Gay marriage : who cares?

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

*People tend to focus on how icky they think anal sex is when thinking about homosexuality, but of course the practice is not limited to homosexuals. *

That it’s not limited to homosexuals is no argument in favor of it. The anal molesting of children by gays and straights is equally unnatural and immoral.

 

[tonyrey]

Sure. In our society and the current level of bigotry toward homosexuals, having homosexual parents could result in some social problems, but there would be a hundred other things I would worry about before I would worry about the adopting parent’s sexual orientation.

You would not be at all concerned that your children would be adversely affected by a homosexual upbringing and environment? You wouldn’t prefer them to be adopted by a heterosexual couple?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

*but there would be a hundred other things I would worry about before I would worry about the adopting parent’s sexual orientation. *

I see you are truly not concerned about the fate of these children if you can find a hundred other things to be concerned about. At least you are consistent. As I recall, neither are you concerned about babies murdered in the womb.

 

[CradleCath]

I think I asked you before, but in case I didn’t, please, please, please, put me on your ignore list. You don’t seem to actually read my posts before flying off the handle anyway.

Here I am breaking my own promise & answering one of your posts. The answer re. putting you on my ignore list…is NO! I am going to keep reading them until you show that you understand the Natural, Moral Law & Moral Relativism. It’s going to be quite entertaining I think.

BTW., a request that you inform yourself re. the subject about which you are posting, is not “flying off the handle”.

 

[PassingThru]

Leela

*but there would be a hundred other things I would worry about before I would worry about the adopting parent’s sexual orientation. *

I see you are truly not concerned about the fate of these children if you can find a hundred other things to be concerned about. At least you are consistent. As I recall, neither are you concerned about babies murdered in the womb.

Why do you always bring unrelated issues into a statement? Very odd.

I think the point is that there are many other factors that will have a much greater effect on a child than if its adoptive parents are same or opposite sex. There has actually been some pretty in depth studies done on this. This is not to prove to you that there is no effect from having a same sex parents. This is important. But what has been learned is more important is having two parents vs one, positive role models (any sex), stable family relationships, free of drug and chemical abuse, focus on discipline and education, and others I am forgetting. The point is, all of these are pretty well established as having a greater effect than the sex of the parents. So, even if we grant you that there is an effect, we can pretty well establish its effect is quite a bit down the list on the effect it has on a child. Meaning, I would pick a gay couple that had the above going for them, vs a straight couple that were unstable, or using drugs, or didn’t focus on eduction, etc etc.

 

[Portrait]

I am not asking for a moral free-for-all. I’m asking for us to have good reasons for our moral beliefs. All I’m getting from you is that it is immoral because it has always been regarded as immoral. What leads to moral relativism is not asking for justification for beliefs since doing so presupposes that we can either be right or wrong on the matter and be justified in thinking believing something or not justified in believing something. What leads to moral relativism is this last bit where the only thing that passes for any justification for your claim is that your particular religion teaches that it is bad. If that is the only possible justification then someone will be quick to point out that all religions do not agree about morals and start wonderring whether morality is just a matter of what religion you happen to be born into. The antidote to such relativism is to start thinking of morality as something that has a rational basis, as something that has to do with the well-being of conscious creatures, as something that isn’t mere divine whim and can be studied and learned about in all the usual ways that we try to learn about things. There are right and wrong answers to moral questions not because your Chruch says so (since someone else’s probably disagrees with you) but because some practices really do contribute to human well-being and some do not. Moral questions are questions about this world and actual human expereinces, and we will come to learn their answers by studying this world.

Interestingly, just after that in Lev 19 it says “Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.”

Dear Leela,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for responding to my post.

May I first apologise sincerely for misuderstanding your position, I now appreciate better what it is that you are saying. However, in the final analysis it all boils down to much the same thing - moral relativism. Your criterion for evaluating right and wrong is that “some practices really do contribute to human well-being and some do not”, but men will disagree passionately as to what practices actually do promote well-being and help the individual to flourish. Thus we still have no sure and certain criterion with which to evaluate conduct and so are no further forward. This hardly seems like an “antidote” to moral relativism, more a formula for a multitude of contradictory opinions!

