Please explain to me why gay marriage is wrong

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Leviticus 25:45 says, “You may also acquire them * from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property.”

So this is not talking about prisoners of war. It was permissible to buy slaves who were non-Jews (i.e. aliens) who resided and were even born in Israel. These individuals could even be acquired from their families.*

Leviticus is Old Testament. His statement has no bearing on Christians.

Slavery existed in Judea under a form very different from the Roman form. The Mosaic Law was merciful to the slave. In Jewish society the slave was not an object of contempt, because labor was not despised as it was elsewhere.

St Paul said: “For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus” . From this principle St. Paul draws no political conclusions. It was not his wish, as it was not in his power, to realize Christian equality either by force or by revolt.

In 1462, Pope Pius II declared slavery to be “a great crime”. In 1537, Pole Paul III forbade the enslavement of the Indians. Pope Urban VIII forbade it in 1639, and Pops Benedict XIV in 1741. Pope Pius VII demanded of the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, the suppression of the slave-trade, and Gregory XVI condemned it in 1839;

 

[tomberg]

Would serfdom be moral? Are serfs considered property since the lord owns the land and they are tied to the land?

no serfdom is very immoral. I can’t believe these things are even being argued. I am just astounded that grave human exploitation are being argued as somehow being moral, and consensual human sexual conduct is being labeled as more intrinsically evil than slavery. I am simply dumbfounded.

 

[clem456]

NOT A SINGLE PERSON HAS ANSWERED MY SIMPLE QUESTION, So I take it you concede my victory. Thank you.
Now I will concede to you that idolatry, stealing, and lets even say homosexuality are still morally wrong. I concede to you that all these things are wrong. No disagreement with you at all. So no need to discuss that. I am again talking about the punishment for engaging in these activities. FINAL CHANCE otherwise you prove yourself hypocrites be avoiding answering.
If it was morally acceptable to execute homosexuals and disobedient children in the OT, then it is perfectly morally acceptable to execute them today. Yes or No. FINAL CHANCE OR I WIN. Either the morality of such punishment has changed, or it has not and it still completely morally acceptable to execute homosexuals.

You shouldn’t need to ask the question. Your conscience should tell you that it’s not moral to kill a homosexual.

The record of events in the OT is not the final word in determining a moral action in the here and now. Catholicism is not sola scriptura.

 

[BrassAnkles]

If it was morally acceptable to execute homosexuals and disobedient children in the OT, then it is perfectly morally acceptable to execute them today. Yes or No. FINAL CHANCE OR I WIN. Either the morality of such punishment has changed, or it has not and it still completely morally acceptable to execute homosexuals.

No this is incorrect. In the Old Testament times the Jews were God’s tool to mete out punishment.

However, with he arrival of Jesus Christ judgment is deferred to the end of the world. The encounter with the adulterous women who was to be stoned is but one example. Another was when Jesus healed the soldier that came to arrest him whose ear was cut off by one of the disciples. This closed the “era of an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth” and started the era of salvation due to Jesus Christ perfect sacrifice.

 

[tomberg]

It may have been legal to own slaves in Old Testament times, but that may have meant no more than it being “legal” to hold others accountable to paying off their debts and even using proportionate force to do so. This is not necessarily any different to what we do today when citizens are incarcerated and held in prison for failing to pay debts.

.

First, yes it is always morally wrong to own slaves, those in the OT were wrong, the founders of America were wrong, it was and always will be wrong, because it violates Jesus’s two laws which I have repeatedly stated.
Next, I don’t know what country you live in, but here in the US we abolished DEBTORS PRISON as being IMMORAL over two centuries ago.

 

[CaitlinSiobhan]

Can it simply be agreed that incest and homosexuality are two different things by definition?
(Careful, you might make a good argument for the uniqueness of marriage…)

But WHY are they two different things?
I mean, yes, we could say that an incestuous relationship between a consenting adult brother and sister might result in a child with extreme birth defects, and therefore it would be harmful to someone other than the two involved, and therefore it is wrong.

But, what about two consenting adult brothers? Is that okay? Because it wouldn’t involve anyone but the two of them?

I know many pro-gay-marriage people claim that they are separate things, but I really don’t see the difference.

Enlighten me, if you do.

 

[cena]

no serfdom is very immoral. I can’t believe these things are even being argued. I am just astounded that grave human exploitation are being argued as somehow being moral, and consensual human sexual conduct is being labeled as more intrinsically evil than slavery. I am simply dumbfounded.

"In the Middle Ages slavery, properly so called, no longer existed in Christian countries; it had been replaced by serfdom, an intermediate condition in which a man enjoyed all his personal rights except the right to leave the land he cultivated and the right to freely dispose of his property. Serfdom soon disappeared in Catholic countries, to last longer only where the Protestant Reformation prevailed. "

Okay, serfdom is immoral

 

[Thorolfr]

"In the Middle Ages slavery, properly so called, no longer existed in Christian countries; it had been replaced by serfdom, an intermediate condition in which a man enjoyed all his personal rights except the right to leave the land he cultivated and the right to freely dispose of his property. Serfdom soon disappeared in Catholic countries, to last longer only where the Protestant Reformation prevailed. "

Okay, serfdom is immoral

Serfdom lasted in Russia until the 19th century and the Russians were not Protestants.

