Homosexuals Say Married Couples Required to Have Children

[rayne100]

Homosexuals have revealed their true agenda by the bill proposed in Washington state. They do indeed want to destroy marriage, as it says in black and white.

The second article disproves your theory in black and white.

“Gadow said his alliance — whose name itself is part of the parody, forming the acronym DOMA — is a loosely organized group of 15 or so friends. While they will work to get Initiative 957 on the ballot and passed in November, Gadow said he doesn’t really want to see it enacted — and would expect the Supreme Court ultimately to strike it down as unconstitutional.”

 

[Mirdath]

Glib responses do not advance the dialogue.

Nor does linking biased articles that cherrypick statistics to make a group of people look bad.

The average lifespan of a gay male is 47 years old. You can easily get the facts about this and the stats on rampant disease within this community. How could this possibly be endorsed as a positive contribution to society?

The average life expectancies of police and firefighters are significantly less than those for the rest of us too. Positive contribution to society, you say?

If you have to dig so far to say homosexuals are a net loss for society, you’re trying too hard. Stop looking at them as ‘the gay invasion’ and look at them as human beings. They make all our lives a little bit more beautiful for having known them – as does everyone, gay or straight.

I am pleased that my city has produced a group that is proposing this absurd initiative. I hope it gets a ton of press and support by the gay militants so that their true agenda might be revealed.

The absurdity is intentional. The group has said so itself.

LRThunder:

Equal rights? Maybe if they were being denied the right to vote, eat in the same restaurants as other people, forced to drink from separate water fountains or relegated to near slavery conditions you would have a point about them wanting equal rights.

Unless they are really being treated like the Jews in Nazi Germany or African-Americans in this country from the 1960’s and before, it’s not about equal rights but about the destruction of everything that’s good and decent in America.

You may be closer than you think, but no matter. Marriage is a right, is it not? It is denied to all but heterosexuals, true or false? If so, there is inequality. It may not be as obviously unfair to some people as slavery or being made to wear ID patches, but the existence of clearer wrongs does not make this right.

 

[mlchance]

Marriage is a right, is it not?

No, it isn’t.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Courtneyjo]

Comparing dying from homosexual acts and lifestyle to dying from dedicating your life to public safety (police and firefighters) is a fraudulent argument.

Claiming that same-sex child molesters are usually married does not disprove the fact that the incidence of sexual abuse of children is higher in homosexual households. Again, a fraudulent argument.

Saying that a group who wants to re-define marriage is no different than a scrupulous individual is a fraudulent argument.

Implying that because we have copied the systems of government of ancient civilizations means that we should copy their so-called acceptance of homosexuality is a fraudulent argument. Implying that we should change our definition of marriage because Athens, Rome and Sparta practiced homosexuality is a fraudulent argument.

WA-DOMA (from the original article) is fraudulent by using the acronym DOMA and by introducing a bill that they say they really don’t want passed. And they have inadvertently (or perhaps not) shown their real intention–to destroy marriage. This group wants to redefine marriage into something it is not, also a fraud, and by doing so, destroy marriage. So-called homosexual “marriage” is a fraud.

How sad to live one’s life based on fraud. These folks need our prayers.

 

[Peter_Parker]

From a debate going on at publicsquare.net:

Domestic violence among homosexual pairs is staggering: 31 percent of lesbians and 22 percent of gay men report physical abuse by a partner in the preceding year.

Homosexual persons have double to triple the rates of drug abuse, alcoholism, and depression as heterosexuals. and one wonders how gay marriage can benefit society at all.

Homosexual persons are fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide. Add to that the soaring rates of venereal disease, hepatitis C, and AIDS among homosexualsTheTheThe risk of sexual abuse for children in homosexual households is fifty times greater than for children raised by their biological parents. Children living in households with adults unrelated to them are eight times more likely to die in childhood than are children raised by their biological mothers and fathers.

The American Academy of Pediatrics released a technical report in 2002 that stated that “children who grow up with one or two gay or lesbian parents fare as well … as children whose parents are heterosexual.” But the report contradicts its own findings and admits that samples were not random and that studies had just begun. There was no long-term follow-up to determine if in fact these children had a healthy outcome. In short, the study is worthless.

