Nietzsche abhorred all morality; he felt it is fodder for the mindless masses (the herd). It deadens and destroys the individual, condemns creativity, and gives man no credit to make choices. It assumes man can not know what to do, so it lays down pre-made decisions for him to mindlessly follow. It ignores the nature of human instinct and stifles the growth of mankind.

Moralists and philosophers both sought an order for the universe and a basis on which to define a universal morality. Nietzsche throws these ideas out the window, claiming no order to the universe, but instead chaos. Likewise he felt that one doctrine of morality, while being good for one man, might be the worst thing for another. All societies have moral structures but those structures vary widely from a single society to the next. Conventional morality wants clear-cut, black-&-white definitions of good and evil. Nietzsche sought an ideal "beyond good or evil." He even went as far as to claim evil is good - it serves as a means for comparison and a catalyst for change.

Nietzsche had little esteem for the works of Kant; there can be no categorical imperative in a chaotic world. Kant's view of the moral ma

"Homosexuality: Perverse and/or immoral?"

Nietzsche had little reverence for the utilitarian ideals of Mill either. The concept - maximize pleasure and minimize pain - is simplistic by Nietzsche's standards. He aptly points out that sometimes the maximum displeasure is necessary to achieve "the growth of an abundance of subtle pleasures and joys that have rarely been relished yet." Minimizing displeasure eliminates the "capacity for joy." The virtues of Mill's morality are aimed at the maximum good for the many; acts are judged based on their consequences to society. However Nietzsche felt that while these virtues may be for the good of society as a whole, they could be harmful to those who possess them. He calls them "victims of virtue." Man can be so focused on virtues that "he resists the effort of reason to keep them in balance with their other instincts." These virtues can not come from an individual's reason because they "lead the individual to allow himself to be transformed into a mere function of the whole."

Kant claimed acts of love, charity and brotherhood did not qualify as moral acts unless they were done completely for selfless motives. According to Nietzsche these acts are usually performed out of avarice, greed and egoism. His interpretation of the categorical imperative might read, "Do unto others so they will do unto you," he would see this as more consistent with human nature. He, like Firestone, saw sexual love clearly as a lust for possession, though he did not see it from a feminist point of view. Kant has no concern for human nature - being selfish by nature does not assuage our moral duties.

The Church's position on homosexual acts states that "Under no circumstances can they be approved." Their position is based on several things. Foremost, the scripture defines homosexuality as an act of grave depravity in contradiction with natural law. To deprave means: to make bad or worse. The Church itself admits that a significant portion of mankind has homosexual tendencies. They accept that homosexuality is not a choice. They can define no psychological cause. The frequency with which it occurs in nature (in both man and beast) is proof enough that it is a part of natural law. Asking homosexuals to go through life alone, or living a lie by hiding beneath the garments of a prescribed morality, is contrary to natural law. Homosexuals are not making each other, or society, bad or worse by doing what comes naturally to them. Surely, more harm has come from forcing these "moral lepers" to try and be what they are not. For example: A man knows he is gay but gets married, trying to put on the airs of acceptable social norms. He has three kids with a wife who wants to spend the rest of her life with him. Around the time she begins to wonder why their infrequent lovemaking has ceased, he realizes he can't live this way anymore. The result is a fractured family, not only his immediate family unit, but also the extended family when they shun him in shock at his "perversion." Curran says the family is the basic unit of society yet condones a morality that is condemned to damage that unit a significant portion of the time - it is estimated that up to 10-15% of our society is homosexual.

Some Catholic theologians have concluded that if the relationship-responsibility model can be applied to the faculty of speech

Some common words found in the essay are:
Homosexuality Perverse, Thomas Aquinas, , According Nietzsche, God Nietzsche, Catholic Church, Christian God, Church Morality, Countries Ireland, According Curran, catholic church, natural law, human nature, relationship-responsibility model, called chastity, catholic morality, morally disordered, categorical imperative, natural law homosexuals, grave depravity, bad worse, god object love,
Approximate Word count = 2275
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page double spaced)