The only remedy for this moral bedlam is an authoritative standard that will declare unerringly what conduct is acceptable and what is not. Now the Church can certainly demonstrate the inspiration of the Bible, not by an appeal to the bible itself for self-validation, but by approching it as any other ancient historical work. This is an involved argument and is not germane to the subject currently under review, but suffice to say it demonstrates both an infallible Church and an infallible bible. This is surely a far better alternative to a quagmire of conflicting opinions about right and wrong, as well as being intellectually satisfying, even for the most seasoned sceptic. The Catholic claims to prove by pure reason that Jesus Christ was God, that He established an infallible Church, and that the Roman Catholic Church is that very Church. Its credentials having been proved by reason first, it says that its teaching on faith and morals is the truth and can therefore be trusted by mankind.

As regards the book of Leviticus, it is important to distinguish what actually applied specifically to the Jews and binding only on them and what has continuing validity today. Since we know even from the New Testament that there has been no abrogation of God’s abhorrence of homosexual aberrant acts, we know that those passages in Leviticus are still applicable.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[PassingThru]

Dear Leela,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for responding to my post.

May I first apologise sincerely for misuderstanding your position, I now appreciate better what it is that you are saying. However, in the final analysis it all boils down to much the same thing - moral relativism. Your criterion for evaluating right and wrong is that “some practices really do contribute to human well-being and some do not”, but men will disagree passionately as to what practices actually do promote well-being and help the individual to flourish. Thus we still have no sure and certain criterion with which to evaluate conduct and so are no further forward. This hardly seems like an “antidote” to moral relativism, more a formula for a multitude of contradictory opinions!

The only remedy for this moral bedlam is an authoritative standard that will declare unerringly what conduct is acceptable and what is not. Now the Church can certainly demonstrate the inspiration of the Bible, not by an appeal to the bible itself for self-validation, but by approching it as any other ancient historical work. This is an involved argument and is not germane to the subject currently under review, but suffice to say it demonstrates both an infallible Church and an infallible bible. This is surely a far better alternative to a quagmire of conflicting opinions about right and wrong, as well as being intellectually satisfying, even for the most seasoned sceptic. The Catholic claims to prove by pure reason that Jesus Christ was God, that He established an infallible Church, and that the Roman Catholic Church is that very Church. Its credentials having been proved by reason first, it says that its teaching on faith and morals is the truth and can therefore be trusted by mankind.

As regards the book of Leviticus, it is important to distinguish what actually applied specifically to the Jews and binding only on them and what has continuing validity today. Since we know even from the New Testament that there has been no abrogation of God’s abhorrence of homosexual aberrant acts, we know that those passages in Leviticus are still applicable.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Hmmmmm.

So, you applied some form of logic to the bible figure out which instructions from Leviticus to follow, but we are not to apply logic to answer the question as to whether or not to allow a gay couple to marry? Now, there are many, many arcane commands in Leviticus that I would assume are not directly addressed in the new Testament. How is it that we decided to not follow these many arcane rules?

I just find it quite convenient that you are recommending we forbid an intelligent, logic and facts based discussion on the legal status of a gay couple, but you can promote the same discussion to directly overturn instruction that are unquestionably written in the bible. Shakey logic indeed.

 

[LittleSoldier]

A new day has broken and I find rebuttals to a half-dozen arguments I never made, and a curious avoidance of the one I have been making. We have amateur psychology musings on the supposed inner life and guilt complexes of gay men.

We have an absolute fascination with the concept of bestiality at play here, inlcuding inferences that I’m somehow in league with some Princeton professor I’ve never heard of. Rebuttals to bizzaro-world contortions of arguments I made on other subjects. Statements that anyone who questions natural law in any way MUST be adovates and enthusiasts of bestiality. For a crowd that professes to abhor such aberrations, some of you seem quite fixated by the topic.

The one mention of my key argument says that natural law really only has to be upheld when it’s politically favorable to do so. Otherwise passive disapproval is good enough.

I have noticed that you ignored my comments regarding Universal Law. You seem to insist on putting a religious spin (Catholic religious spin to be exact) on everything. You ignored my link to the Church’s fight against the proposed divorce law in Peru, unless I missed your response. You ignored what I stated about abortion. If you did respond, please give me the post number.

