Gay Marriage Debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter adrianbcp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
frobert said:
I am not Catholic but I understand the CC position and I respect it. I have had several conversations about it with the pastor at the local CC in my community. In fact I seen him this morning. I have to say he is much more pleasant to discuss SSM, homosexuality and other topics that with some posters on CAF.
Click to expand...
Priests tend to be more pleasant than most people anyway. It makes them better priests, but he should tell you the truth even if in a nicer more palatable way.
 
Nacho45 said:
Priests tend to be more pleasant than most people anyway. It makes them better priests, but he should tell you the truth even if in a nicer more palatable way.
Click to expand...
To appeal to one’s tradition (e.g., astrology, religion, slavery) is a logical fallacy, just because you and many others practice Catholicism, says nothing about its viability. Of course it could be true but it is also possible some other religions hold the truth. Based on your knowledge, experience and trust in the word of others you can conclude for yourself that it is Catholicism is true but that does not make it true.

I am not out to change your beliefs. I am only pointing out that they are beliefs. I too have beliefs many, but not all, of them are identical to those of Catholicism.
 
frobert said:
To appeal to one’s tradition (e.g., astrology, religion, slavery) is a logical fallacy, just because you and many others practice Catholicism, says nothing about its viability. Of course it could be true but it is also possible some other religions hold the truth. Based on your knowledge, experience and trust in the word of others you can conclude for yourself that it is Catholicism is true but that does not make it true.

I am not out to change your beliefs. I am only pointing out that they are beliefs. I too have beliefs many, but not all, of them are identical to those of Catholicism.
Click to expand...
You are very right in what you say. That it is why it is called faith and not fact. Many poster here will become more frustrated and ugly because you won’t concede to their beliefs and they will simply not be even slightly open minded enough to consider your. I have been through this many times on this site. I believe God is much bigger than the Catholic Church. I am a cradle Catholic and I was raised with a much more loving God to all his children.
 
shelby_sun said:
You are very right in what you say. That it is why it is called faith and not fact. Many poster here will become more frustrated and ugly because you won’t concede to their beliefs and they will simply not be even slightly open minded enough to consider your. I have been through this many times on this site. I believe God is much bigger than the Catholic Church. I am a cradle Catholic and I was raised with a much more loving God to all his children.
Click to expand...
Thanks you for remarks.

Like you I an a birth Catholic. In my youth I was quite active in my neighborhood Catholic church but always felt I did not belong there. I have since found a church where I feel that I belong. I had this feeling with my UCC church from the first service I attended, before I knew any of its teachings and when I did learn their teachings I found a natural affinity to them. This was prior to the 2005 Synod.

I think we can appreciate each other’s beliefs as long as the appreciation is reciprocated. I don’t take offence at someone else’s beliefs except when they are hateful and possibly harmful. I do find it offensive when a poster prods and goads with loaded questions that embodies an assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement and with questions about person matters of conscience that I would only discuss with my spiritual adviser and trusted friends.
 
frobert said:
The Daily Mail is a sensationalist news rag, I am surprised it is appears so often on CAF.

Your “absurd relationship” reasoning is known as the “Slippery Slope Logical Error Fallacy” also known as “the Camel’s Nose”

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed.

This “argument” has the following form:


  1. *]Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
    *]Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

    Example of fallacious logic that we have seen on CAF several times.

    1. *]Same Sex Marriage is being legalized
      *]Therefore, before long Incest Marriage will be legalized

      This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

      Source: Nizkor Project
Click to expand...

    1. What your friend Nizkor fails to recognize in his “Slippery Slope” outline is the “I-Told-You-So” claim.

      For example, take your example of fallacious logic:

      1. *]Same Sex Marriage is being legalized
        *]Therefore, before long Incest Marriage will be legalized

        Now this example fails to be fallacious logic and becomes a “correct prediction” and earns the “I-Told-You-So” claim.
        **Judge says incest may no longer be a taboo **
        Click to expand...
        telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10958728/Australian-judge-says-incest-may-no-longer-be-a-taboo.html

        Trends are important indicators of things to come. Not a “slippery slope” at all.

