Please explain to me why gay marriage is wrong

[Rau]

Whether something is legal does not determine the morality of something. Slavery used to legal in the U.S.

And abortion is legal in many, many places. Does anyone seriously argue it is moral because it is legal? Frobert seems to have swapped the horse and the cart. More usually, it is those things which are immoral that are candidates to be be declared illegal.

 

[Thorolfr]

I think incest is awful and immoral.

I’m not saying I approve of incest, but Abraham practiced incest by marrying his half-sister Sarah and God didn’t seem to mind. In fact, in 2 Chronicles 20:7, Abraham is called God’s friend:

7 Did you not, O our God, drive out the inhabitants of this land before your people Israel, and give it forever to the descendants of your friend Abraham?

God also told Abram/Abraham (Genesis 17:3-7) that he would make him the ancestor of a multitude of nations and make him exceedingly fruitful and would make a covenant with Abraham and his offspring through his son Isaac. But Isaac who was the ancestor of the Jewish people and Abraham’s son by his half sister Sarah was therefore born from an incestuous marriage. Why would God have blessed this marriage and made a covenant with its offspring if He disapproved of incest?

3 Then Abram fell on his face; and God said to him, 4 “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You shall be the ancestor of a multitude of nations. 5 No longer shall your name be Abram,** but your name shall be Abraham;[c] for I have made you the ancestor of a multitude of nations. 6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your offspring after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. **

 

[cena]

I’m not saying I approve of incest, but Abraham practiced incest by marrying his half-sister Sarah and God didn’t seem to mind. In fact, in 2 Chronicles 20:7, Abraham is called God’s friend:

God also told Abram/Abraham (Genesis 17:3-7) that he would make him the ancestor of a multitude of nations and make him exceedingly fruitful and would make a covenant with Abraham and his offspring through his son Isaac. But Isaac who was the ancestor of the Jewish people and Abraham’s son by his half sister Sarah was therefore born from an incestuous marriage. Why would God have blessed this marriage and made a covenant with its offspring if He disapproved of incest?

Abraham’s tribe was really small and they needed to keep it going.

After Adam and Eve incest was necessary to keep the human race going. That definitely has changed

 

[frobert]

Whether something is legal does not determine the morality of something. Slavery used to legal in the U.S.

Look up the definition of morality and you will learn it is not religious centric, and has little to do with religion beliefs.

Slavery was condoned by the CC for centuries.

Simple question that you have been scrupulously avoiding. Do you accept that others can have valid moral beliefs that do not coincide with your beliefs?

 

[frobert]

Huh?

You must have a very idiosyncratic definition of “objective,” then.

Would you care to define what objective means before you undermine anything else you have to say?

The idea of truth as objective is simply that no matter what we believe to be the case, some things will always be true and other things will always be false.

You believe your faith is true. I do not doubt the validity of your belief or your sincerity but are you able to explain how your moral belief is objective?

I have asked this question before which no one yet answered; Do you accept that others can have valid moral beliefs that do not coincide with your moral beliefs?

 

[frobert]

And abortion is legal in many, many places. Does anyone seriously argue it is moral because it is legal? Frobert seems to have swapped the horse and the cart. More usually, it is those things which are immoral that are candidates to be be declared illegal.

I was stating an objective fact. Whether one finds it moral or immoral depends on one’s moral judgement.

There is a body of knowledge regarding legal moralism, i.e. the theory of jurisprudence which holds that laws may be used to prohibit or require behavior based on whether or not society’s collective moral judgment is that it is immoral or moral

 

[cena]

Look up the definition of morality and you will learn it is not religious centric, and has little to do with religion beliefs.

Slavery was condoned by the CC for centuries.

Simple question that you have been scrupulously avoiding. Do you accept that others can have valid moral beliefs that do not coincide with your beliefs?

No, I don’t because moral relativism doesn’t really make sense. Catholics have a belief that there are absolute moral truths. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken for whatever reason.

Morality-principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
synonyms: ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality More

Why do a bunch of government officials decide what’s right and wrong? What’s crossing the line? For example, if they decided to make the Purge real, would anything be morally okay, even murder, for 12 hours? If it doesn’t come from the government where are these distinctions made, and who makes them?

 

[BrassAnkles]

I was stating an objective fact. Whether one finds it moral or immoral depends on one’s moral judgement.

There is a body of knowledge regarding legal moralism, i.e. the theory of jurisprudence which holds that laws may be used to prohibit or require behavior based on whether or not society’s collective moral judgment is that it is immoral or moral

Here we go again, assuming that “right” and “wrong” is dependent on a society’s judgment.

