My personal take on gay "marriage"

[Bradski]

As to your last point, do you have an example in mind?

How about farming animals? A lot of vegetarians would say that is immoral. I think it says in the bible that they are there for our benefit, so why not eat whales as well as cod? Why not dolphins? Is it that they are too smart? But pigs are one of the smartest animals around. Why not horse or dog? Is it OK to keep them in pens or should we go free range? Lots of people have no problem with suckling pig or veal but how many people would try puppy?

I’m sure you’ll have answer and I’m sure it won’t be found in the catechism. You’ll use the same methods that I do to come to a conclusion. You may have a different answer to me but that’s the nature of the beast. In some cases, there is no ‘correct’ moral answer.

 

[Rau]

How about farming animals? A lot of vegetarians would say that is immoral. I think it says in the bible that they are there for our benefit, so why not eat whales as well as cod? Why not dolphins? Is it that they are too smart? But pigs are one of the smartest animals around. Why not horse or dog? Is it OK to keep them in pens or should we go free range? Lots of people have no problem with suckling pig or veal but how many people would try puppy?

I’m sure you’ll have answer and I’m sure it won’t be found in the catechism. You’ll use the same methods that I do to come to a conclusion. You may have a different answer to me but that’s the nature of the beast. In some cases, there is no ‘correct’ moral answer.

For a Christian, I presume the scope of morality is captured by the tenets of that faith. There are negative precepts which are absolute prohibitions on certain kinds of acts and positive precepts which encourage certain kinds of acts but without being definitive as to degree.

There is no negative precept instructing against eating meat or whales or puppies.

Are there any positive precepts applicable? I should think the commandment to love God implies a respect for his creation, which entails a respectful approach to all aspects of the environment. Cruelty to animals or driving animals to extinction would thus be highly questionable.

Were I to oppose eating meat, I’d personally not see that as a choice of a moral nature (by which I mean one that is binary - right or wrong). It would be a preference, or a prudential judgement about cruelty (or similar) wherein I’d recognise that others, though subscribing to the same moral principles as I, could arrive at a different conclusion.

 

[Bradski]

Were I to oppose eating meat, I’d personally not see that as a choice of a moral nature (by which I mean one that is binary - right or wrong). It would be a preference, or a prudential judgement about cruelty (or similar) wherein I’d recognise that others, though subscribing to the same moral principles as I, could arrive at a different conclusion.

But morality is exactly about right or wrong, black or white. It’s all too easy to say that rape or torturing children is wrong. You’d get universal agreement. But it’s NOT valid to say that areas where you acknowledge disagreement are simply matters of personal preference.

Is it right - as far as you are personally concerned - to breed and eat kittens? Or gorillas? To farm dolphins?

These are moral problems, make no mistake. There are things to consider before you make a personal call on them. And nothing to be found in the catechism or scripture to help. YOU need to make the call.

 

[Rau]

But morality is exactly about right or wrong, black or white. It’s all too easy to say that rape or torturing children is wrong. You’d get universal agreement. But it’s NOT valid to say that areas where you acknowledge disagreement are simply matters of personal preference.

Is it right - as far as you are personally concerned - to breed and eat kittens? Or gorillas? To farm dolphins?

These are moral problems, make no mistake. There are things to consider before you make a personal call on them. And nothing to be found in the catechism or scripture to help. YOU need to make the call.

I thought I answered that question pretty directly, and I did not rely solely on personal preference. If I have a wrong intention, or cause an evil balance of consequences, an act which may not breach the negative precepts is immoral. Kittens being cute to look at is not really relevant.

Is capital punishment wrong? In the context of the Christian Faith, we cannot say it is always and everywhere wrong. So we then come to individual instances, or particular circumstances, and we make a judgement based on intentions and/consequences. Just as recent popes have done and formed the view that in the current age, they are not justified (in general), doing more harm than good. This is a moral judgement and arguably a difficult one to judge. I can justly decide one way and you another. We can’t do that about rape - because it violates a negative precept (all that assuming the Christian understanding of morality).

 

[Bradski]

So we then come to individual instances, or particular circumstances, and we make a judgement based on intentions and/consequences.

Exactly. We make personal judgements. Based on probable outcomes. We both do the same.

As far as that which scripture or the catechism instructs you to do as regards morals, you have made a conscious decision that what they have told you is correct. How could it be otherwise?

Surely you wouldn’t obey moral precepts if, after careful consideration, you thought they were wrong. It’s why you are a Catholic: because you made a decision that what they teach is right.

 

[Rau]

Exactly. We make personal judgements. Based on probable outcomes. We both do the same.

As far as that which scripture or the catechism instructs you to do as regards morals, you have made a conscious decision that what they have told you is correct. How could it be otherwise?

Surely you wouldn’t obey moral precepts if, after careful consideration, you thought they were wrong. It’s why you are a Catholic: because you made a decision that what they teach is right.

Keep in mind, the negative precepts are absolutes. The only judgement was to accept that and so, in principle, no judgement is necessary in living by those principles. But whenever one of those precepts is not on the line, judgements are required, but even then, within the framework of Christian moral theology - which incorporates “Intention” and “Circumstances”(which are often the ‘consequences’).

I think we are on the same wavelength here…

 

[DeusExMachina]

Fair enough!

But you don’t need a Bible to see that homosexuality is wrong, you need a high school biology textbook. Or, heck, just ask anybody where babies come from.

That is a very good point; one can also make a scientific case against gay “marriage” because it is, quite literally, unnatural. However, that doesn’t resolve my belief that government should not legislate morality.