1. I think you’re confused about Athens, Rome and Sparta. Homosexual acts were typically pederast in nature, and generally were not exclusive; this is to say that those who would commit these acts would also participate in heterosexual acts (often to beget children). Relying on the buggering of young boys thousands of years ago to justify your position seems a poor way to argue - but that’s just me.
2. The above statistics are fairly uniform, even in places like San Francisco where homosexual activities are (and have long been) broadly accepted as “normal”.
3. For the sake of argument, let’s say that we simply don’t know how children raised in these environments will fare. It is dangerous at best and cruel at worst to submit children to experimental families.
4. People with same sex attraction are free to marry - just as free as heterosexuals. A heterosexual cannot marry their sibling. A heterosexual cannot marry two people. A heterosexual can only marry a member of the opposite sex. The same is true for a homosexual. There’s no civil liberty issue, as we’re all equally allowed to do the exact same thing. What’s being pushed for is something novel. If we’re to give legal recognition of same-sex relationships, why not give them to incestuous ones? A daughter cares for her aging mother - should they be “married”? Why not? It’s a loving relationship, and it’s certainly more committed and stable than the majority of marriages out there today. Why isn’t theirs a “civil rights issue”? You must answer this to make your position make coherent sense.
5. Homosexual acts are inherently disordered. Homosexuals cannot engage in genital/genital sex, and lest one forget these are sexual organs (i.e., designed for sex). Using a biological system for something it’s not designed to do is mismis-use the system. If I were to shove pizza in my ear, I would be misusing my ear (and would probably damage it). No matter how much I like it, it’s still a misuse of the system. Same sex acts make just as much sense as shoving pizza in one’s ear.

 

[fix]

Whether or not marriage ‘existed from the beginning’, the state – or rather, the society – has every authority to redefine institutions. Such fundamental institutions are what make a civilization, and if the society recognizes a need for change they will be changed.

Actually, there is no such legitimate authority at all. It would be like saying society as the authority to institute slavery or genocide. They may have coercive power, but no such authority. All authentic authority derives from the supreme lawgiver. The concept of unnatural “marriages” contradicts the natural law. There are plenty of civil laws now that contradict natural law but that in no way justifies them in any authentic sense.

What I am proposing makes the entire question irrelevant: you get to keep your straights-only institution of marriage, everybody (including you) gets to enjoy the societal benefits that come from living as partners in union.

No, that is false. Any other form that apes authentic marriage is a disservice to all.

That law already exists – but only for heterosexuals. Extend the protections and privileges that come with being committed to live together to all, no matter their orientation, and then it will be fair and just.

Rubbish. It would unjust and unfair as there is no right to what is immoral.

If two people want to design some private contract between themselves they may do that now.

 

[blessedtoo]

Nor does linking biased articles that cherrypick statistics to make a group of people look bad.

You can find these stats on pro-homosexual websites. FACTS are not biased.

The average life expectancies of police and firefighters are significantly less than those for the rest of us too. Positive contribution to society, you say?

This poster said it better than I could!

Courtneyjo: Comparing dying from homosexual acts and lifestyle to dying from dedicating your life to public safety (police and firefighters) is a fraudulent argument.

If you have to dig so far to say homosexuals are a net loss for society, you’re trying too hard. Stop looking at them as ‘the gay invasion’ and look at them as human beings. They make all our lives a little bit more beautiful for having known them – as does everyone, gay or straight.

Friend, I don’t have to dig at all. And as for how I look at them, you have obviously never seen my previous posts on this subject. My experience with homosexuality could not get any more “up close and personal”. It is because of their humanity and my profound love for all folks who struggle with this issue that I am so passionately opposed to the fraudulent rhetoric you and others thoughtlessly repeat on these forums. I want to see my sister in heaven, you know?

 

[Mirdath]

I think you’re confused about Athens, Rome and Sparta. Homosexual acts were typically pederast in nature, and generally were not exclusive; this is to say that those who would commit these acts would also participate in heterosexual acts (often to beget children). Relying on the buggering of young boys thousands of years ago to justify your position seems a poor way to argue - but that’s just me.

