Gay Marriage Justified by Moral Relativism - How Do You Respond?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_in_SD
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Robert_in_SD

Guest
Hello all:

“What’s wrong for you (a ‘gay lifestyle’) is not necessarily wrong for somebody else. Therefore, you have no right to tell two men (or two women) that they cannot marry, just because you personally think that it’s wrong. What is true for you is not necessarily true for someone else.”

I’m sure any Catholic who has discussed gay-marriage has come across this argument once or twice. What, in your opinion, is the best way to respond?

If you agree with the argument please feel free to respond in its defense.

Peace,
Robert
 
Cuts both ways. What’s right for gay people can be wrong for me. So gay people shouldn’t be forcing their beliefs and values on the rest of society. The next move is always, “But how does that affect you?” Then you can list all the things that can happen to someone if they discriminate against gays, including going to jail. If I were a Catholic priest, for example, and I refused to officiate at a gay marriage, I would be guilty of a hate crime.

Another response is to say that the very act of telling me that I have no right to tell gay people what to do or not do, is itself an act of telling me what to think or not think. It is instantly hypocritical the moment you say it.
 
You might inform people who give the relatavist argument for homosexuality, that all major cultures in the world since the ancient Greeks have abjured homosexuality. As for the ancient Greeks and the Romans, homosexual behavior was tolerated but not accepted. In fact, certain common homosexual acts were the subject of ridicule by the general public in both of these cultures.
With all of their propaganda, the homosexual apologists refuse to realize or accept the fact that in the US-even in centers such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York City, homosexuals are not accepted, they are tolerated.
One may note that after the recent plebecite in California disallowed homosexual marriage, the gays went to the courts to nullify the elections…and got a decision favorable to them by a judge who was a practicing, but covert homosexual. This, for us, is sort of like playing cards with a stacked deck!
 
I would tell them that you can easily disprove the modern theory that “what is right for me is not necessarily right for someone else,” ie, moral relativism.

The same laws of good and evil and wrong and right apply to everyone. There is one wrong and there is one right. Otherwise, if a thing is good when it applies to one person and wrong when it applies to another, there would be no wrong or right whatsoever because a right thing by definition of itself cannot be wrong and right at the same time.

That in itself proves there is so such thing as subjective morality.

I don’t know why more people cannot grasp this simple concept. :confused:
 
jenwha said:
I would tell them that you can easily disprove the modern theory that “what is right for me is not necessarily right for someone else,” ie, moral relativism.

The same laws of good and evil and wrong and right apply to everyone. There is one wrong and there is one right. Otherwise, if a thing is good when it applies to one person and wrong when it applies to another, there would be no wrong or right whatsoever because a right thing by definition of itself cannot be wrong and right at the same time.

That in itself proves there is so such thing as subjective morality.

I don’t know why more people cannot grasp this simple concept. :confused:
Click to expand...
^This. 👍
 
Robert_in_SD said:
Hello all:

“What’s wrong for you (a ‘gay lifestyle’) is not necessarily wrong for somebody else. Therefore, you have no right to tell two men (or two women) that they cannot marry, just because you personally think that it’s wrong. What is true for you is not necessarily true for someone else.”

I’m sure any Catholic who has discussed gay-marriage has come across this argument once or twice. What, in your opinion, is the best way to respond?

If you agree with the argument please feel free to respond in its defense.

Peace,
Robert
Click to expand...
I recommend discussing how the same arguments that exist today to legalize same-sex marriage can eventually be used to legalize poygamy, incest, and possibly even pedophilia. This likely wouldn’t disuade somebody who aggressively rejects objective morality (since they may believe that even these things should be legal), but it might be enough to sway someone who has a belief in God but just hasn’t though critically about certain moral issues! 🙂

Of course, don’t forget prayer for the soul’s of the people in question! At the end of the day that’s going to be your best weapon when it comes to bringing down heretical beliefs! 🙂
 
jenwha said:
I would tell them that you can easily disprove the modern theory that “what is right for me is not necessarily right for someone else,” ie, moral relativism.