 

[ialsop]

That is a very good point; one can also make a scientific case against gay “marriage” because it is, quite literally, unnatural. However, that doesn’t resolve my belief that government should not legislate morality.

True…

Now let me ask you. If the government shouldn’t legislate morality, then what CAN it legislate? Or what should it?

 

[clem456]

That is a very good point; one can also make a scientific case against gay “marriage” because it is, quite literally, unnatural. However, that doesn’t resolve my belief that government should not legislate morality.

So you don’t believe gov’t should tax us to pay for programs for the needy then…

 

[Thorolfr]

That is a very good point; one can also make a scientific case against gay “marriage” because it is, quite literally, unnatural.

What scientific case can you make for gay “marriage” being unnatural? From a scientific point of view, marriage itself is rather unnatural. What other species on the planet practices “marriage”? And monogamy is quite rare among most animals with humans, after all, being just a species of Hominidae or great apes. And homosexuality is also not that rare in the animal kingdom.

 

[clem456]

What scientific case can you make for gay “marriage” being unnatural?
…

Look at the parts.
Design
Function
Purpose

Human existence.



Can you tell me that homosexual acts are ordered in the same way?

 

[Thorolfr]

Look at the parts.
Design
Function
Purpose

Human existence.



Can you tell me that homosexual acts are ordered in the same way?

What exists in the natural world is actually quite messy and complicated sometimes and is not nearly as simple and straight forward as you’d like to pretend that it is.

 

[clem456]

What exists in the natural world is actually quite messy and complicated sometimes and is not nearly as simple and straight forward as you’d like to pretend that it is.

Geez. Come on now.

What is it that I am pretending?
You have eyes. I have eyes. We can both see and think. Right?

And this is the real problem with much of the gay agenda. It’s not that we all have sex in our bedrooms in unique ways. It’s the deception.

Let me ask you…
Why the deception? What is that all about?
You are the one who is pretending Thor

 

[Thorolfr]

Look at the parts.
Design
Function
Purpose

Human existence.



Can you tell me that homosexual acts are ordered in the same way?

Here’s something from Live Science by Brian Hare who is an associate professor of evolutionary anthropology at Duke University:

Lodja sees Mwanda and shrieks in excitement. They run toward each other with such force that when they embrace, they fall to the ground in each other’s arms. Without much foreplay, Lodja grinds her hips against Mwanda and their clitorises rub together with increasing speed and friction. They hold each other tight, cry and shriek, and when it is over, they fall apart exhausted, and lazily snack on some fruit.

There are hundreds of examples of non-reproductive sex among animals, from albatrosses to koalas. But none of these examples can make people quite so uncomfortable as bonobos do. Two bonobo females having sex looks very different than two female albatrosses sitting placidly on their nest. Bonobo sex looks human.

These two female bonobos, Lodja and Mwanda, are engaging in sexual behavior with each other that has nothing to do with reproduction. Are they just two bonobos that are doing something that is disordered and is “against nature”? Or is this kind of behavior natural for bonobos sometimes?Is there possibly a natural function or purpose for this kind of behavior where two female bonobos rub their clitorises together? Maybe nature and sexuality is a little more complicated than some people seem to think.

 

[Rau]

Here’s something from Live Science by Brian Hare who is an associate professor of evolutionary anthropology at Duke University:

These two female bonobos, Lodja and Mwanda, are engaging in sexual behavior with each other that has nothing to do with reproduction. Are they just two bonobos that are doing something that is disordered and is “against nature”? Or is this kind of behavior natural for bonobos sometimes?Is there possibly a natural function or purpose for this kind of behavior where two female bonobos rub their clitorises together? Maybe nature and sexuality is a little more complicated than some people seem to think.

How do you translate these observations to intelligent men, with free will, who know God?

 

[Thorolfr]

How do you translate these observations to intelligent men, with free will, who know God?

Are you absolutely certain that animals such a bonobos do not know God? I’m not as convinced as some people that there is some sort of big separation between humans and human nature and the rest of our distant relatives in the natural world despite what it says in Genesis.

 

[Rau]

Are you absolutely certain that animals such a bonobos do not know God? I’m not as convinced as some people that there is some sort of big separation between humans and human nature and the rest of our distant relatives in the natural world despite what it says in Genesis.

Yes, I’m quite convinced.

 

[DeusExMachina]

But…even if the God that Christians worship made this clear to them (tho I don’t agree this is the case)…the Gods of other religions/beliefs may not teach their worshippers the same thing.

Do you feel it’s okay to tell people of other religions that they must follow what your God says?
Or do you believe in religious freedom?

.

Youre missing the point.Gay marriage is and should be legal because, like you say, not everyone has the same religion as I. If you saw my statement in context, you’d know I was speaking against churches and clergy that host gay “weddings”

 

[DeusExMachina]

True…

Now let me ask you. If the government shouldn’t legislate morality, then what CAN it legislate? Or what should it?

The government can legislate whatever it needs to in order to ensure the freedom and equality of every citizen in this country. Banning gay “marriage” would do the opposite,

 

[clem456]

Here’s something from Live Science by Brian Hare who is an associate professor of evolutionary anthropology at Duke University:

These two female bonobos, Lodja and Mwanda, are engaging in sexual behavior with each other that has nothing to do with reproduction. Are they just two bonobos that are doing something that is disordered and is “against nature”? Or is this kind of behavior natural for bonobos sometimes?Is there possibly a natural function or purpose for this kind of behavior where two female bonobos rub their clitorises together? Maybe nature and sexuality is a little more complicated than some people seem to think.

A not very agile deflection.