Homosexuality is no worse a sin than extra-marital sex. Discuss.
Both homosexuality and extra-marital sex are condemned as sins by the Catholic
Church for infringing upon the sanctity of marriage and defying the law of God. One
could argue that, historically, Christianity appears to be more critical of homosexuality
than extra-marital affairs. However, in a modern secular society, one can see a disap-
proval for non-exclusive marriage that typically outweighs any condemnation of homo-
sexual relations. Equally, there are Christian and non-christian ethical theories that
posit a similar view that homosexuality is acceptable and extra-marital sex remains
immoral. The question of which sexual act is more sinful, therefore, is highly divisive.
A strong argument against the statement is that homosexuality is far worse a sin than
extra-marital sex, as it contradicts the nature of humans and the procreative demand
of sexual relations. In Natural Law, the 13th century theologian Thomas Aquinas
strongly argues that homosexual relationships “run counter to the natural mode of in-
tercourse between male and female,” because sex should have a unitive function and
a generative function, the latter of which is impossible for homosexual couples.
Aquinas supported this idea with the fact that there was, to his knowledge, no evi-
dence of homosexuality in the natural animal world and, as “Nature inclines to that
which is necessary for the perfection of the community,” there should be no homosex-
ual relationships amongst humans. However, this is critically weakened as Aquinas
commits the fallacy of equivocation by drawing together ‘nature’ and what is ‘perfect’,
as there are many instances in which nature is harmful or imperfect. Moreover, it is a
naturalistic fallacy to derive how humans ought to act from the way that the animal
world is. Despite this, John Finnis supports Aquinas as he agrees that homosexuality is
“always harmful and degrading” because it is never done generatively and “treats hu-
man sexual capacities in a way which is deeply hostile to the self-understanding of
those members who are willing to commit themselves to a real marriage.” Whilst this
successfully shows the importance of preserving a marriage, it more convincingly
demonstrates an absolute and universal condemnation of homosexuality. Further-
more, Robert P. George lends further weight to Aquinas and Finnis as he argues that
marriage is a comprehensive union between two sexually complementary persons that
is sealed in a generative act. Despite this, Aquinas’ overall argument lacks merit as
Burton M. Leiser questions, in ‘Homosexuality, Morals and the Nature of Law,’ why ev-
ery sexual act must fulfil both purposes. For example, an elderly married couple can-
not conceive but it is still morally acceptable for them to have sex. This criticism is
critically weakened, however, as Aquinas would consider this example an apparent
good, as the act most likely would not fulfil either function and because the purposes
of sex are not unintended side-effects, they are necessary for the sex to be moral.
Nevertheless, this argument can further be criticised due to the general failings of Nat-
ural Law, being a theory that is too biologistic and that Aquinas’ primary precept of
‘Live in an Ordered Society’ is arguably contradicted by the sentiment of repressing
the sexuality of many people.
However, a convincing argument for the statement is that both homosexuality and ex-
tra-marital sex break the commandment, “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus
20:14). This is because homosexual marriages are not recognised by the Catholic
Church as valid, thus any homosexual relations will be considered extra-marital and,
therefore, adulterous. This strongly demonstrates that both sexual acts are intrinsi-
cally and fundamentally sinful. However, this argument is weakened by the story of Je-
sus and the Adulterous Woman (John 7:53-8:11) in which Jesus defends a woman
guilty of adultery and saves her from punishment by saying, “Let he who is without sin
be the first to throw a stone,” suggesting that sexual transgressions are universal and,
thus, can be somewhat permissible. This criticism is limited as, contextually, Jesus was
very much against divorce and extra-marital affairs - his comment is more indicative
of God being the only one who can judge human actions. Furthermore, the 18th cen-
Both homosexuality and extra-marital sex are condemned as sins by the Catholic
Church for infringing upon the sanctity of marriage and defying the law of God. One
could argue that, historically, Christianity appears to be more critical of homosexuality
than extra-marital affairs. However, in a modern secular society, one can see a disap-
proval for non-exclusive marriage that typically outweighs any condemnation of homo-
sexual relations. Equally, there are Christian and non-christian ethical theories that
posit a similar view that homosexuality is acceptable and extra-marital sex remains
immoral. The question of which sexual act is more sinful, therefore, is highly divisive.
A strong argument against the statement is that homosexuality is far worse a sin than
extra-marital sex, as it contradicts the nature of humans and the procreative demand
of sexual relations. In Natural Law, the 13th century theologian Thomas Aquinas
strongly argues that homosexual relationships “run counter to the natural mode of in-
tercourse between male and female,” because sex should have a unitive function and
a generative function, the latter of which is impossible for homosexual couples.
Aquinas supported this idea with the fact that there was, to his knowledge, no evi-
dence of homosexuality in the natural animal world and, as “Nature inclines to that
which is necessary for the perfection of the community,” there should be no homosex-
ual relationships amongst humans. However, this is critically weakened as Aquinas
commits the fallacy of equivocation by drawing together ‘nature’ and what is ‘perfect’,
as there are many instances in which nature is harmful or imperfect. Moreover, it is a
naturalistic fallacy to derive how humans ought to act from the way that the animal
world is. Despite this, John Finnis supports Aquinas as he agrees that homosexuality is
“always harmful and degrading” because it is never done generatively and “treats hu-
man sexual capacities in a way which is deeply hostile to the self-understanding of
those members who are willing to commit themselves to a real marriage.” Whilst this
successfully shows the importance of preserving a marriage, it more convincingly
demonstrates an absolute and universal condemnation of homosexuality. Further-
more, Robert P. George lends further weight to Aquinas and Finnis as he argues that
marriage is a comprehensive union between two sexually complementary persons that
is sealed in a generative act. Despite this, Aquinas’ overall argument lacks merit as
Burton M. Leiser questions, in ‘Homosexuality, Morals and the Nature of Law,’ why ev-
ery sexual act must fulfil both purposes. For example, an elderly married couple can-
not conceive but it is still morally acceptable for them to have sex. This criticism is
critically weakened, however, as Aquinas would consider this example an apparent
good, as the act most likely would not fulfil either function and because the purposes
of sex are not unintended side-effects, they are necessary for the sex to be moral.
Nevertheless, this argument can further be criticised due to the general failings of Nat-
ural Law, being a theory that is too biologistic and that Aquinas’ primary precept of
‘Live in an Ordered Society’ is arguably contradicted by the sentiment of repressing
the sexuality of many people.
However, a convincing argument for the statement is that both homosexuality and ex-
tra-marital sex break the commandment, “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus
20:14). This is because homosexual marriages are not recognised by the Catholic
Church as valid, thus any homosexual relations will be considered extra-marital and,
therefore, adulterous. This strongly demonstrates that both sexual acts are intrinsi-
cally and fundamentally sinful. However, this argument is weakened by the story of Je-
sus and the Adulterous Woman (John 7:53-8:11) in which Jesus defends a woman
guilty of adultery and saves her from punishment by saying, “Let he who is without sin
be the first to throw a stone,” suggesting that sexual transgressions are universal and,
thus, can be somewhat permissible. This criticism is limited as, contextually, Jesus was
very much against divorce and extra-marital affairs - his comment is more indicative
of God being the only one who can judge human actions. Furthermore, the 18th cen-