Nobody said you were in league with any Princeton professor. You are imagining that, somewhat like a person with a paranoid personality would. Every time someone makes a good point you either ignore it or you turn it into a personal insult. You speak of fixation. I would say you are fixated on something you don’t even understand: the Catholic Church.

As for “amateur psychology musings” may I ask where you got your degree? You’re a pop psychologist if I ever saw one (and I have, many times).

Universal Law, Natural Law, God’s Law are all the same thing. They are TRUTH. And it matters not how you feel about this Law, whether you like it or dislike it, whether you have 100 percent of the world’s population agreeing with you or none - Truth is Truth is Truth. It is not dependent on consensus or vote, it does not change with the changing zeitgeist; it IS. And you can’t cavort, spin, speed, or creep around it and you can’t ignore it - it is still there just as it always has been and always will be.

You don’t like the way the Church is. Tough. It doesn’t matter to the Church how you feel about her because She is correct. You come on a Catholic forum and the following is my opinion only but I think you are here to show us (what you would term) stupid Catholics the way it should be and how really dumb we are; that we talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.

Let me tell you what I do. I am disabled and am bedridden right now. Yet I have at my disposal the most powerful of all weapons. And all Christians have that power, Catholic or not. it is called PRAYER. I have no doubt that the prayers I and millions of my fellow Christians say each day have an enormous effect. It might not be seen today, it might not be seen for a thousand years, but it will be seen.

All your posturing means nothing compared to prayer. All your complaints about Catholics are but a drop in an ocean of prayer. And I know how powerful the ocean is as I live a few minutes away.

So go on and complain about how people are saying you are involved with bestiality. Complain about how the Church isn’t at the forefront of every single political fight about every single immoral action all over the world. Keep on saying we talk the talk but don’t walk the walk. I don’t care because you are wrong. In this case walking the walk is literally talking the talk - as long as the talking is prayer.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Why do you always bring unrelated issues into a statement? Very odd.

I think the point is that there are many other factors that will have a much greater effect on a child than if its adoptive parents are same or opposite sex. There has actually been some pretty in depth studies done on this. This is not to prove to you that there is no effect from having a same sex parents. This is important. But what has been learned is more important is having two parents vs one, positive role models (any sex), stable family relationships, free of drug and chemical abuse, focus on discipline and education, and others I am forgetting. The point is, all of these are pretty well established as having a greater effect than the sex of the parents. So, even if we grant you that there is an effect, we can pretty well establish its effect is quite a bit down the list on the effect it has on a child. Meaning, I would pick a gay couple that had the above going for them, vs a straight couple that were unstable, or using drugs, or didn’t focus on eduction, etc etc.

Source(s) please. This post is just bursting with unfounded assertions. Are we just supposed to take your word?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Ok, but I take it you undrstand, pace CradleCath, that the issue is not inserting a penis into a mouth or behind. Neither practice is regarded as unnatural/immoral by the Church. It is when these things are done between males that they are forbidden as unnatural.

People tend to focus on how icky they think anal sex is when thinking about homosexuality, but of course the practice is not limited to homosexuals.

“Neither practice is regarded as unnatural/immoral by the Church.” Source, please.

 

[LittleSoldier]

It may be thought of as in favor of it turning out to be immoral, but tradition is not suficient to justify something as immoral especially given the fact that people were wrong in the past about many important morals.

There was a time before couples of mixed race were not laughed out of court, before black people where permitted to testify in court, before women were permitted to vote, before people recognized that it is wrong to buy and sell human beings, etc. To me, homosexuality is exactloy the sort of thing that tradition has so often gotten wrong.

You are correct when you say that tradition is not sufficient. It’s not sufficient for deciding Truth as Truth cannot be decided, only discovered. There is a Universal Law about this and our job is to discover what the Law is. As to how to do that, I’m not sure for you, but for myself I trust the Church as she was founded by God and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.

 

[LittleSoldier]

There is NO proof that any of you are willing to uphold your own moral law consistently. No one has even committed to spend the 40 cents to send a letter to a legsilstor seeking action on laws against hetero abuses of natural law. In fact most posters have openly ridiculed the very notion that natural law should be enforced against anyone beyond homosexuals. If you can show me any evidence to the contrary, I’ll shut up about it. In fact if you tell me on your honor as a gentleman that you sent (or will send) such a letter, or made any similar effort to consistently see natural law enforced, that would satisfy me on this point.