Yes, the ancients committed pederasty as well, and often – but I’m not discussing or condoning that (there’s this little question of ‘consent’). To say such acts were ‘typical’, while true, implies the falsehood that they were the only such acts. Adult homosexuality is also well recorded by those civilizations.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that we simply don’t know how children raised in these environments will fare. It is dangerous at best and cruel at worst to submit children to experimental families.

I suppose then that it was a dangerous-at-best-and-cruel-at-worst experiment for Adam and Eve to try to raise Cain, Abel, Seth, et al themselves instead of kicking them out into the wilds? And for the first family that tried tasking all relatives with child-rearing? The first orphanage was a dangerous or cruel experiment? After all, they didn’t know what would happen – and we know more about what will happen in this case.

People with same sex attraction are free to marry - just as free as heterosexuals.

Oh, don’t give me that. I’ve heard it before, and it’s still snide, ignorant, and demeaning. Heterosexuals in love are free to marry; homosexuals in love are not.

If we’re to give legal recognition of same-sex relationships, why not give them to incestuous ones? A daughter cares for her aging mother - should they be “married”? Why not? It’s a loving relationship, and it’s certainly more committed and stable than the majority of marriages out there today. Why isn’t theirs a “civil rights issue”? You must answer this to make your position make coherent sense.

There are serious questions as to proper informed consent in such cases; additionally, inbreeding is provably a net loss to society by propagating and strengthening genetic errors and bad traits.

Homosexual acts are inherently disordered. Homosexuals cannot engage in genital/genital sex, and lest one forget these are sexual organs (i.e., designed for sex).

Some people in the body-mod scene are crazier than you think… you should probably just trust me on that one.

Using a biological system for something it’s not designed to do is mismis-use the system.

Please, ‘re-engineering’

If I were to shove pizza in my ear, I would be misusing my ear (and would probably damage it). No matter how much I like it, it’s still a misuse of the system. Same sex acts make just as much sense as shoving pizza in one’s ear.

If you like the feeling of mozzarella on your eardrum, whatever reason could I have to stop you? Even if I established a Church of Pizza-In-Mouth, you aren’t a member; I’d have no right to crusade against your aural and tactile enjoyment of that hot, creamy, sticky…cheese… unless and until you shoved a slice up my ear canal.

 

[Mirdath]

Actually, there is no such legitimate authority at all. It would be like saying society as the authority to institute slavery or genocide. They may have coercive power, but no such authority. All authentic authority derives from the supreme lawgiver. The concept of unnatural “marriages” contradicts the natural law. There are plenty of civil laws now that contradict natural law but that in no way justifies them in any authentic sense.

God’s law is God’s; the state’s law is ours. The state does, in fact, have the authority to institute slavery and many have exercised that authority (genocide isn’t an institution). Does that make it right? No, it makes it legal and a part of that society. Why so? The government is the fundamental institution of society we set up to manage itself and the other institutions. This is all textbook definition. ‘Natural law’ doesn’t even come into it.

No, that is false. Any other form that apes authentic marriage is a disservice to all.

Authentic marriage is a sacrament, no? Civil unions don’t pretend to be sacramental.

Rubbish. It would unjust and unfair as there is no right to what is immoral.

And who defines immorality, hm? Once anyone does make a legal definition, we have a theocracy. America was founded on the principle that everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – and even if you consider the private actions of others immoral, they do not infringe on your rights to the same and so cannot justly be outlawed. And the Constitution is not a restrictive code, but a permissive – anything not explicitly against the law is allowed.

If two people want to design some private contract between themselves they may do that now.

So let that be the extent of the government’s involvement in all such unions, homosexual and heterosexual. Why not?

blessedtoo:

You can find these stats on pro-homosexual websites. FACTS are not biased.

Their presentation may be, and usually (as in this case) is.

Friend, I don’t have to dig at all. And as for how I look at them, you have obviously never seen my previous posts on this subject. My experience with homosexuality could not get any more “up close and personal”.

Ever been intimate with someone possessing the same genitals? No? Sorry, your experience isn’t there yet.