 

[tomberg]

You shouldn’t need to ask the question. Your conscience should tell you that it’s not moral to kill a homosexual.

The record of events in the OT is not the final word in determining a moral action in the here and now. Catholicism is not sola scriptura.

I don’t claim it is. People here are arguing that morality never changes and god’s law never changes. Well apparently it does. It was previously morally acceptable to execute homosexuals, and now people are saying that it is no longer moral to kill homosexuals. That sure sounds like a change in morality to me.
So either it was moral for the OT people to execute homosexuals and it is ok for us to kill homosexuals, or it was not moral for the OT Jews to execute homosexuals and it is also not OK for us to kill homosexuals.
I am just looking for consistency in argument here from people. Either morality changes over time (for whatever reason, God, the Church, customs) or it never changes. Can’t have it both ways without being a hypocrite.

 

[clem456]

I don’t claim it is. People here are arguing that morality never changes and god’s law never changes. Well apparently it does. It was previously morally acceptable to execute homosexuals, and now people are saying that it is no longer moral to kill homosexuals. That sure sounds like a change in morality to me.
So either it was moral for the OT people to execute homosexuals and it is ok for us to kill homosexuals, or it was not moral for the OT Jews to execute homosexuals and it is also not OK for us to kill homosexuals.
I am just looking for consistency in argument here from people. Either morality changes over time (for whatever reason, God, the Church, customs) or it never changes. Can’t have it both ways without being a hypocrite.

We have a relationship with God. A relationship is not “possession”. We can never fully possess God. Can you see that God is not a book? If God was a book, the discrepancy you observe above would really be something to worry about.

It means nothing. The people of God have come to know God in a more full way over time. As we come to know God, our way of understanding him and his will changes. What we once thought was ok we now know is not ok.

But God does not change. That’s fundamental Christian understanding of God. You are trying to fit God into a human sized box, and it will never work.

 

[edwest2]

I don’t claim it is. People here are arguing that morality never changes and god’s law never changes. Well apparently it does. It was previously morally acceptable to execute homosexuals, and now people are saying that it is no longer moral to kill homosexuals. That sure sounds like a change in morality to me.
So either it was moral for the OT people to execute homosexuals and it is ok for us to kill homosexuals, or it was not moral for the OT Jews to execute homosexuals and it is also not OK for us to kill homosexuals.
I am just looking for consistency in argument here from people. Either morality changes over time (for whatever reason, God, the Church, customs) or it never changes. Can’t have it both ways without being a hypocrite.

What did Jesus do when a woman was about to be legally stoned to death because she was caught committing adultery? Jesus abolished divorce as Moses wrote it and told us divorce can only only occur if a spouse is unfaithful. As God, He had the authority to do this. We are not Jews or Protestants - with all due respect for Jewish people and Protestants. Jesus straightened things out in the New Testament and formed a New Covenant.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tomberg]

We have a relationship with God. A relationship is “possession”. We can never fully possess God. Can you see that God is not a book? If God was a book, the discrepancy you observe above would really be something to worry about.

It means nothing. The people of God have come to know God in a more full way over time. As we come to know God, our way of understanding him and his will changes. What we once thought was ok we now know is not ok.

But God does not change. That’s fundamental Christian understanding of God. You are trying to fit God into a human sized box, and it will never work.

I am not claiming God changes, I am stating exactly what you are stating, that our understanding of what God wants from us and how God desires us to live and relate to each other has absolutely changed. This seems to be beyond any dispute. I am not really arguing with you, I think that we are in basic agreement. However, people want to continue to point to passages in the OT to justify current beliefs and completely ignore other passages in the OT that they currently disagree with, and then the audacity to claim that since God said it in the OT, the law is eternal and god’s laws never change. God’s laws for man definitely change based upon time, culture and context and the Catholic Church even teaches this.

 

[tomberg]

What did Jesus do when a woman was about to be legally stoned to death because she was caught committing adultery? Jesus abolished divorce as Moses wrote it and told us divorce can only only occur if a spouse is unfaithful. As God, He had the authority to do this. We are not Jews or Protestants - with all due respect for Jewish people and Protestants. Jesus straightened things out in the New Testament and formed a New Covenant.

Peace,
Ed

So God changed the law. Looks like I am right. God changes the Law, the Law is not eternal and unchanging for all time. God can, has and does change the law repeatedly through out the bible. So why do people argue that the Laws never change and morality never changes. What was legal and considered moral in the OT, was discarded and altered by the New, this is self evident to anyone who has basic literacy.

 

[clem456]

I am not claiming God changes, I am stating exactly what you are stating, that our understanding of what God wants from us and how God desires us to live and relate to each other has absolutely changed. This seems to be beyond any dispute. I am not really arguing with you, I think that we are in basic agreement. However, people want to continue to point to passages in the OT to justify current beliefs and completely ignore other passages in the OT that they currently disagree with, and then the audacity to claim that since God said it in the OT, the law is eternal and god’s laws never change. God’s laws for man definitely change based upon time, culture and context and the Catholic Church even teaches this.