What is it about the suggestion that you live by your own law that is so infuriating? I’m offering you all a golden chance, right here, to prove to the world that your basis of moral argument against gay marriage is sincere. Not only is no one taking me up on it, I somehow have you fighting against respect for natural law harder than your own enemies could ever hope to do.

What about Chile? You conveniently ignored that. And how do you know that none of us has never spent 40 cents on a stamp to send a letter to a legislator? Actually you may be right about the 40 cents because most people don’t pay that much for postage and emails are usually used instead of letters. How do I know this? Because I have sent emails to legislators telling them of my concerns. OK? Are you “pleased” now?

Do you actually think that Catholics don’t fight for their beliefs? Do you think we put on our Catholic uniforms right before Mass and take them off right after? Being Catholic is a 24/7 job and you might be surprised at how much the people in this thread, the lurkers, and other Catholics do to enact change. It goes beyond a 40 cent stamp.

Chile!! Chile!! Chile!! Remember?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Addendum to Post 705:

In Post 705, the country listed should be Chile, not Peru. My apologies.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Research has shown that homosexuality is practically non-existent in the poorest populations of the world. What does that say? Have some of us become “too particular” with our expectations for the opposite sex’s behavior?

Some boys masturbate so much in adolescence that they get bored with it, so they look for an opportunity for someone else to do the job for them. Well, he’s not likely to find a 13-14 year old girl to do it for him. Out of boredom and desperation, he goes into a bathroom and you know what happens next. Well, the brains crave pleasure. Now, fast forward 20 years of the habit. Now, try reasoning with his brain. Try tellling it to “tolerate” trying to understand women and wait for the occasion. Good luck. Of course he’ll tell you he’s not attracted to working hard for it when brain pleasurism can be easy and frequent.

“Attraction” could simply be the desire for frequent gasms at any cost.

If we take the lust and drugs out of the media, or avoid watching it, more hetero relationships will stay together. We need to open our minds and realize that we have the power to say no.

If gay marriage is legalized, it will be “open season” on young men. Criticism of it will be labeled as “invalid” IF it becomes law. This will be a radical change that will just blow people away.

Oh for Pete’s sake!! Masturbation? Frequent “gasms”? If you have research to back this up, please post it. I don’t believe it for one second. I also don’t believe your bit about drugs which appears to be just thrown in. What about drugs? Which drugs? Are there actually drugs that can turn a heterosexual into a homosexual? I would like to know which drugs these are because I certainly don’t want to take them!!

Honestly, I have to be blunt here. I think your theory of homosexuality and gay marriage is a tad too simplistic. No, I take that back. It’s VERY simplistic. What about boys and girls who appear to be homosexual from birth? Don’t you think nature has something to do with this? Certainly “nurture” is important but it doesn’t come close to explaining homosexuality (which appears to be an extremely complex condition with numerous causative factors).

 

[Portrait]

Hmmmmm.

So, you applied some form of logic to the bible figure out which instructions from Leviticus to follow, but we are not to apply logic to answer the question as to whether or not to allow a gay couple to marry? Now, there are many, many arcane commands in Leviticus that I would assume are not directly addressed in the new Testament. How is it that we decided to not follow these many arcane rules?

I just find it quite convenient that you are recommending we forbid an intelligent, logic and facts based discussion on the legal status of a gay couple, but you can promote the same discussion to directly overturn instruction that are unquestionably written in the bible. Shakey logic indeed.

Dear PassingThru,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your reply to my post.

It is freely admitted that some aspects of the O.T. law are abrogated by our Lord. Thus He repeals the death penalty for mortal sexual sin (cf. St. John 8: 11, woman taken in adultery). Moreover, He shows that the regulations regarding a woman’s ‘uncleaness’ (Leviticus 18: 19) are no longer valid, since He does not consider Himself as contaminated by the touch of the woman with a “flow of blood” (St. Mark 5: 25-34). However, neither our Lord nor His apostles give any indication that homosexual acts of depravity are to be excluded from the category of sinful conduct (any more than child-sacrifice and bestiality (Leviticus 18: 21, 23) are to be excluded). Rather, there are clear unambiguous statements in the N.T. to the contrary - homosexual conduct continues to be regarded as a mortal sin. Any approach which appeals to the New Testament’s repeal of any O.T. command must be on the sure ground of being able to demonstrate that the command is specifically abrogated or fulfilled, or belongs to a class of commands (such as ceremonial or judicial) which is generally abrogated of fulfilled. This cannot be so shown in the instance of the commands against homosexual vice, so that the Levitical prohibitions still apply is an ineluctable conclusion.

