R
Robertanthony
Guest
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html I think reading this will prove beneficial to all and might even clear some misconceptions.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
rorydaman
Guest
I believe that secular morality is based on empathy and the golden rule. Homosexuality does not go against either of those.I agree with your 1st post. My own father argues along the same lines: I suppose it might say something about his own struggles with his sexual orientation growing up. For true heterosexuals, homosexuality just isn’t a temptation to overcome, the mere thought of it doesn’t even cross one’s mind. My guess is that some people would like to portray homosexuality as something that one chooses consciously and can turn on and off at will because, in their views, it makes God look "cruel"or “unjust” to forbid homosexual persons to engage in homosexual sex if homosexuality is: 1-deep-seated 2-not a conscious, free choice per se. The “Born this way” creed isn’t too far from the truth IMO, where I definitely depart from that creed is the condonement and approval that is implicit. In less obscure terms: being born this way doesn’t make it ok, doesn’t make it something that you mustn’t fight against.
As for your 2nd post, in a secular world you have basic, common morality (don’t steal, don’t do violence unless in self-defense, abide by the law etc.), a higher and more demanding morality is from God, and if you’re an atheist I would understand that that morality that comes from beyond is, to you, groundless and irrelevant. Even if an atheist agrees that per the natural law, homosexuality is disordered and homosexual acts, an aberration, why would they feel compelled to live according to this conclusion when they think that life stops at death. There isn’t much of a motivation to feel accountable to or bound by the natural law. Eloquence-wise, I have better days.
E
edwest2
Guest
Positive rights for what? Gay sex being labeled marriage? How about bisexual marriages? Or incestual marriages?It is a rights movement, just one for poositive rights not natural rights.
There’s nothing positive about redefining marriage. Gay couples are already living how they want. Why do they need anybody’s stamp of approval? Why do they need this on a ballot? Nobody asks my permission to do anything. I don’t care if half my neighborhood consists of gay (LGBT) couples.
You know what? Sex should not be a public issue in the sense of the way it was viewed for a long time; “Whatever goes on behind closed doors is nobody’s business.” By trying to make it this big, important thing, I ask again: Why do gay couples need anybody’s permission to live how they want? Answer: They don’t.
This topic will always get the same answer from practicing Catholics. Gay marriage, even if legalized, is not marriage in any way, shape or form.
Blacks can be recognized as black 100% of the time. They cannot change.
So, I politely suggest the propaganda end here. It’s not going to change Church teaching about gay behavior and gay marriage.
Peace,
Ed
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Wrong. That’s not at all what it’s based on.I believe that secular morality is based on empathy and the golden rule. Homosexuality does not go against either of those.
R
rorydaman
Guest
OK, what are secular ethics based on?Wrong. That’s not at all what it’s based on.
Stephen168
New member
I believe homosexuality is disordered. It is that disordered act that disqualifies their union as marriage.I believe that secular morality is based on empathy and the golden rule. Homosexuality does not go against either of those.
S
Slavonic
Guest
And I say keep the the rubric on no close blood relations and get rid of the gender requirement. Where incest was permitted was same-sex marriage? I’ve never heard of it. So opposite gender pairing and non-family member requirements are not intertwined.But another rubric of marriage is no close blood relations. If opposite gender is not a key rubric then neither is close blood relations. So yes, sons can marry mothers, brothers marry brothers…
What grounds would those be? Can’t be because of the quality of offspring because with genetic testing and legal abortion a brother/sister marriage could produce happy, healthy kids. In fact incest was accepted in marriage in many cultures. Suppose I promise never to have sex with my mom? I’d be happy to sign a form stating that and then collect my marriage perks like any two gay women who love each other, live together etc.
How do same sex marriages cause child marriages, incest, polygamy and polyandry? Why did child marriages, incest, polygamy, and polyandry occurring not suddenly allow same sex marriages to occur?If he same sex persons can “marry” then anything goes.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
Positive rights are created rights as opposed to natural rights.Positive rights for what? Gay sex being labeled marriage? How about bisexual marriages? Or incestual marriages?
