Many who have children outside of marriage are looked down on. Even society thinks children should come from marriage.You are tieded into a single religious belief about birth & marriage. Consider:
You are tided into a single religious belief about birth & marriage. Consider:
See above.
- 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
Are you saying that gay marriage prevents opposite sex marriage?
Are you saying that married gays can not provide quality parenting?
You assumption that I devalue life is disingenuous at best. You are grasping at straws.
Hmmmmmmmmmm, Attacking my beliefs is not the same as respecting them.
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.
This is not an argument. A circle of thieves could be quite congenial and friendly and even appear quite “regular,” but that doesn’t make thievery good, now does it?As I said "You know that the question of “where morals come from” has exercised philosophers, theologians and many others for millennia. Without getting into a drawn out philosophical discussion…
BTW you should get out and meet some regular gay couples you may find they are not much different than regular straight couples. In my own circle of friends of about 30 couples (3 gay couples) we are all highly supportive of each other.
There you go, again. Who do you “agree” with other than yourself? I never said I “agreed” that his comment was irrelevant, I merely claimed that is all YOU COULD claim. I think his comment is quite relevant, actually.As for Clems question it was incomprehensible to me because I had no idea of what he was talking about but I agree his comment was a irrelevant.
Right. People are people. Many similarities. Agreed.BTW you should get out and meet some regular gay couples you may find they are not much different than regular straight couples.
…
Very well said. And it bears repeating. Even as a boy I grasped the idea that taking candy from friendly strangers would lead to bad consequences. As an adult, I have known a few friendly and congenial persons that suddenly did wrong.This is not an argument. A circle of thieves could be quite congenial and friendly and even appear quite “regular,” but that doesn’t make thievery good, now does it?
Yes, I know, you will now make the false equivocation that I claimed gay couples are to be equated to thieves. That, however, shows you missed the argument. The argument is that being “regular” and friendly does not automatically and in itself make moral all behaviours of those who are regular and friendly. Get the point?
In fact, if I went out of my way to portray myself as congenial, friendly and harmless, that might be effective in lowering your moral defenses. Why are children warned against taking candy from friendly strangers?
Yes, I know, now you will accuse me of equating gay individuals with child molesters, showing once more that you miss the point.
Friendly and congenial people are not morally impeccable merely because they are friendly and congenial.
I wasn’t born yesterday, thanks.
There you go, again. Who do you “agree” with other than yourself? I never said I “agreed” that his comment was irrelevant, I merely claimed that is all YOU COULD claim. I think his comment is quite relevant, actually.
Why would I accuse you of such things? There are both straight and gay child molesters as well as gay and straight thieves.This is not an argument. A circle of thieves could be quite congenial and friendly and even appear quite “regular,” but that doesn’t make thievery good, now does it?
Yes, I know, you will now make the false equivocation that I claimed gay couples are to be equated to thieves. That, however, shows you missed the argument. The argument is that being “regular” and friendly does not automatically and in itself make moral all behaviours of those who are regular and friendly. Get the point?
In fact, if I went out of my way to portray myself as congenial, friendly and harmless, that might be effective in lowering your moral defenses. Why are children warned against taking candy from friendly strangers?
Yes, I know, now you will accuse me of equating gay individuals with child molesters, showing once more that you miss the point
I wasn’t born yesterday, thanks.
When the truly just and moral man, Jesus Christ, was crucified, the circle of his friends mostly abandoned him and the circle of his acquaintances were the ones shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”BTW you should get out and meet some regular gay couples you may find they are not much different than regular straight couples. In my own circle of friends of about 30 couples (3 gay couples) we are all highly supportive of each other.
It makes a difference alright, but not a relevant difference to this issue.Why would I accuse you of such things? There are both straight and gay child molesters as well as gay and straight thieves.
If you are friendly or not makes no difference to me.
Not at all, bisco.to give frobert credit, left to our own druthers, we would have no moral compass. you see it all over the bible, and it’s why Jesus died for us. ‘If you love me, you will keep my commands’. atheistic morality is simply morality defined by government or majority, depending on the society you live in.
Please learn how to use the QUOTE feature, bisco, so folks can see to whom you are responding.that’s not true, and is actually the antithesis of what Jesus taught.
no one is righteous, not one, except God. we are made righteous by the blood of Christ.Please learn how to use the QUOTE feature, bisco, so folks can see to whom you are responding.
If you are indeed responding to my assertion that some atheists can be more moral than some Christians, and do not need religion to be moral, can you point to what Jesus taught that refutes that?
Ah. So no one is moral. Christian or atheist.no one is righteous, not one, except God. we are made righteous by the blood of Christ.
why do you call me good? no one is good except your father in heaven.