It is because of their humanity and my profound love for all folks who struggle with this issue that I am so passionately opposed to the fraudulent rhetoric you and others thoughtlessly repeat on these forums. I want to see my sister in heaven, you know?

That is her decision, not yours, and I’m pretty sure you’ll both be happier once you realize that fact. You are not in charge of her life or that of anyone other than yourself. Don’t try to be.

 

[Peter_Parker]

God’s law is God’s; the state’s law is ours.

And narry the two shall mix?

The state does, in fact, have the authority to institute slavery and many have exercised that authority (genocide isn’t an institution).

Is an unjust law still law? Does it still bind the citizens? Was Rosa Parks wrong? To be consistent, you have to give an emphatic “YES!”

Further, the law is currently that homosexuals can’t marry. It’s the law. That means as far as you’re concerned, that’s what we should follow.

Silly positivists.

Does that make it right? No, it makes it legal and a part of that society. Why so? The government is the fundamental institution of society we set up to manage itself and the other institutions. This is all textbook definition. ‘Natural law’ doesn’t even come into it.

You obviously haven’t studied Natural Law.

And who defines immorality, hm?

Right reason.

Once anyone does make a legal definition, we have a theocracy.

1. There’s nothing (in principle) wrong with a theocracy.
2. Every law expresses some kind of judgment on morality.
3. I’m not sure you’re familiar enough with legal theory or jurisprudence to continue this line of argumentation.

America was founded on the principle that everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – and even if you consider the private actions of others immoral, they do not infringe on your rights to the same and so cannot justly be outlawed.

Not true. Smoking pot was still illegal, last time I checked.

And the Constitution is not a restrictive code, but a permissive – anything not explicitly against the law is allowed.

Allowed to be legislated by the states, perhaps.

So let that be the extent of the government’s involvement in all such unions, homosexual and heterosexual. Why not?

Because it’s wrong. When did that cease to be a good answer?

That is her decision, not yours, and I’m pretty sure you’ll both be happier once you realize that fact. You are not in charge of her life or that of anyone other than yourself. Don’t try to be.

When will people learn that there’s no such thing as a private sin?

 

[fix]

God’s law is God’s; the state’s law is ours. The state does, in fact, have the authority to institute slavery and many have exercised that authority (genocide isn’t an institution). Does that make it right? No, it makes it legal and a part of that society. Why so? The government is the fundamental institution of society we set up to manage itself and the other institutions. This is all textbook definition. ‘Natural law’ doesn’t even come into it.

You are confusing things. That the government claims an authority does not make that claim authentic as in consistent with objective moral truth. What any textbook says about the secular state does not make it the final and comprehensive authority on what is just or unjust.

As I said that they may have the power to legislate and enforce unjust laws but it is a misuse of that authority. Not hard to grasp. They can do it, but they would be wrong.

Authentic marriage is a sacrament, no? Civil unions don’t pretend to be sacramental.

Where did I mention sacrament?

And who defines immorality, hm? Once anyone does make a legal definition, we have a theocracy. America was founded on the principle that everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – and even if you consider the private actions of others immoral, they do not infringe on your rights to the same and so cannot justly be outlawed. And the Constitution is not a restrictive code, but a permissive – anything not explicitly against the law is allowed.

Until very recently we had laws against sodomy, adultery, and other forms of turpitude. If you are claiming majority opinion should rule regardless of objective morality then you think raw power trumps virtue. Your vision of society seems to be where moral relativism is the foundation. Anything goes as long as one consents?

…From the Greeks down to Aquinas, every moral philosopher of note had assumed that the pursuit of happiness is the primary moral question. With William of Ockham, the profound linkages among freedom, virtue, and the pursuit of happiness are sundered: morality is mere obligation, freedom is mere willfulness. When Western thought took a decisively subjectivist turn in the seventeenth century, and when that subjectivism eventually gave birth to a principled skepticism about the human capacity to know anything with confidence, the result, which is much with us today, was the emergence of an intellectual culture of radical moral relativism lacking any thick notion of the common good. …Better Concept Of Freedom, A

So let that be the extent of the government’s involvement in all such unions, homosexual and heterosexual. Why not?

Homosexuals, and others, have that available to them right now. They want marriage specifically because they understand it will further their cause. They want acceptance of their behavior as equal to heterosexual acts.