There’s nothing positive about redefining marriage. Gay couples are already living how they want. Why do they need anybody’s stamp of approval? Why do they need this on a ballot? Nobody asks my permission to do anything. I don’t care if half my neighborhood consists of gay (LGBT) couples.
You know what? Sex should not be a public issue in the sense of the way it was viewed for a long time; “Whatever goes on behind closed doors is nobody’s business.” By trying to make it this big, important thing, I ask again: Why do gay couples need anybody’s permission to live how they want? Answer: They don’t.
This topic will always get the same answer from practicing Catholics. Gay marriage, even if legalized, is not marriage in any way, shape or form.
Blacks can be recognized as black 100% of the time. They cannot change.
So, I politely suggest the propaganda end here. It’s not going to change Church teaching about gay behavior and gay marriage.
Peace,
Ed
What if one of them is an American citizen and they want to settle back in the US? What about the two spousal privileges neither of which have anything at all to do with children/procreation/sex?
Actually in the US one drop makes you black, if you are 1/16 black and look totally white you are black.
F
fix
Guest
Once the definition of marriage is changed there is no logical reason it cannot be changed again. That is what will happen.How do same sex marriages cause child marriages, incest, polygamy and polyandry? Why did child marriages, incest, polygamy, and polyandry occurring not suddenly allow same sex marriages to occur?
Stephen168
New member
And I say keep the the rubric on no close blood relations and get rid of the gender requirement. Where incest was permitted was same-sex marriage? I’ve never heard of it. So opposite gender pairing and non-family member requirements are not intertwined.
How do same sex marriages cause child marriages, incest, polygamy and polyandry? Why did child marriages, incest, polygamy, and polyandry occurring not suddenly allow same sex marriages to occur?
I said the rubric that marriage is the of coming together of opposite sex people to create and rear children logically eliminates same-sex coupling and children. When children or same-sex coupling is included the other cannot be logically eliminated.
That is why we asked the questions of your rubric:
Why do you limit the number to two?
Why can’t you marry your mother?
Why must they be adults?
We ask these questions because we don’t see the logic of eliminating them when you want to include same-sex couples.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Such legalistic points. Are you agreeing, however, that SS"M" is a civil right that everyone in society has to accept, even if it runs against natural law?Positive rights are created rights as opposed to natural rights.
What if one of them is an American citizen and they want to settle back in the US? What about the two spousal privileges neither of which have anything at all to do with children/procreation/sex?
Actually in the US one drop makes you black, if you are 1/16 black and look totally white you are black.
Then you bring up arguments as though you are for SS"M", as though they have not been addressed in many a post in many a thread in this forum. The kind that the liberal Buddhist rossum repeatedly brings up, disregarding any and all counter arguments already made by the faithful. Where are you on this issue, really, Dakota?
The point edwest is clear to me, he is referring to blacks whose skin pigmentation obviously classify them as blacks. It is 100% that basing on visual check alone, no test, no inquiry, no self disclosure before “discrimination” by others can take place in the exercise of or a claim to a right. Under their clothes, there is nothing in the physical attributes of homosexuals that give their preference for sexual partners away, because the classification is based on behavior. This is why the title of the OP or this thread is erroneous. LGBT equality is NOT the same as black equality.
,
S
Slavonic
Guest
Marriage equality between gay and straight couples has nothing to do with polygamy, polyandry, incest, or child marriage. I don’t have to say why any of those things are wrong. Gay marriage would still involve couples, adults, and non-relatives. That is sufficient. It’s very similar to marriage as our society knows it now. The slope is not as slippery as it seems.I never claimed that marriage is the best institution to raise children. I said the rubric that marriage is the of coming together of opposite sex people to create and rear children logically eliminates same-sex coupling and children. When children or same-sex coupling is included the other cannot be logically eliminated.
