I disagree. I think that when you are seeking to deny certain rights or privileges to an entire class of persons based on the allegation that doing so would be harmful, the burden is on those proposing denying those rights and privileges to demonstrate the harm.
I disagree. First, the official Church document you point to is arguably the teaching of the Church, but it was not a document from the Magisterium (which is made up of the bishops and the Pope) but from the CDF, an adminstrative organ of the Church. CDF statements may or may not reflect infallible teachings, but they cannot themselves be infallible.
Yes, and:
This is only true if one defines magisterium incorrectly with respect to the Church. The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church, it is not the governmental hierachy. Since the Church’s teaching role is in the area of faith and morals, it is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Individuals who are charged with the use this authority can and do make errors. But, when they do, they are not exercising the authority of the Magisterium.
Everything taught by the Church on faith and morals is without error.
Not to derail the current thread, but did you miss the following thread? If Thomas had a mom and a dad and not two lesbians as parents, then perhaps he wouldn’t be so confused, poor boy.
It is an application of the teaching on faith and morals to a particular situation. But even if you consider it a direct moral teaching, that does not establish infallibility. Infallibilty is limted to teachings on faith and morals, but not all teachings on faith and morals are necessarily infallible. If you go to any thread here on infallibility, or even to any thread on, say, the death penalty or any other social justice issue, you can find long explanations of why not everything taught by the Church is infallible. I suppose we can turn this thread into an infallibility thread, but I am somewhat surprised to find so many Catholics that insist that everything taught by the Church is infallible. That is not how infallibilty works, which is something I thought most Catholics understood.
Gay marriage will effect society in three ways:
I didn’t say right, I said right or privilege. I think marriage is a right, others consider it a privilege. Either way, its hard to deny its being denied to gay people in most states.
No, that is not correct. Certain Church teachings on faith and morals are said to be infallible. We generally call those teachings dogma. Other teachings on faith and morals are not considered infallible, we generally call them doctrines. The Church has described what makes something infallible, but has consistently declined to put out a list of what is infallible and what is not (which I personally believe to be a wise decision). As a result, there is much debate about which is which. The only reason it matters in the context of this discussion, is that it was suggested that saying the Church’s stance on some issues is discriminatory is somehow a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. To defend that ridiculous claim, it was further claimed that everything that the Church teaches is infallible, and therefore directly from the Holy Spirit - so saying it is wrong or discriminatory is an attack on God Himself. We are getting pretty far afield from the actual topic here, but it remains the fact that not everything taught by the Church is taught infallibly. That should be obvious to anyone that has taken even a cursory look at the history of the Church and noticed that teachings do change from time to time - which could not be the case if all teachings were infallible.
Yes, I already did. The teaching that gay adoptions are banned by the Catholic faith (assuming it can even be said to be a teaching of the Church) is not infallible.
This should be posted in every thread with the topic of gay marriage. Thank you for stating it so well!
I’m impressed. These sort of examples show why all scientific research needs to be taken in context and to never be considered as proof of anything (which I believe is your point).
Yes it is, as you just pointed out. The axioms of a system limit that system, which is another way of saying that there is not a complete and consistent set of axioms.
There is no “our” truth. There is Truth, which stands alone and cannot be changed by consensus. The most anyone can expect to do is to discover more of Truth and to apply it.
If homosexuals tell me what truth is or what is wrong I will invariably give a different answer than what they have just provided. Why is their opinion more valid than mine? Am I a second-class citizen somehow?