Tuesday, May 2, 2006

Creighton University Prof's Argue for Morality of Same Sex Acts

First of all, since when has it been termed the "New" Natural Law theory? Did I miss something? Secondly what is "genital-biological complementarity"(or do I even want to know)?

Of course, I also notice that the Christian aspect of Natural law isn't addressed here.

In the Heythrop Journal, here is an abstract:

The New Natural Law Theory (NNLT) argues against the morality (and
legality) of same sex-unions on the basis that homosexual (and non-reproductive
heterosexual) acts are unnatural, unreasonable, and therefore immoral. In this
paper, we explore and critique the foundational principles – biological and
personal complementarity, their subcategories, and the interrelationship between
them – that the NNLT uses to justify its claim. We propose alternative
principles – orientation, personal, and genital-biological complementarity, with
a distinct interrelationship – to argue that homosexual couples can engage in
sexual acts that are natural, reasonable, and therefore moral. Our study clearly
demonstrates that for the NNLT genital complementarity, a subcategory of
biological complementarity, is the sine qua non for personal complementarity. In
other words, personal complementarity within a sexual act is only possible if
there is genital complementarity between male and female. We believe that the
NNLT's foundational principles reflect too narrow an understanding of the human
person and human sexuality. Instead, we propose "holistic complementarity" as
the fully human integration of orientation, personal, and genital-biological
complementarity. What defines a natural, reasonable, and moral sexual act is not
genital complementarity as the foundational principle, but a dialectic between
these three principles of complementarity.