I think you are good until the last sentence.
If you believe that the eternal law is mutable, anything can be justified.
Similarly you are correct that if the OT mores are asserted as God’s full revelation, many things can be justified which are not justifiable.

MAN’S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT

CHAPTER THREE
GOD’S SALVATION: LAW AND GRACE

ARTICLE 1
THE MORAL LAW

1950 The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom. Its biblical meaning can be defined as fatherly instruction, God’s pedagogy. It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from God and his love. It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its promises, worthy of love.

1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. "Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law."2

Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him.3
1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: "For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified."4

 

[cena]

I am not claiming God changes, I am stating exactly what you are stating, that our understanding of what God wants from us and how God desires us to live and relate to each other has absolutely changed. This seems to be beyond any dispute. I am not really arguing with you, I think that we are in basic agreement. However, people want to continue to point to passages in the OT to justify current beliefs and completely ignore other passages in the OT that they currently disagree with, and then the audacity to claim that since God said it in the OT, the law is eternal and god’s laws never change. God’s laws for man definitely change based upon time, culture and context and the Catholic Church even teaches this.

If people were stoned for doing something than we can conclude that it was gravely wrong, correct? Adultery will always be wrong. That doesn’t mean we have to stone every adulterer but the fact that they were stoned shows the serious nature of the sin.

St. Paul wrote against it in the New Testament.

Okay laws do change, but there are some that can’t be. For example the Church can change fasting laws but it can’t make lying or stealing moral. You said moral laws and the other type of laws are modern invention so I don’t know what your explanation of this is. How do you figure out which laws to follow ?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

NOT A SINGLE PERSON HAS ANSWERED MY SIMPLE QUESTION, So I take it you concede my victory. Thank you.
Now I will concede to you that idolatry, stealing, and lets even say homosexuality are still morally wrong. I concede to you that all these things are wrong. No disagreement with you at all. So no need to discuss that. I am again talking about the punishment for engaging in these activities. FINAL CHANCE otherwise you prove yourself hypocrites be avoiding answering.
If it was morally acceptable to execute homosexuals and disobedient children in the OT, then it is perfectly morally acceptable to execute them today. Yes or No. FINAL CHANCE OR I WIN. Either the morality of such punishment has changed, or it has not and it still completely morally acceptable to execute homosexuals.

Many Islamic countries find killing homosexuals to be a moral obligation.

 

[tomberg]

If people were stoned for doing something than we can conclude that it was gravely wrong, correct? Adultery will always be wrong. That doesn’t mean we have to stone every adulterer but the fact that they were stoned shows the serious nature of the sin.

St. Paul wrote against it in the New Testament.

Okay laws do change, but there are some that can’t be. For example the Church can change fasting laws but it can’t make lying or stealing moral. You said moral laws and the other type of laws are modern invention so I don’t know what your explanation of this is. How do you figure out which laws to follow ?

I think the harm principle typically espoused by Libertarians is the best possible way to determine what should be regarded as civil law. I don’t think that laws need be moral in order to be laws and I don’t think things that are morally wrong need to be prevented by civil laws. Now I absolutely think that the Church is free to teach whatever it wants about homosexuality and what is moral and what is not moral. I just don’t think that any religion should be able to determine for all of society what is legally permissible or impermissible.
Now as far as what laws I follow and consider moral; I try to love and respect others as I would like to be loved and respected. I think this has been a guiding principle in every true religion around the world and I think it is the only universally true and unchanging moral law that we as humans have discovered.

 

[tomberg]

Many Islamic countries find killing homosexuals to be a moral obligation.

Yes and they are completely insane and deluded as well. That is the danger in claiming to absolutely know what God thinks is moral and what God thinks is immoral. You get the slaughter of people who think and act differently than you do based upon what your reading of your particular Holy Book says. Jesus gave us two commandments to follow and stated that these make up the whole of the law. Those are the two principles by which I try my best to live and I think they are the highest moral and ethical principles ever articulated by any moral or religious teacher.

 

[Catholic13]

Only on Catholic Answers Forum do I find people actually trying to justify slavery in some cases

Congratulations you got **another **thread about homosexuality off topic. :yawn:

Meanwhile God and the bible still denounce homosexual activity.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Yes and they are completely insane and deluded as well. That is the danger in claiming to absolutely know what God thinks is moral and what God thinks is immoral. You get the slaughter of people who think and act differently than you do based upon what your reading of your particular Holy Book says. Jesus gave us two commandments to follow and stated that these make up the whole of the law. Those are the two principles by which I try my best to live and I think they are the highest moral and ethical principles ever articulated by any moral or religious teacher.

They are the highest moral and ethical principles ever articulated by any moral or religious teacher.

“Love God with your whole heart, with your whole soul, with your whole mind and strength. And Love your neighbor as yourself.”

To love God one must keep his Commandments and they, in turn, are reflected in the teaching of the Catholic Church. Therefore. to love God, one must accept the fact that marriage is a union of a man and a woman and "gay marriage is simply wrong.