. Think about it. Are we not all made of six basic elements: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur and phosphorus? What really makes us greater than these elements? It cannot be that we are more complicated as I have already explained. What really makes us better than naturally formed robots? Free will has never been discovered in the brain. If we act entirely on instinct, what gives us the right to correct those who do something wrong to another if they are acting only as they were programmed by evolution? Can a robot do what is wrong? It acts entirely on its programming. What makes us any different?

You are probably waiting at this point for my brilliant answers to all these questions which I have put forth. I actually know of none that can be thought of in the natural world. Nevertheless, I am not a nihilist. I cannot, as I have said, think of any answers in the natural world. I can think of the Answer, but it is not natural but metaphysical, that being God.

That is how you have dignity. God made you in His own image. He endowed you with a spiritual and immortal soul. We are the only earthly creature God made for our own sake. You know that some things are wrong because God wrote His Law on your heart.2 God makes us greater than the animals. God gives us free will. God gives each one of us the graces to become true Catholics of Honor. You may agree with none of what I have written hear, but before you bash me with angry comments, ask yourself one question: can you think of a better answer?

Bonum Certamen Certemus

I am the Catholic of Honor


1 Accessed June 13, 2020

2 Accessed June 13, 2020

3Catechism of the Catholic Church ¶1700, 1703, 1860