You ask why should heterosexual marriage not be done away with and leave it to two persons making some kind of contract the way it is available to homosexuals now? Because the institution of marriage forms the very foundation of civilization. It is not a plastic entity to be reformed on a whim or because our hedonistic culture desires novelty.

 

[Mirdath]

And narry the two shall mix?

‘Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s’ ring a bell?

Is an unjust law still law? Does it still bind the citizens? Was Rosa Parks wrong? To be consistent, you have to give an emphatic “YES!”

From a legal standpoint, she was very much in the wrong. From an ethical one, she was right.

Further, the law is currently that homosexuals can’t marry. It’s the law. That means as far as you’re concerned, that’s what we should follow.

As I understand it, the law is rather that heterosexuals can marry. As above, so below: it is unethical.

You obviously haven’t studied Natural Law.

Are we talking Natural Law like gravity or ‘natural law’ like such-and-such is immoral and an abomination in the eyes of God? I’ve studied both, and I accept the former. I’m fine with a somewhat less-broad version of the latter as well, that’s basic social contract theory, but not the overly-broad attempt to force everyone in the world to conform to your idea of morality.

Right reason.

Right reason would lead us to believe that theft, murder, lying, and rape are unethical, and I have no problems whatsoever with that. Faith leads some to believe that homosexuality is immoral. Faith is not reason.

1. There’s nothing (in principle) wrong with a theocracy.

Except stifling all expression of belief by those who don’t agree with X religion? Would you be at ease in a Hindu or Wiccan theocracy?

1. Every law expresses some kind of judgment on morality.

Ethics, not morals.

1. I’m not sure you’re familiar enough with legal theory or jurisprudence to continue this line of argumentation.

Oh go ahead, I’ll tell you when I’m out of my depth.

Not true. Smoking pot was still illegal, last time I checked.

Surprise surprise, I hold that that law is unethical. I’m no Rosa Parks for marijuana though – I react badly.

Allowed to be legislated by the states, perhaps.

There’s no contradiction there. I said ‘anything not explicitly against the law is allowed’, and meant national, state, county, and city/township laws all.

Because it’s wrong. When did that cease to be a good answer?

It was never a good answer. Some people don’t accept things on fiat, and if you want to convince them you’re going to have to do a lot better than that.

When will people learn that there’s no such thing as a private sin?

When private sins are no longer considered sinful (not like that’ll ever happen)? I do not count God as a party for determining privacy; perhaps that’s your issue.

 

[Mirdath]

YAs I said that they may have the power to legislate and enforce unjust laws but it is a misuse of that authority. Not hard to grasp. They can do it, but they would be wrong.

You realize you’re actually restating my position?

Where did I mention sacrament?

Is it not so? You are Catholic according to your profile.

Until very recently we had laws against sodomy, adultery, and other forms of turpitude. If you are claiming majority opinion should rule regardless of objective morality then you think raw power trumps virtue.

I’m claiming virtue is not something with which government should be concerned. Ethics, yes, but moral virtue, no.

Your vision of society seems to be where moral relativism is the foundation.

And here I had such a good run not being accused of relativism…

No. My vision of society is one in which people get along. That requires no moral concessions from any; it only requires people not force their beliefs on right and wrong on others. This is not relativism – you can be as absolutist as you like, but your rule ends with yourself and those who’ve chosen to follow you. You have no moral rights on others – you can believe they’re wrong all you like, but you can’t force your idea of Right on them.

Anything goes as long as one consents?

It’s a logical extension, isn’t it? If one consents to sex, it is not rape; if one consents to transfer of ownership, it is not theft; if one consents to die, it is not murder but suicide.

You ask why should heterosexual marriage not be done away with and leave it to two persons making some kind of contract the way it is available to homosexuals now? Because the institution of marriage forms the very foundation of civilization. It is not a plastic entity to be reformed on a whim or because our hedonistic culture desires novelty.

Leaving aside that I don’t buy that excuse for a moment, can’t you see that I’m not proposing doing away with heterosexual marriage?