Yes, it does make a difference and I am ashamed to say it (neglecting to care) is the most compunctious of my vices. You have awakened a memory of a potent influence in my subconscious. Many years ago I was introduced to the dao de jing, a passage, from which, that has since been embedded in my subsistence reads something like this: embrace simplicity, desire little and put others first*. It is a lifelong project but I have had moderate success with the first two, yet I often fail with the last one. The neglect to care enough has been my nemesis ever since I can remember. So yes, you are right it does make a difference, even though it may be irrelevant to the issue.It makes a difference alright, but not a relevant difference to this issue.
Interesting. Your concept of ‘supportive friends’ is much different than mine. Your guess is based on trivialities, views people as objects and is void of any qualities of friendship. Friendships don’t magically happen, they are feed and nurtured by giving of oneself from the heart. We have many acquaintances but few friends.My guess is that the support your circle of friends shows towards each other is very much hinged on perceived “wealth” in the forms of possessions, enjoyment, food and drink, security and comfort. Absent those goods, it would be interesting to see how supportive they will continue to be and the excuses offered for relinquishing support. Support can be a very fickle thing.
Been there, too.
The point, as always, is being missed by you, frobert.Interesting. Your concept of ‘supportive friends’ is much different than mine. Your guess is based on trivialities, views people as objects and is void of any qualities of friendship. Friendships don’t magically happen, they are feed and nurtured by giving of oneself from the heart. We have many acquaintances but few friends.
Some poets such as Kahlil Gibran have the ability to capture the essence in a few words:
On Giving
You give but little when you give of your possessions.
It is when you give of yourself that you truly give.
On Friendship
And in the sweetness of friendship let there be laughter, and sharing of pleasures.
For in the dew of little things the heart finds its morning and is refreshed.
Thank you reminding how grateful to God for our friends especially during the Christmas season.
As usual you disregarded the point of my post. The post was not about morality it was specific to Peter’s guess about friendships. It may have been off topic but Peter opened the door and I thanked him for doing so. Please pay attention.The point, as always, is being missed by you, frobert.
Gay people can be nice people.
No one needs to present that here, as it’s as understood and accepted as: fruit is healthy to eat.
Friendships with a diversity of folks is good.
No one needs to present that here either, as it’s understood and accepted.
IOW: your post about having nice, gay friends was otiose.
Please understand Peter’s point: nice, gay people are irrelevant to the morality of gay “marriage”.
Please address that argument, ok?
Okay. I agree with you, “gay” persons should be accepted “as persons” because as persons they are persons, just as every other human person is a person. That is NOW settled. Let’s move on.As usual you disregarded the point of my post. The post was not about morality it was specific to Peter’s guess about friendships. It may have been off topic but Peter opened the door and I thanked him for doing so. Please pay attention.
No, not merely because it is practiced by human personsOkay. I agree with you, “gay” persons should be accepted “as persons” because as persons they are persons, just as every other human person is a person. That is NOW settled. Let’s move on.
Should same sex behaviour be accepted merely because it is practiced by human persons?
I agreeThe point I, and others, have made is that merely because a behaviour is practiced by human persons, THAT is NOT sufficient to make the behaviour acceptable in a moral sense.
I agree…the way a human person treats their friends says nothing, necessarily, about them as a moral being, nor does it justify or say anything about the moral standing of at least some of their behaviours, personal habits or character traits.
Where did I claim that such things. Here is what I said.THAT is the key issue you are ignoring. You were claiming, or at least seemed to be claiming, that merely because your friends are loyal, charitable, friendly, congenial, etc., with each other, demonstrating those traits IS sufficient to make all their personal behaviours licit and we SHOULD give gay behaviour, explicitly, a pass because of all those other redeeming qualities.
“not much different” or “highly supportive” makes no claim about morality.BTW you should get out and meet some regular gay couples you may find they are not much different than regular straight couples. In my own circle of friends of about 30 couples (3 gay couples) we are all highly supportive of each other.
There are absolute moral truths. We can agree things like rape, killing innocent people unnecessarily, etc. is wrong (I’m just using these because if I say lying or something then someone will try to justify it certain circumstances whereas no one will try to justify these) no matter what the person who is doing it thinks about it.No, not merely because it is practiced by human persons
I agree
I agree
Where did I claim that such things. Here is what I said.
“not much different” or “highly supportive” makes no claim about morality.
My argument has consistently pertained to valid moral beliefs. You as a good Catholic believe that same sex marriage is sinful and immoral. No one should have a problem accepting that it is what you believe. I have not been a Catholic since elementary school, if ever. As an adult, in my 30s, I began to attend a Presbyterian Church. When I moved I was literally drawn to the United Church of Christ in my neighborhood. It had nothing to do with gay marriage as it was prior to the year the UCC 25th Synod endorsed same-sex marriage. So I don’t think you would expect me to have the same moral beliefs that you do,
Perhaps you can understand that my beliefs have no bearing on you adhering to your own beliefs. If you are unable to or refuse to understand that there are valid moral beliefs other than your own then by extension you must believe that main stream Protestant denominations that perform same sex marriages and blessings are immoral. And if you believe that then the best we can do is agree to disagree.