        If past trends of taboos continue to follow their course, incest, pedophilia and bestiality will join the ranks of the acceptable sinful behaviors just like open sex, homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
What your friend Nizkor fails to recognize in his “Slippery Slope” outline is the “I-Told-You-So” claim.

For example, take your example of fallacious logic:


  1. *]Same Sex Marriage is being legalized
    *]Therefore, before long Incest Marriage will be legalized

    Now this example fails to be fallacious logic and becomes a “correct prediction” and earns the “I-Told-You-So” claim.

    telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10958728/Australian-judge-says-incest-may-no-longer-be-a-taboo.html

    Trends are important indicators of things to come. Not a “slippery slope” at all.

    If past trends of taboos continue to follow their course, incest, pedophilia and bestiality will join the ranks of the acceptable sinful behaviors just like open sex, homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

  1. I said in another thread something to the effect, that if you examine non-religious ethics you will find that incest is not considered immoral. Keep that in mind. Perhaps you are already aware that adult incest had been decriminalized and in several Western European countries, not only that incest marriages are legal in Sweden, Poland and Switzerland. I agree that if your are concerned with incestuous marriage in the US you have real reasons to be frightened.

    Even if incest marriage becomes legal in the US you can not say it did so because of a slippery slope. Will SSM help it a long, perhaps. If it does happen you can say is “I told you so,” which would be a correlation between events. Correlation does not prove causation.

    Incest in the US has a lot of obstacles that it must clear before the courts will rule on its constitutionality. Will it happen?
    Perhaps past trends of taboos will continue to follow a course, incest, pedophilia and bestiality and will join the ranks of the acceptable sinful behaviors just like open sex, homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
    Like I said above you have real reasons to be frightened and I think you really should be frightened otherwise its like the weather everyone complains about but no one does anything about it.

    For the record I believe incest is immoral.
 
shelby_sun said:
…I believe God is much bigger than the Catholic Church. I am a cradle Catholic and I was raised with a much more loving God to all his children.
Click to expand...
Shelby, what is it that you know about God that was not brought to you by the Catholic Church? What source of information do you, or your teachers, have that the rest of us do not?
 
frobert said:
To appeal to one’s tradition (e.g., astrology, religion, slavery) is a logical fallacy, just because you and many others practice Catholicism, says nothing about its viability. Of course it could be true but it is also possible some other religions hold the truth. Based on your knowledge, experience and trust in the word of others you can conclude for yourself that it is Catholicism is true but that does not make it true.

I am not out to change your beliefs. I am only pointing out that they are beliefs. I too have beliefs many, but not all, of them are identical to those of Catholicism.
Click to expand...
I present truth, nothing more, nothing less. There is no fallacy in truth and it is up to people to either accept or reject that truth.
 
Nacho45 said:
I present truth, nothing more, nothing less. There is no fallacy in truth and it is up to people to either accept or reject that truth.
Click to expand...
WOW! That is quite a statement, but if you believe it proceed to present the truth as you know it.
 
Rau said:
Shelby, what is it that you know about God that was not brought to you by the Catholic Church? What source of information do you, or your teachers, have that the rest of us do not?
Click to expand...
Maybe its just me but some questions come across as being prosecutorial and inquisitional.

Just an observation
 
frobert said:
WOW! That is quite a statement, but if you believe it proceed to present the truth as you know it.
Click to expand...
I will, thanks, but you can get that truth without my involvement. Just read the Scriptures or head over to your local Catholic parish.