Homosexual “marriages” are of necessity barren; they are liasons which are utterly closed to the possibility of life. Thus the fulfillment that most heterosexual couples enjoy is denied to homosexuals by the very nature of the case. As a Catholic I am bound to say that I cannot but be distressed at seeing men adopt a lifestyle which can never result in the natural outcome of carnal relations, and which will, at length, be inherently unstable and unfulfilling.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[kenofken]

What about Chile? You conveniently ignored that. And how do you know that none of us has never spent 40 cents on a stamp to send a letter to a legislator? Actually you may be right about the 40 cents because most people don’t pay that much for postage and emails are usually used instead of letters. How do I know this? Because I have sent emails to legislators telling them of my concerns. OK? Are you “pleased” now?

Do you actually think that Catholics don’t fight for their beliefs? Do you think we put on our Catholic uniforms right before Mass and take them off right after? Being Catholic is a 24/7 job and you might be surprised at how much the people in this thread, the lurkers, and other Catholics do to enact change. It goes beyond a 40 cent stamp.

Chile!! Chile!! Chile!! Remember?

If you have in fact sent emails to legislators asking for legal remedies to limit/end easy divorce or to otherwise deal with opposite sex abuses of natural law, then I commend you for your consistency. Likewise for the Chileans. The reason I’ve had such a saddle sore about this issue is that essentially no one, on this forum, has, until now, been willing to go even this far. Virtually all of them have offered fairly lame excuses as to why nothing could, or should be done in policy about non-gay abuses of natural law. In other words, many folks do wear the Catholic (or perhaps more generally, the Christian) uniform only when it suits their personal agendas. ANYONE who walks the walk and is willing to take the same medicine they propose for gay people, has a measure of respect in my book. People whose moral absolutism only gets exercised on a situational basis…not so much.

 

[CradleCath]

If you have in fact sent emails to legislators asking for legal remedies to limit/end easy divorce or to otherwise deal with opposite sex abuses of natural law, then I commend you for your consistency. Likewise for the Chileans. **The reason I’ve had such a saddle sore about this issue is that essentially no one, on this forum, has, until now, been willing to go even this far. **Virtually all of them have offered fairly lame excuses as to why nothing could, or should be done in policy about non-gay abuses of natural law. In other words, many folks do wear the Catholic (or perhaps more generally, the Christian) uniform only when it suits their personal agendas. ANYONE who walks the walk and is willing to take the same medicine they propose for gay people, has a measure of respect in my book. People whose moral absolutism only gets exercised on a situational basis…not so much.

The emboldened sentence is a lie. In one of my previous posts, I told you that I’d been a volunteer for Right To Life for 30 years. I also mentioned the great number of Catholics killed for trying to oppose divorce & remarriage under Henry VIII. In one of his late letters, Thomas Moore refers to the **death of 4000 Catholics in the small port town of Chelsea, just ONE SMALL TOWN. ** Monasteries were burned, as were Catholics of the time. If you have a strong stomach read Peter Ackroyd’s “The Life of Thomas More”.

How DARE you come onto a Catholic message board & question whether we have done enough to protect Natural Law.

Yes, we’ve lost some…the multiple marriage thing led to a massacre that defies the imagination. Various laws barred Catholics from entering London, traveling more than 10 miles (16 kilometers) from home or owning horses worth more than 10 pounds. Catholics who refused to sign Henry’s “oath” were burned at the stake. ** For nearly three centuries **after the reign of the adulterous King, Catholics in England were outlaws.

I really didn’t think there was one person left in this nation that is unaware of our 5 decade fight against Abortion. However, in this thread I’ve come to realize how much ignorance exists about my Church.

And guess what, this battle over gay “marriage” is one that we just might win. Why?? Because this brand of sexual activity is repugnant to other faiths. We won’t be fighting this one alone.