Of course this fails miserably when applied to a simple test of logically application - what if a society decided eating other humans was acceptable and taught sex with animals was ok, does that mean therefore it is ok?

Of course for some people it would be ok but for the majority of humans it wouldn’t be ok. This is because we have a conscience, different from animals many that who eat their own species and have sex with juevniles without nary a thought, but the majority of humans are not like that.

We are tied to God through our conscience and we spend most of our waking hours thinking and discussing right and wrong. We are made in the image of God and do what He does in this sense, whether we want to or not or even recognize it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Look up the definition of morality and you will learn it is not religious centric, and has little to do with religion beliefs.

That that would depend upon the definition and nature of “good” or goods. Morality is essentially tied to goods, in particular to end goods. For most humans the highest end good is life itself, which is why anything that takes away or harms a life is considered morally wrong. It is possible to prioritize goods such that most people would agree on the ordering and that agreement would constitute the objectivity of morality.

Even so, the agreement of humans is not sufficient to decide whether they are correct on those end goods. Morality depends upon reality - the real state of those goods relative to humans. What would be the point if most humans valued something that turned out to make everyone miserable once it was attained? That is why Aristotle said the end which is generally agreed upon by humans to be the “good” is happiness (eudaemonia in Greek); not mere frivolous laughter or momentary joy, but enduring happiness resulting from a life well and fully lived.

This is where your comment that morality has nothing to do with God or religion becomes a little odd. If God exists and eternal life with God is possible then as a true end moral good, that level of existence simply dwarfs 60-90 years of the biological form of life we have on earth.

If true, then a “moral” person who lives his life ignoring or denying that God exists and lives a life that puts his eternal existence into jeopardy, then, it seems, that they could deprive themselves of a far greater and more substantial end good than the goods they have decided upon for themselves.

So, morality might be relative in the sense that individuals might differ regarding what they consider to be the end goods, BUT it is objective in terms of what those goods really are. Religion is crucial in this regard because whether any particular individual accepts it or not, what is true is what is. If you have the opportunity to obtain a truly wonderful end good - eternal life with God such that life will be eternally and absolutely filled with all that could possibly make it complete - then a whole new dimension is added to morality since the “stakes” are quite different than were presumed by a denial of God.

What makes morality objective is the reality of the goods involved, not whether humans agree on them or not.

If God does not exist morality is actually quite a meaningless illusion. If God exists there is an infinitely new and fuller sense in which things can be moral. Your claim that morality has little or nothing to do with religion is simply false.

Think about this. If you claim murder is wrong because it deprives people of their lives, then if human lives are potentially eternal and infinite, and by sinning or inducing others to sin you deprive them of their eternal life with God then the harm of merely killing them physically is dwarfed by the harm of killing them eternally. Which takes away an objectively greater good? Of course it isn’t quite that simple in most cases because, as moral agents, human beings are reponsible for their own choices.

All this does show that blithely denying that religion is moral might be one of the worst logical and moral errors anyone could make.

 

[Necas]

I am a Catholic and believe that there is nothing wrong with being gay. I do not believe that God would forbid the love between two souls - especially if the love is founded on His word. The times we are living in today, to be able to find real love at all is a miracle in itself.
The jumping from partner to partner, while married or single; the taking of innocence by force and lies, these are abomonations which I believe bring tears to God, but true sincere love between two people who walk in His path together can never be against Him.
Those are my thoughts. If there was more LOVE and less finger pointing and hatred what a wonderful world this would be for everyone.
I apologise if I have offended anyone.

 

[bisco1]

not offended at all, but sorry for your idea of love and catholicism. you need only read the words of our Lord to know what He loves and what offends Him. choosing your own idea of morality is not good for your soul. i will pray that He opens your eyes. God bless.

 

[clem456]

Of course being born is not just a religious belief. Now what does being born have to do with the rightness or wrongness homosexuality and gay marriage? Stay on topic, be objective.

Yes let’s. At least we now have your admission that human existence is not just a religious invention. Applause. Now you invite me to sound off on how wrong Gay marriage is. I don’t need to do that. Let’s just observe the obvious. Let’s talk about good things and promote them::

What does being born have to do with marriage? Can you see the connection between

1. human beings being born and raised
2. marriage
   ?
   Do you see any connection there?
   I think you probably do see the connection. It does not require belief, theology, or doctrine. Right? If you think it does, stop us right here and show us how this is a theological construct and not a self evident and objective fact of nature that any thinking human can observe.

Once again let’s try it:

1. Human existence
2. Marriage
   Connected. No beliefs required.
   Even and atheist must accept the connection at the risk of being either an idiot or a liar. One is not required to make blustery statements about the wrongness of anything. Marriage just is. Without marriage human beings -are not-. I think you understand this unavoidable connection. What then are you advocating for?