The same laws of good and evil and wrong and right apply to everyone. There is one wrong and there is one right. Otherwise, if a thing is good when it applies to one person and wrong when it applies to another, there would be no wrong or right whatsoever because a right thing by definition of itself cannot be wrong and right at the same time.

That in itself proves there is so such thing as subjective morality.

I don’t know why more people cannot grasp this simple concept. :confused:
Click to expand...
Not so fast. Something can be to the left of me, yet not be to the left of someone else. It’s relative.
 
Whether we like it or accept it, truth is not relative. What’s true is true for all. What’s false, is false for all. What is evil, is bad for all.

Homosexual marriage is not good for homosexuals; it’s not good for marriage; it’s not good for society; it’s not good for civilization.

It’s often asked, how do homosexuals marrying one another affect my marriage?

For one thing, it destroys the meaning of marriage and thereby renders my marriage meaningless by applying to it the same term that same sex couples apply to themselves.

It destroys the institution of marriage, which has as its purpose to commit men and women to each other and to their children.But the harm it would do is to the institution of marriage itself and to its chief purpose which is to commit men and women to one another and to their children. Permitting same-sex marriage would say this is no longer the purpose of marriage at all.

The purpose would be transformed into something else, namely recognising adult sexual love first and foremost (of whatever kind). Sexual complementarity and the children only it can produce would no longer be seen as in any way connected to the core purpose of marriage.
 
Whether we like it or accept it, truth is not relative. What’s true is true for all. What’s false, is false for all. What is evil, is bad for all.

Homosexual marriage is not good for homosexuals; it’s not good for marriage; it’s not good for society; it’s not good for civilization.

It’s often asked, how do homosexuals marrying one another affect my marriage?

For one thing, it destroys the meaning of marriage and thereby renders my marriage meaningless by applying to it the same term that same sex couples apply to themselves.

It destroys the institution of marriage, which is intended to commit men and women to each other and to their children. In doing so, marriage ensures the continuance of the nation, the upbringing and education of the next generation, and the continuance of every civilization.

Homosexual marriage changes that purpose—which has remained stable for millenia—into something quite different—making it simply an institution for the purpose of formally recognizing a union involving sexual relations of whatever kind may be chosen. Sexual complementarity, the raising of children, the building up of families—no longer essential. In essence changing the definition of marriage throws families and children under the bus and ensures that civilization will decline and eventually fall.
 
Rainaldo said:
Not so fast. Something can be to the left of me, yet not be to the left of someone else. It’s relative.
Click to expand...
Sorry, that’s not true either, are you kidding? An object sitting on the left side of me would obviously be on the right side of someone standing next to me. That is not the same thing at all, because it would be on a different side based on it’s position. The definition and truth of what an apple is is not based on it’s position, it is based on the properties that determine it to be an apple. An apple cannot be an apple and a banana at the same time, it is impossible.

Do you not understand that if the concept of good could be good and evil at the same time than that would negate the whole definition of it being good? A thing cannot be an apple and a banana at the same time or it would not be an apple. Same concept.

There is no such thing as moral relativism. Whether you believe it does or not does not change the truth of what it is. It’s simple philosophy.

You may call gay marriage a marriage, it doesn’t matter what you call it, it is not a marriage. You cannot make it right by wishing it so, you cannot make murder right by wishing it so.

As my priest is want to say, we at any time are free to choose between good and evil, but we can never choose what is good and what is evil.
 
JimG said:
Whether we like it or accept it, truth is not relative. What’s true is true for all. What’s false, is false for all. What is evil, is bad for all.

Homosexual marriage is not good for homosexuals; it’s not good for marriage; it’s not good for society; it’s not good for civilization.

It’s often asked, how do homosexuals marrying one another affect my marriage?

For one thing, it destroys the meaning of marriage and thereby renders my marriage meaningless by applying to it the same term that same sex couples apply to themselves.

It destroys the institution of marriage, which is intended to commit men and women to each other and to their children. In doing so, marriage ensures the continuance of the nation, the upbringing and education of the next generation, and the continuance of every civilization.