That is why we asked the questions of your rubric:
Why do you limit the number to two?
Why can’t you marry your mother?
Why must they be adults?
We ask these questions because we don’t see the logic of eliminating them when you want to include same-sex couples.
I will also note your criteria of two people of the opposite sex coming together to create and rear children does not eliminate incest. Mothers and sons, fathers and daughters, and brothers and sisters meet the criteria of being opposite sex and being able to produce children. There are reasons why it’s wrong, but it does show a problem with that definition.
R
rorydaman
Guest
The ole slippery slope. It is a huge fallacy.Once the definition of marriage is changed there is no logical reason it cannot be changed again. That is what will happen.
R
rorydaman
Guest
Well then LGBT equality would be similar to religious equality, right? You are a certain religion based on your behavior.Such legalistic points. Are you agreeing, however, that SS"M" is a civil right that everyone in society has to accept, even if it runs against natural law?
Then you bring up arguments as though you are for SS"M", as though they have not been addressed in many a post in many a thread in this forum. The kind that the liberal Buddhist rossum repeatedly brings up, disregarding any and all counter arguments already made by the faithful. Where are you on this issue, really, Dakota?
The point edwest is clear to me, he is referring to blacks whose skin pigmentation obviously classify them as blacks. It is 100% that basing on visual check alone, no test, no inquiry, no self disclosure before “discrimination” by others can take place in the exercise of or a claim to a right. Under their clothes, there is nothing in the physical attributes of homosexuals that give their preference for sexual partners away, because the classification is based on behavior. This is why the title of the OP or this thread is erroneous. LGBT equality is NOT the same as black equality.
,
E
edwest2
Guest
R
rorydaman
Guest
So you really think that people will say “well we let two same sex adults marry, I guess having sex with children is OK too?” **You really think that if gay marriage is legalized and accepted that pedophilia will be too? ** Pedophilia will never be accepted in our society because there is a clear victim…that is why it is called statutory rape, because one of the parties is not in the right mind to consent.
Has acceptance of pedophilia developed in nations where gay sex has been legalized? I lived in Canada not too long ago and I don’t remember a lot of pedofile support. Maybe I just wasn’t looking hard enough though.
Please just answer the question bolded above though.
F
fix
Guest
No way. Once the definition changes there is no reason it cannot change again. It is no logical fallacy. It is plain logic.The ole slippery slope. It is a huge fallacy.
F
fix
Guest
Do you really think 30 years ago if you asked any rational person about the idea of two men getting married was reasonable they would have thought so?So you really think that people will say “well we let two same sex adults marry, I guess having sex with children is OK too?” **You really think that if gay marriage is legalized and accepted that pedophilia will be too? ** Pedophilia will never be accepted in our society because there is a clear victim…that is why it is called statutory rape, because one of the parties is not in the right mind to consent.
Has acceptance of pedophilia developed in nations where gay sex has been legalized? I lived in Canada not too long ago and I don’t remember a lot of pedofile support. Maybe I just wasn’t looking hard enough though.
Please just answer the question bolded above though.
Just like in 30 years we have fallen in another 30 or less we will fall more. The only unreasonable argument is the one you make here. The idea that the line must be drawn where you claim is terribly wrong.
Relativism is a tyranny.
R
rorydaman
Guest
So if gay marriage gets legalized, what could that open a door for? Pedophilia or bestiality?Do you really think 30 years ago if you asked any rational person about the idea of two men getting married was reasonable they would have thought so?
Just like in 30 years we have fallen in another 30 or less we will fall more. The only unreasonable argument is the one you make here. The idea that the line must be drawn where you claim is terribly wrong.
F
fix
Guest
Anything and everything. Why is it so hard to grasp? Two men pretending to be husband and wife is absurd yet many have fallen for it. Why must it stop there?So if gay marriage gets legalized, what could that open a door for? Pedophilia or bestiality?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.