Do you think it is good that human beings live or not? Another simple and easy to answer question. If you do affirm human life, you would have a desire to protect the only institution that brings life about. It seems we all have decisions to make, eh?

Your assertion that this is all peculiar religious belief makes a convenient excuse to devalue human life. How can you expect humane treatment of anyone when you devalue human life. What you and others propose is frightening and should be thrown into the trash heap of history right along with “Jews are not human beings”, another insidious lie that was popular. Same ignorant thinking.

If you can not accept the validity of beliefs other than your own, and that your arguments against gay marriage are based on your beliefs then there is little left to discuss. I leave you the objective reality that gay civil marriage exists in 36 states and DC and many other countries.

I accept and respect your beliefs.
What can’t be respected is deception. You shouldn’t respect it, neither should I.
I don’t have to argue against gay marriage to point out that your argument is a huge lump of swiss cheese.
Yes, gay “marriage” is law in many states.
You let us know when those gay marriages produce what can only be produced by a marriage.
When you figure out they’re not the same thing, then tell us whether society should lie about it anyway. Is it a good thing to lie to people about something so fundamental. You are a Christian, right?

Keep in mind that over the centuries many really stupid ideas have been encoded into law, many with tragic consequences. When you deceive people, as you are doing, nothing good can result. And that hurts the very people that you pretend to advocate for.

 

[frobert]

No, I don’t because moral relativism doesn’t really make sense. Catholics have a belief that there are absolute moral truths. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken for whatever reason.

Morality-principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
synonyms: ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality More

Why do a bunch of government officials decide what’s right and wrong? What’s crossing the line? For example, if they decided to make the Purge real, would anything be morally okay, even murder, for 12 hours? If it doesn’t come from the government where are these distinctions made, and who makes them?

Thank you for answering the question. You start with the premise that there are no valid moral beliefs other than your own, yet you are unable to provide one objective reason why this is so.

Legal morality is not my morality so I have no need to defend it just as I have no need to defend various religious moralities but that doesn’t stop me from understanding them.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am a Catholic and believe that there is nothing wrong with being gay. I do not believe that God would forbid the love between two souls - especially if the love is founded on His word. The times we are living in today, to be able to find real love at all is a miracle in itself.
The jumping from partner to partner, while married or single; the taking of innocence by force and lies, these are abomonations which I believe bring tears to God, but true sincere love between two people who walk in His path together can never be against Him.
Those are my thoughts. If there was more LOVE and less finger pointing and hatred what a wonderful world this would be for everyone.
I apologise if I have offended anyone.

You haven’t offended me - but to be perfectly blunt - what you or I believe about the issue is quite an irrelevant consideration. What matters is the truth of it and where God stands because moral reality depends completely upon God. Pace Frobert.

As far as that goes, ALL indications we have that tell us anything about what God thinks on the matter do not bode well for your opinion. Judaic tradition, Scripture, revelation, the Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, the Magisterium and moral theologians, philosophers through 2000 years of history and the words of Jesus, himself, all disagree with your opinion.

 

[BrassAnkles]

I am a Catholic and believe that there is nothing wrong with being gay. I do not believe that God would forbid the love between two souls - especially if the love is founded on His word.

According to God’s Word homosexual sex is an abomination. Homosexual desires are not far behind.

Some people believe God made a mistake in creating men and women and that He should have allowed men to “love” men, etc, but God cannot make mistakes.

Some believe God could have not foreseen that sexual “love” could develop between the same sexes but how is that possible if God saw everything before He created it?

Some people believe that if enough people want God to change what He considers right and wrong that He will do it, but there is no precedence of course but rather He gave us his only Son to forgive us for our sins, so there is no need to re-define right and wrong.

Some people believe God is imperfect, and this is why they see homosexuality as normal. The Bible predicts this is Romans 25.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Thank you for answering the question. You start with the premise that there are no valid moral beliefs other than your own, yet you are unable to provide one objective reason why this is so.

Legal morality is not my morality so I have no need to defend it just as I have no need to defend various religious moralities but that doesn’t stop me from understanding them.

No one can coerce others to hold moral beliefs. In that sense, and only in that sense, are moral beliefs relative. The beliefs that people hold are somewhat relative to them, but the question remains as to whether anyone’s or, even, everyone’s beliefs are true or not.

Whether moral beliefs are true or not does NOT depend upon how many people hold them or whether society at large agrees. The objective reality or truth of moral beliefs depends upon one thing and one thing only - reality, the nature of what is.

We can only lay down reasonable arguments or present plausible ethical accounts for having moral beliefs, but, in the end, reality will be the final determiner.

