Op-ed article by NY Times claims that Homosexual Marriage can be supported on natural law grounds.

Correct. But it is evidence against the claim, while there is very little evidence for the claim. Occam's razor.

No, it's not evidence for the claim whatsoever - it's a non-sequitur based on nothing. I may as well say that sex is tied up with reproduction, and reproduction with the propagation of the species, that all the evidence is on my side. "Occam's Razor".

Nor does the explanation given require that there be no other benefits to sex. Natural law is quite compatible with this.

By the way, scientists put forth theories and hypothesis all the time.

They sure do - about scientific, not metaphysical or philosophical, topics.

But they are experts. I'm struggling to understand your point here. No one would say "physicists != physics" when arguing about a physical theory, because we realize experts have greater authority when discussing their topic of expertise.

Actually, plenty of people would say physicists != physics, and they'd be right to do so. The entire value of their expertise is predicated on their ability to supply arguments, evidence and reasoning for their claims. You've made an attempt at that, and it hasn't been very persuasive at all, to put it mildly. 'This other species has a physical characteristic that it would seem increases the successful odds of conception, therefore there is no way that reproduction is the primary purpose of sex' is laughable.

Sex likely isn't primarily for pregancy, because it does not cause pregnancy at a high rate, it doesn't compare well to high conception rates in other animals, and (the important part here) has been shown to have other roles besides the inducement of pregnancy.

And your logic simply doesn't follow, because this is not a question where odds determine purpose. So right away, the odds claim gets thrown out as irrelevant, as does the talk about other animals, and - the so called important part - is not denied by the Natural Law philosopher. They will tell you themselves the variety of benefits and otherwise that come with sexual activity, but the existence of those other benefits doesn't change the final cause of sex.

But I understand your problem here: you're not really aware of where science ends and philosophy/metaphysics begins. Common issue. The best view here: when you start talking about 'purposes' and final causes - teleology, the thing that Natural Law philosophers deal with - you're outside of science. On this point, the sexologist's expertise - even by your own reckoning - is second to the philosopher's.

If the sexologists have been telling you that purposes, final causes, and teleology are part of their wholly scientific discipline, I've some bad news for you - the sexologists have been misleading you. Or maybe you've just hopefully read into their field something which is not, and cannot be, there.

/r/Catholicism Thread Parent Link - opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com