Gay Marriage: The Death Knell of Christiany

  • Thread starter Thread starter Verdanty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton said:
40.png
niceatheist:
Inherent could be either. And really, comparing SSA to alcoholics? Just how hateful do you want this to get. I guess I should be happy, you didn’t compare gay people to pedophiles or serial killers.
Click to expand...
I do not desire to be hateful. I just do not think that if something is harmful, that being inherent means it must be accepted. I get that a lot of stuff that has been done is abusive. But why is an attempt to help one deal by reducing desire and behavior abusive? If there is a difference, then please elaborate.
Click to expand...
Taking the Catholic position, how is SSA bad? As I understand the Church’s position, so long as the person does not partake in any sexual activities, he or she has not in fact done anything wrong.

That being the case, how can you defend quackery like conversion therapy, which even some proponents now admit doesn’t work.
 
pnewton said:
I do not desire to be hateful. I just do not think that if something is harmful, that being inherent means it must be accepted. I get that a lot of stuff that has been done is abusive. But why is an attempt to help one deal by reducing desire and behavior abusive? If there is a difference, then please elaborate.
Click to expand...
Mixing science, in this case medicine, with religion never ends well.

Treatment for the body and mind are one thing. But never cross the boundary into using medicine to treat the soul.
 
JimG said:
Beliefs may change. Right and wrong do not change.
Click to expand...
Do not eat pork or prawns.
Be circumcised on the 8th day after birth.

These laws were right at one point then at some point they became irrelevant. Jesus mentioned neither. In fact he would have been circumcised and he cast a demon into a herd of pigs and made them run off a cliff… If anything he affirmed that those two laws are right…

What is right and wrong is a matter of conscience. Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil which we as individuals inherited, otherwise we wouldn’t carry their sin.

Who is telling you what is right or wrong? Is it you, or the Church?
 
Last edited:
JustLamb said:
Do not eat pork or prawns.

Be circumcised on the 8th day after birth.
Click to expand...
Those are not expressions of right and wrong, but of Old Covenant ritual law. Moral law is expressed in the ten commandments and the moral teachings of the Church. St. Peter specifically revoked the die OT dietary rules. He did not revoke the moral laws pertaining to sexual relations including same sex relations. It is true that right and wrong is a matter of conscience. But conscience must be formed in accordance with truth. Conscience is not a free for all. It is a moral judgment of the intellect as to the good or evil of particular actions or inactions. If the moral intellect is not in accord with truth, conscience can be badly deformed.
 
niceatheist said:
The problem is that whatever you think of SSA, it appears to be inherent (whatever its cause). It isn’t something to be cured, and anyone claiming to cure it is lying, which the studies done thus far have shone. Conversion therapy does not reverse SSA. It does not work.
Click to expand...
That isn’t clear at all. Some might be, but if any isn’t then you can’t categorically say it is inherent. Regardless the behavior is always something within someone’s control.
 
JimG said:
Those are not expressions of right and wrong, but of Old Covenant ritual law. Moral law is expressed in the ten commandments and the moral teachings of the Church. St. Peter specifically revoked the die OT dietary rules.
Click to expand...
Peter wasn’t perfect. He denied Christ three times. It was Christ who came to fulfil the law, not Peter.

And so Peter, a mortal man, started the pendulum swinging the other way, as did Paul…
 
Boler said:
So you’re a moral relativist? Which is nonsense. Disciplines change, moral law (what is right and wrong) does not.
Click to expand...
All laws are subject to change - moral, judicial, ceremonial, dietary, purity…

As to what a moral relativist is, that is not part of my vocabulary and when I go out to the soup kitchen to do my charitable stint in an hour I bet nobody there will have a clue what one is either.
 
JustLamb said:
All laws are subject to change - moral
Click to expand...
What a lame statement. What changes moral law? Give an example. Is murdering an innocent person because you don’t like their hair color ever not wrong?
 
Last edited:
Boler said:
What a lame statement. What changes moral law? Give an example. Is murdering an innocent person because you don’t like their hair color ever not wrong?
Click to expand...
Is murdering a person, at the stake, who has an English version of the Bible OK, as practised by St Thomas More, patron saint of politicians according to the Catholic faith? (He was venerated in 1980.)

Got to go… Hungry people waiting…
 
Last edited:
JustLamb said:
Is murdering a person, at the stake…
Click to expand...
If such a murder is wrong, is it always wrong? If it’s right, is it always right? Given a specific murder and all it’s circumstances, contexts, and other details, can it at one time be right and at another time be wrong?

The answers are yes, yes, and no. The circumstance or context or other detail changes and, correspondingly, which moral law(s) is applicable changes. But the moral law itself does not change. Thus, moral law is not relative.

A world in which people are moral relativists is a scary one because what they really mean is “might makes right” and “I can do whatever I want” (which usually means the cultural status quo). It’s also why Chesterton said the Catholic Church " is the only thing that frees a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age. "
 
Last edited:
niceatheist said:
Taking the Catholic position, how is SSA bad? As I understand the Church’s position, so long as the person does not partake in any sexual activities, he or she has not in fact done anything wrong.
Click to expand...
That is a good question. My answer is in the word “bad.” It is not bad in the sense of sinful. No temptation to sin is a sin. I guess you can even say it can be good in that temptation overcome is a moral good. But it can be difficult. That is the bad I speak of. Just like we would help an alcoholic ease the temptation to drink, I believe it a moral good to help ease temptation.
 
JustLamb said:
Mixing science, in this case medicine, with religion never ends well.

Treatment for the body and mind are one thing. But never cross the boundary into using medicine to treat the soul.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you mean or where medicine came from.
 
niceatheist said:
Not even the Church views SSA as a disorder.
Click to expand...
CCC 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.

Now, that is not a medical statement. But if you think about it, a man experiencing a sexual attraction to a man strongly suggests that something is amiss. The attraction is simply at odds with the body.
 
niceatheist said:
Conversion therapy is child abuse, pure and simple, and any adult who attempts to put a child through it should face legal ramifications for their actions.
Click to expand...
Can you describe what “conversion therapy” actually constitutes?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top