The best we can do is seriously consider what others are saying, especially being vigilant when those others are attempting to remove moral beliefs and make morality less substantive, in particular when who are attempting to remove moral beliefs have a very ill-defined sense of why moral beliefs are held in the first place and cannot articulate why anyone would believe as they do beyond emotional pleading.

 

[clem456]

Thank you for answering the question. You start with the premise that there are no valid moral beliefs other than your own, yet you are unable to provide one objective reason why this is so.

Legal morality is not my morality so I have no need to defend it just as I have no need to defend various religious moralities but that doesn’t stop me from understanding them.

With such a weak and subjective moral framework, how do you propose that justice can reign in our society?
How do you propose to protect the poor, the sick, the unborn, the elderly, the gay, the immigrant, when your moral standards sway with the wind?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Legal morality is not my morality so I have no need to defend it just as I have no need to defend various religious moralities but that doesn’t stop me from understanding them.

What exactly do you base YOUR morality upon then? Yourself?

 

[frobert]

Yes let’s. At least we now have your admission that human existence is not just a religious invention. Applause. Now you invite me to sound off on how wrong Gay marriage is. I don’t need to do that. Let’s just observe the obvious. Let’s talk about good things and promote them::

What does being born have to do with marriage? Can you see the connection between

1. human beings being born and raised
2. marriage
   ?
   Do you see any connection there?
   I think you probably do see the connection. It does not require belief, theology, or doctrine. Right? If you think it does, stop us right here and show us how this is a theological construct and not a self evident and objective fact of nature that any thinking human can observe.

Once again let’s try it:

1. Human existence
2. Marriage
   Connected. No beliefs required.
   Even and atheist must accept the connection at the risk of being either an idiot or a liar. One is not required to make blustery statements about the wrongness of anything. Marriage just is. Without marriage human beings -are not-. I think you understand this unavoidable connection. What then are you advocating for?

You are tieded into a single religious belief about birth & marriage. Consider:

You are tided into a single religious belief about birth & marriage. Consider:

• People can and do have children without marriage
• Many people marry without any intention to have children
• Many people marry who are incapable of having children
• Many gay parents are married
• Many gay married couples adopt children

Do you think it is good that human beings live or not? Another simple and easy to answer question. If you do affirm human life, you would have a desire to protect the only institution that brings life about. It seems we all have decisions to make, eh?

See above.
Are you saying that gay marriage prevents opposite sex marriage?
Are you saying that married gays can not provide quality parenting?

Your assertion that this is all peculiar religious belief makes a convenient excuse to devalue human life. How can you expect humane treatment of anyone when you devalue human life. What you and others propose is frightening and should be thrown into the trash heap of history right along with “Jews are not human beings”, another insidious lie that was popular. Same ignorant thinking.

You assumption that I devalue life is disingenuous at best. You are grasping at straws.

I accept and respect your beliefs.
What can’t be respected is deception. You shouldn’t respect it, neither should I.
I don’t have to argue against gay marriage to point out that your argument is a huge lump of swiss cheese.
Yes, gay “marriage” is law in many states.
You let us know when those gay marriages produce what can only be produced by a marriage.
When you figure out they’re not the same thing, then tell us whether society should lie about it anyway. Is it a good thing to lie to people about something so fundamental. You are a Christian, right?

Hmmmmmmmmmm, Attacking my beliefs is not the same as respecting them.

Keep in mind that over the centuries many really stupid ideas have been encoded into law, many with tragic consequences. When you deceive people, as you are doing, nothing good can result. And that hurts the very people that you pretend to advocate for.

Yes and over the centuries the church has made numerous errors resulting in very tragic consequences. Look up the list of apologies made by Pope John Paul II.

Except for your religious belief you fail to give any objective reason for your views.

 

[clem456]

You are tieded into a single religious belief about birth & marriage. Consider:

You are tided into a single religious belief about birth & marriage. Consider:

• People can and do have children without marriage

Really? Which human being do you know that came into being with the union of a man and a woman? Please be specific.

• Many people marry without any intention to have children

So? Who can argue that? What is your point?

• Many people marry who are incapable of having children
• Many gay parents are married
• Many gay married couples adopt children

Again what is your point?
The observation remains.

1. Human beings exist
2. The union of a man and woman (aka marriage) is required for human existence.
   Do your observations that some couples do not produce children refute this?
   No.
   And the obvious question remains, since human life is good, is the instrument of it’s creation also good? What do we do with things that are good? Do we dumb them down and lie about them?
   What do you say?
   Keep in mind that your posts so far do not argue for the flourishing of human life. They argue for the relativizing of humanity to popular whims “in 36 states!!!”. How can you pretend to advocate for the well being of human life, when you don’t?