I’m am curious why you continue to point out what I say is simply opinion, which it is not, while you post your opinions as well. Catholic forum, Catholic theology, Catholic dogma, Catholic teaching, yet here you are presenting unfounded, unCatholic opinions. To what end? Any reasonably educated or studied Catholic will see through the false claims some make here about homosexuality so what is the end goal? What makes your opinion more valuable than Gods, that of Jesus, or the last 2000 years of Christian teaching? You, of course, are free to decide what you accept and ignore, that’s free will, but you are mistaken if you think those incorrect opinions will sway even a nominally active Catholic on these matters. The collective of the Catholic Church and its combined historical teachings on the subject which still stand unchanged and strong are so much more precious and truthful than modern concepts of what people wish were true to make them feel better about the sins they engage. There is only truth and lies. God provides the truth alone and that truth is echoed and repeated in his earthly Church.
 
Rau said:
Shelby, what is it that you know about God that was not brought to you by the Catholic Church? What source of information do you, or your teachers, have that the rest of us do not?
Click to expand...
Rau, as many times before I do not claim to know anything, I simply stated what I was taught and what I believe. This about faith not fact. Those who whom claim to know the truth as if it is fact simply cannot prove it is fact by turning to the Bible. The Bible and the Church does not prove anything. I do not know exactly what God is like or exactly what He believe , nor does any one else here.

As a mother I would never turn my back on my child and stop loving them because they were a sinner, so I certainly would not think God would. I can’t believe God would not save someone like the Dalai Lame who is all good, peaceful, and loving just because he was raised in a very different culture. Can you not even conceive that maybe God is presenting himself in different ways to different cultures and people trying to bring love and goodness?
 
shelby_sun said:
Rau, as many times before I do not claim to know anything, I simply stated what I was taught and what I believe. This about faith not fact. Those who whom claim to know the truth as if it is fact simply cannot prove it is fact…

As a mother I would never turn my back on my child and stop loving them because they were a sinner, so I certainly would not think God would. I can’t believe God would not save someone like the Dalai Lame who is all good, peaceful, and loving just because he was raised in a very different culture. Can you not even conceive that maybe God is presenting himself in different ways to different cultures and people trying to bring love and goodness?
Click to expand...
And is any of that contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church?

If we are talking about the God who sent the Divine Person of Jesus Christ, who established the Church on earth and gave it teaching authority,…then on what basis would one choose to believe anything at odds with the teaching of that Church? Of course, we can believe what we like, but from where comes the foundation for those beliefs?
 
From the Jews, God’s chosen people who did not believe Christ as the savior.
 
shelby_sun said:
From the Jews, God’s chosen people who did not believe Christ as the savior.
Click to expand...
Salvation history is a continuum. Jesus was a Jew, a Rabbi, a teacher. He preached to the Jews, and all the first Christians were Jews, including the Apostles. He was the Jewish Messiah, fulfilling the old covenant.
 
shelby_sun said:
From the Jews, God’s chosen people who did not believe Christ as the savior.
Click to expand...
Then we are not speaking about the same God. The God of the Jews (in the opinion of the Jewish faith) did not dwell among us. This is a rather fundamental tenet of Catholicism.
 
Rau said:
Then we are not speaking about the same God. The God of the Jews (in the opinion of the Jewish faith) did not dwell among us. This is a rather fundamental tenet of Catholicism.
Click to expand...
If there is one God then no matter what name we give to that God we are speaking about the same God. It is only our human perspective of that God that differs.

Some of our Christian teachings were influenced by pagan philosophers, does that boost or hinder your belief in a Christian God or does it have any effect at all?
 
frobert said:
If there is one God then no matter what name we give to that God we are speaking about the same God. It is only our human perspective of that God that differs.

Some of our Christian teachings were influenced by pagan philosophers, does that boost or hinder your belief in a Christian God or does it have any effect at all?
Click to expand...
I believe there is one God, who dwelled among us and established a Church and gave it teaching authority. I find it hard to conceive of how I (or any person who wishes to be identified as Catholic) could hold a belief about that God which is at odds with the teaching of His Church. It would seem untenable for a Catholic to view the Catholic Church as providing just one of many equally valid perspectives on God. Of course, it is entirely reasonable for others to hold exactly that view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top