Homosexual marriage changes that purpose—which has remained stable for millenia—into something quite different—making it simply an institution for the purpose of formally recognizing a union involving sexual relations of whatever kind may be chosen. Sexual complementarity, the raising of children, the building up of families—no longer essential. In essence changing the definition of marriage throws families and children under the bus and ensures that civilization will decline and eventually fall.
Click to expand...
You are exactly right. 👍
 
George_Stegmeir said:
You might inform people who give the relatavist argument for homosexuality, that all major cultures in the world since the ancient Greeks have abjured homosexuality. As for the ancient Greeks and the Romans, homosexual behavior was tolerated but not accepted. In fact, certain common homosexual acts were the subject of ridicule by the general public in both of these cultures.
With all of their propaganda, the homosexual apologists refuse to realize or accept the fact that in the US-even in centers such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York City, homosexuals are not accepted, they are tolerated.
One may note that after the recent plebecite in California disallowed homosexual marriage, the gays went to the courts to nullify the elections…and got a decision favorable to them by a judge who was a practicing, but covert homosexual. This, for us, is sort of like playing cards with a stacked deck!
Click to expand...
I don’t like to conflate the argument against redefining marriage with the argument against homosexual lifestyles. I think that only feeds into the other point of view - i.e. that keeping marriage solely between one man and one woman is “discriminatory.” What about noting even among those cultures that tolerated homosexuality, there was never an attempt to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, because marriage was understood to be completely incompatible with homosexuality. Nor was this distinction ever seen as discriminatory.

Peace,
Robert
 
jenwha said:
Sorry, that’s not true either, are you kidding?
Click to expand...
It would be immoral for me to marry my sister, but not for my best friend to marry her. So the same thing can be moral or immoral for different people.
 
Robert_in_SD said:
How would this analogy apply to marriage?
Click to expand...
Right and wrong are opposites. Left and right are opposites. (Pardon the homonyms.) What is left relative to me is not necessarily left to someone else; therefore what is wrong relative to one person is not necessarily wrong relative to another.
 
Rainaldo said:
It would be immoral for me to marry my sister, but not for my best friend to marry her. So the same thing can be moral or immoral for different people.
Click to expand...
No, you are wrong. That’s because YOUR sister is not your best friend’s sister. It would, however, be immoral for your best friend to marry HIS sister. How do you not understand the difference? Do you not see a distinction? I feel like I’m in the Twilight Zone.

The concepts of left and right are not the same as right and wrong. Do you agree that it would always be wrong to marry one’s sister, or are you saying that it might be good for one person to marry one’s sister, and it might be bad for another person to marry one’s sister?

:banghead:
 
Actually I get weary of the whole thing. My son is gay. I simply say this, “if you don’t want a gay marriage, don’t have one.” Case closed.
 
Rainaldo said:
Welcome to the Internet.

What right do you have to sit in judgment of other people’s consciences?
Click to expand...
I don’t. I don’t even know that means. I am just extremely confused about why you think that marrying your sister and your best friend marrying your sister is exactly the same thing.

Also, I am not judging you. Where did I judge you? Please explain. What I said was, I feel like I am in the Twilight Zone. And I absolutely do. Because the above is an extremely simple concept.
 
MidnightSun12 said:
I recommend discussing how the same arguments that exist today to legalize same-sex marriage can eventually be used to legalize poygamy, incest, and possibly even pedophilia. This likely wouldn’t disuade somebody who aggressively rejects objective morality (since they may believe that even these things should be legal), but it might be enough to sway someone who has a belief in God but just hasn’t though critically about certain moral issues! 🙂

Of course, don’t forget prayer for the soul’s of the people in question! At the end of the day that’s going to be your best weapon when it comes to bringing down heretical beliefs! 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes I used this true, and the replies I got was that those other marriages should be legalized, or that somehow by some magical way same-sex marriage doesn’t open the door for these other marriages to be legalized 🤷.

It seems that whatever seculars believe, Society must accept regardless of morality 😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top