 

[setter]

Are we talking Natural Law like gravity or ‘natural law’ like such-and-such is immoral and an abomination in the eyes of God? I’ve studied both, and I accept the former. I’m fine with a somewhat less-broad version of the latter as well, that’s basic social contract theory, but not the overly-broad attempt to force everyone in the world to conform to your idea of morality.

Natural law can only be inconformity with moral law, and visa versa. Unless of course one believes that man is not a moral being.

Right reason would lead us to believe that theft, murder, lying, and rape are unethical, and I have no problems whatsoever with that. Faith leads some to believe that homosexuality is immoral. Faith is not reason.

Faith enlightens reason to those open to receiving the light of truth.

Ethics, not morals.

Ethics. The explicit, philosophical reflection on moral beliefs and practices. The difference between ethics and morality is similar to the difference between musicology and music. Ethics is a conscious stepping back and reflecting on morality, just as musicology is a conscious reflection on music.

ethics.sandiego.edu/LMH/E2/Glossary.asp

 

[Peter_Parker]

‘Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s’ ring a bell?

Yes, it does. Does wrenching out of context ring a bell?

From a legal standpoint, she was very much in the wrong. From an ethical one, she was right.

Ok. Let’s go with that.

As I understand it, the law is rather that heterosexuals can marry. As above, so below: it is unethical.

So are you trying to impose your view of ethics on everyone else? Who made you the royal arbiter of what is ethical and what is not? Aren’t you simply trying to enact your own atheistic theocracy?

I see little difference.

Are we talking Natural Law like gravity or ‘natural law’ like such-and-such is immoral and an abomination in the eyes of God? I’ve studied both, and I accept the former. I’m fine with a somewhat less-broad version of the latter as well, that’s basic social contract theory, but not the overly-broad attempt to force everyone in the world to conform to your idea of morality.

Had you studied both adequately, you would know that NL theory holds the “social contract” to be mythical nonsense. You wouldn’t conflate the two. Again, you haven’t sufficiently studied.

Right reason would lead us to believe that theft, murder, lying, and rape are unethical, and I have no problems whatsoever with that. Faith leads some to believe that homosexuality is immoral. Faith is not reason.

Faith is not reason, true. Faith compliments reason, and cannot contradict it. Read Fides et Ratio sometime.

However, this is not an article of faith (like the Trinity, for example). This is a position rooted in reason.

Homosexuals do not have “sex” with their sexual acts, properly speaking. Again, homosexuals are *genitally *incompatible, regardless of what they choose to do with their genitals. Since this is the case, theirs is not a “sexual relationship”, properly speaking. Neither is the normal and loving relationship between a mother and her daughter. Again, why can they not get married? They have a relationship. They have love. Why is this not a “civil right” like you’re claiming homosexuals should enjoy? They, too, can’t marry, despite being in love. I fail to see your logic for drawing a distinction.

Except stifling all expression of belief by those who don’t agree with X religion? Would you be at ease in a Hindu or Wiccan theocracy?

You’re confusing a theocracy with a totalitarian regime. The two are not synonyms.

Ethics, not morals.

Please draw the distinction for me so that I don’t impute definitions to you.

Oh go ahead, I’ll tell you when I’m out of my depth.

It’s much easier for someone else to see when/where you’re going wrong with a math problem than it is for you to see it. I would assert that this is an analogous situation.

Surprise surprise, I hold that that law is unethical. I’m no Rosa Parks for marijuana though – I react badly.

Might I suggest that admitting drug use is not the best way to make a convincing logical argument?

There’s no contradiction there. I said ‘anything not explicitly against the law is allowed’, and meant national, state, county, and city/township laws all.

And same-sex unions are not within the law. What’s your beef? Is it your personal view of ethics that you keep trying to push on others?

It was never a good answer. Some people don’t accept things on fiat, and if you want to convince them you’re going to have to do a lot better than that.

That wasn’t the sum total of my argument. It’s simply the conclusion. Would that conclusion be good enough, properly reasoned?

When private sins are no longer considered sinful (not like that’ll ever happen)? I do not count God as a party for determining privacy; perhaps that’s your issue.

Christianity tries to save men by convicting them of their sins.
Modernism tries to save men by convincing them they never had any.