 

[PassingThru]

And guess what, this battle over gay “marriage” is one that we just might win. Why?? Because this brand of sexual activity is repugnant to other faiths. We won’t be fighting this one alone.

Well, at least you were straight with that answer. Most direct one yet. Thank you for being honest.

Yikes.

Double points to you for rightly talking about unjustified Catholic persecutions of the past and immediately following up with a new one for today! Grand Prize Winner.

 

[ERose]

I disagree with the emboldened sentence ERose.** Natural Law" says that things in God’s Creation should be used according to their purpose.** (i.e., Gay sex is inserting a reproductive organ into a digestive tract, which hardly seems to follow any natural or biological law.)

Natural Law is a body of law or a specific principle held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law.

This issue goes beyond the fact that gays cannot bear children, the inabiliby to produce children is a result of an ACT, that in & of itself, is morally wrong.

We (everyone, no matter their faith or lack thereof) can KNOW that
the “designedness” of things in general not only draws our attention to the design itself, but also the Designer. The fact that the design of the male & female body speaks of a “completeness” when the two are joined is something we don’t need to be taught. We can, by the reasoning ability that is innate in every sane person KNOW that the joining of two males (or two females) does not bring “completeness”, In fact we cannot NOT know this. The results of gay sex is childlessness, & disease of both the body & the soul.

Natural law, is the still, quiet voice within us that tells us that some laws are basic and fundamental to human nature and** are discoverable by human reason without reference to specific legislative enactments or judicial decisions.** Belief in Natural Law goes clear back to the Stoics who had come to these conclusions even before the birth of Christ. Stoicism, with its roots in earlier doctrines and theories of the human person and the universe, built up an ideal of the virtuous, wise man. They regarded philosophy as an entity to be divided into physics, logic, and ethics, **the Stoics made **logic and physics ****a foundation for ethics.

To simplify all of this, Natural Law can pretty much be considered common sense for anyone who wants to know Truth & delves deeply enough into their own soul to find it.

I don’t think you are understanding the foundation of my argument. The fact is we are arguing against atheist and other Christians or Catholics. Atheist are not going to be concerned about what the Church teaches and as such it is not a viable argument to use against them. Now the fundamental function of marriage is procreation and creating a stable environment for the rearing of children. Without this function marriage ceases to be necessary in society. Because this is the fundamental function of marriage then that makes a concept such as gay marriage an oxymoron because there is no way a gay couple can produce a child with both of their genetics. And it always requires a third party. This argument in my opinion is the only argument that they cannot discount or rather I haven’t seen anyone on multiple threads completely fail in responding effectively against this argument.

Look I agree with you point and have used it and believe in it myself but K, Leela, Seeker or any other atheist or spiritist as Seeker is really do not think that homosexual sex is abnormal. Quite honestly that isn’t the argument of this thread which is discussing gay-marriage.

 

[ERose]

I don’t think you understand what moral relativism is. (You seem to be suffering from a typical misunderstanding of the term among Catholics where relativism is taken to mean disagreeing with the Church.)

Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR). The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.

This defines you.

I have said that I think there is such a thing as moral truth and that it is possible to be justified in believing true moral claims. I am saying that I think you are wrong about what is moral and what is immoral. For a moral relativist, there is no such thing as right and wrong.

The only moral truth you believe is what you believe. You beliefs are not based upon anything that would be classified as absolute or universal truths, but rather your ideas of morality.

I think it is immoral for the church to teach that contraception use is sinful. I think it is immoral that the Chruch teaches that women who try to become priests need to be excommunicated while males priests who rape children ought not be excommunicated and don’t need to be reported to the civil authorities. I think it is immoral to excommunicate a doctor who helps a 14 girl pregnant with twins after being raped to get an abortion. I think it is immoral to tell people in AIDS infested Africa not to use condoms.

You using the phrase “I think” speaks volumes.

These aren’t the complaints of a moral relativist, they are the those of a moral realist who thinks that the Church has lot of things wrong about what is really right and wrong.

These are the complaints of someone that does not like the Church and its beliefs because they set a standard you cannot meet and you know it. You obviously “think” it is morally wrong not to have sex and the church’s teachings on restraining and controlling the sexual urge instead of letting it control you is something that is alien to you. Every “I think” in this post has something to do with sex. Do you and Seeker know each other personally?