Go spend a few years in New York City. I think you’ll see that Modernism is wrong.

 

[Mirdath]

Natural law can only be inconformity with moral law, and visa versa. Unless of course one believes that man is not a moral being.

I believe man is a being with morals, and that those morals are not graven on the heart as some suppose but constructed in order to live with others. I’ve yet to find any reason to believe otherwise.

Faith enlightens reason to those open to receiving the light of truth.

Faith is defined as belief without reason.

Ethics. The explicit, philosophical reflection on moral beliefs and practices. The difference between ethics and morality is similar to the difference between musicology and music. Ethics is a conscious stepping back and reflecting on morality, just as musicology is a conscious reflection on music.

Exactly what I’m talking about

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Faith is defined as belief without reason.

Faith as a virtue is not easily distilled and has many reflections in the realm of reason.

Objectively, it stands for the sum of truths revealed by God in Scripture and tradition and which the Church (see FAITH, RULE OF) presents to us in a brief form in her creeds, subjectively, faith stands for the habit or virtue by which we assent to those truths. It is with this subjective aspect of faith that we are here primarily concerned. Before we proceed to analyze the term faith, certain preliminary notions must be made clear.

newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

Give it a read. If you wish to dialogue with people of Faith, it will help you to know what they mean and where they are coming from by familiarizing yourself with theis fundamental theological virtue for Catholics.

peace

 

[Mirdath]

Yes, it does. Does wrenching out of context ring a bell?

Indeed it does, but I submit that the context is appropriate – and, in fact, that that teaching was intended for such a situation.

So are you trying to impose your view of ethics on everyone else? Who made you the royal arbiter of what is ethical and what is not?

Insofar as I believe minimalism is the proper way to govern, yes; but even if my own approach to justice and morality were less streamlined I’d support that concept – I would have no wish for my beliefs to be infringed on.

Aren’t you simply trying to enact your own atheistic theocracy?

No. I’m proposing a government which ignores the question of religion entirely – much like the US government is supposed to.

Had you studied both adequately, you would know that NL theory holds the “social contract” to be mythical nonsense. You wouldn’t conflate the two. Again, you haven’t sufficiently studied.

Oh, so natural law is a ‘theory’ now? Sorry, no, it’s faith. And the social contract is hardly mythical or nonsense.

Homosexuals do not have “sex” with their sexual acts, properly speaking. Again, homosexuals are *genitally *incompatible, regardless of what they choose to do with their genitals. Since this is the case, theirs is not a “sexual relationship”, properly speaking.

This is a rather novel position, and one I do not believe the Church holds. Interesting.

Neither is the normal and loving relationship between a mother and her daughter. Again, why can they not get married? They have a relationship. They have love. Why is this not a “civil right” like you’re claiming homosexuals should enjoy? They, too, can’t marry, despite being in love. I fail to see your logic for drawing a distinction.

They have love, but it is not romantic love, right? And there are still the problems of consent and inbreeding, which I don’t think I can make more clearly visible to you without getting graphic.

It’s much easier for someone else to see when/where you’re going wrong with a math problem than it is for you to see it. I would assert that this is an analogous situation.

I would assert that you’re merely insulting my intelligence and education as you have above and in previous posts. That I disagree with you does not make me stupid. That I come here to talk about it and hope for a civil debate might, but that’s another thing entirely. Put up or shut up.

Might I suggest that admitting drug use is not the best way to make a convincing logical argument?

If I hadn’t, you or other posters would have assumed I’m a pothead anyway. I’ve tried it once and it didn’t like me at all, so I stay away from it.

And same-sex unions are not within the law. What’s your beef? Is it your personal view of ethics that you keep trying to push on others?

If they are not within the law, they are permitted. And laws to ban them are unethical because they enforce a particular moral view on everyone, no matter their belief.

That wasn’t the sum total of my argument. It’s simply the conclusion. Would that conclusion be good enough, properly reasoned?

Were it reasoned, you’d have no need to depend on fiat or circular logic. Reason away, but if that’s your conclusion you obviously are missing postulates and intermediate steps, and are left with ‘X because X’ as the sum of your ‘argument’.

Christianity tries to save men by convicting them of their sins.
Modernism tries to save men by convincing them they never had any.

Go spend a few years in New York City. I think you’ll see that Modernism is wrong.

Not NYC, but I have spent my time in the crucible, and I see no such thing – including just where you got your definition of modernism. What have you lived through?

 

[stbruno]

An earlier poster said that we need to get a clear legal definition of marriage. Unfortunately, I read today in our local paper the two senators who have been major proponents of the marriage amendment definition of one man and one woman have removed the bill that they have introduced.

The newspaper reporter said that is amazing that when" bigots or homophobics are challenged, they fold." I wish I could provide a link to the reporter from the Daily Southtown paper but it is not online.
More reason to pray.

 

[setter]

I believe man is a being with morals, and that those morals are not graven on the heart as some suppose but constructed in order to live with others. I’ve yet to find any reason to believe otherwise.

This is what I rationally believe:

REVELATION. Disclosure by God of himself and his will to the human race. The disclosure comes to human beings by way of communication, which implies the communicator, who is God; the receiver, who is the human being; and a transmitter or intermediary. Depending on the intermediary, there are in general two main forms of revelation, commonly called natural and supernatural.

If the intermediary is the world of space and time, the revelation is said to be natural. In this case, the natural world of creation is the medium through which God communicates himself to humankind. Moreover, humanity’s natural use of reason is the means by which it attains the knowledge that God wishes to communicate. It is therefore natural twice over, once in the objective source from which human beings derive knowledge of God and divine things, and once again in the subjective powers that a person uses to appropriate what God is revealing in the universe into which humanity has been placed. In the Old Testament those are said to be “naturally stupid” who have “not known God and who, from the things that are seen, have not been able to discover Him-who-is or, by studying the works, have failed to recognize the Artificer” (Wisdom 13:1). And St. Paul affirmed: “Ever since God created the world his everlasting power and deity – however invisible – have been there for the mind to see in the things he has made” (Romans 1:20).

Supernatural revelation begins where natural revelation ends. It is in the character of a grace from God who has decided to communicate himself in a manner that far exceeds his manifestation through nature. The Scriptures call this form of communication a divine speech and refer to God as speaking to humankind. There are two levels of this supernatural revelation, as capsulized by the author of Hebrews: “At various times in the past and in various ways, God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets; but in our own time, the last days, he has spoken to us through his Son, the Son that he has appointed to inherit everything and through whom he made everything there is. He is the radiant light of God’s glory and the perfect copy of his nature” (Hebrews 1:1-2).

The difference between these two kinds of supernatural communication lies in the fact that, before Christ, God spoke indeed but still indirectly through the prophets who were inspired to tell others what Yahweh had told them. In the person of Christ, however, it was no longer God speaking merely through human seers chosen by him; it was God himself speaking as man to his fellow members of the human race. (Etym. Latin revelatio, an uncovering; revelation.)

therealpresence.org/dictionary/adict.htm

Faith is defined as belief without reason.

Faith in its essence is a relationship between persons. More definitions to refine your understanding:

FAITH. The acceptance of the word of another, trusting that one knows what the other is saying and is honest in telling the truth. The basic motive of all faith is the authority (or right to be believed) of someone who is speaking. This authority is an adequate knowledge of what he or she is talking about, and integrity in not wanting to deceive. It is called divine faith when the one believed is God, and human faith when the persons believed are human beings. (Etym. Latin fides, belief; habit of faith; object of faith.)

FAITH AND REASON. The relationship between human response to God’s revelation and use of human native intelligence. This relationship is mainly of three kinds, where the role of reason is to assist divine faith: 1. reason can establish the rational grounds for belief by proving God’s existence, his authority or credibility as all-wise and trustworthy, and by proving that God actually made a revelation since he confirmed the fact by working (even now) miracles that testify to God’s having spoken to human beings, especially in the person of Jesus Christ; 2. reason can further reflect on what God has revealed and thus come to an even deeper and clearer understanding of the divine mysteries; and 3. reason can both show that the mysteries of faith are in harmony with naturally known truths and can defend their validity against the charge of being contrary to reason.

therealpresence.org/dictionary/adict.htm