Please explain to me why gay marriage is wrong

[Peter_Plato]

Your response is based upon a fatal logical flaw. You make this statement by direct appeal to YOUR RELIGION. You assume that your faith Christianity should be given its due place, but all other beliefs are false, without having any proper due. That is absolutely flawed logic based upon raising one belief based upon personal preference and then claiming that your belief happens to be the only right and natural choice. You absolutely can not state that Idolatry is immoral without reference to Judeo-Christian belief systems. Otherwise what exactly is idolatry if not the worship of false gods. You can not prove that Christianity is true from Natural Law, it is based entirely upon a supernatural belief system and faith.

I think you missed her point altogether. As soon as you propose values as an objectively determinable set and morality as a specific category of values which are obligatory for all moral beings, then the “good” becomes determinable and the highest good, as well.

If humans are moral beings, we are moral beings because there are certain goods that are not merely preferable, but obligatory. That is the meaning of moral. If you want to argue morality is a meaningless concept, fine, go for it. But if morality is to mean anything at all, it must entail obligation on the part of human beings in terms of bringing about the “good” for themselves and others.

If any religion has properly identified moral goods and even the highest moral goods and can make the case cogently, that case should not be dismissed merely becase it has a source in a religion.

The mere fact that there is disagreement as to the nature of the good does not imply the good is merely arbitrary, neither; which is basically what your argument amounts to.

“Giving things their proper due,” is a principle of ethics and justice which derives from a logical principle of “treat like things alike.” Religions may propose a set of goods which disagree to some extent with other religions, but that does not disqualify religious beliefs a priori from having the correct view of values merely because some disagree. The truth is the truth whether it comes from religious traditions, science or humanism. No source should be disqualified merely because other sources do not concur. The truth needs to be determined on its own merit.

What if a religion has THE correct view of reality? Will you dismiss that view merely because it is from a religion? Apparently, you would.

 

[tomberg]

Nope.

I didn’t mention religion at all. I never mentioned Christianity. I never mentioned God.

Unless you can cite where I did?

If you put spending money on gambling at the casino ahead of spending money on shoes for your baby, you have done an immoral thing by idolizing gambling.

That’s immoral. Why? Because you have given improper importance to something which ought not be given priority.

And notice I haven’t mentioned God or Catholicism or anything religious in the above.

At all.

No, again you are trying to equate one form of behavior with imposing and adding aditional conduct onto that behavior. We are not talking about being selfish. I am asking you why one should not worship another God. We are not discussing gambling, adultery, and you keep trying to conflate the issues by adding new variables and hypothetical conditions. You are being dishonest and not arguing logically. Limit it to why worshiping another God is immoral behavior, in and of itself, without any reference to additional behavior. I can just as easily say that the worshiping of this “other god”, lets say the Hindu God Vishnu,requires me to just spend 30 seconds each morning saying a small prayer for guidance and help during the day, and then demands that I be an incredibly unselfish person, donate my time, talents, and energy to helping others, and requires me to be loving and compassionate. Let’s say that it agrees in all aspects with Catholic teachings, except that it requires me to deny Jesus, but as far as abortion, sex, and all general conduct it is in complete agreement to Catholic moral teachings. Now please tell me why worshipping Vishnu is immoral and violates natural law.

 

[tomberg]

We aren’t trying to make laws saying everyone must follow the Church’s rules on fasting and abstinence. Moral laws are different than practical laws.

Catholics aren’t the only ones opposed to homosexual activity.

There are moral truths. There are people in the Middle East who are using the qu’ran to justify raping Christian girls. Does that mean anyone opposing this is going against these people’s religion and we can’t impose our morals on them? No because rape is wrong no matter what the individual thinks. Atheists can figure out rape, murder, etc. are wrong. They can also figure out homosexual behavior is wrong.

You are making a distinction between moral laws and practical laws. Many religions do not make this distinction and the disticntion between moral and practical laws is an entirely modern invention. All Law until only fairly recently was believed to be moral as it all derived from God. Dietary restrictions were considered moral laws, not practical laws, as those laws came from God. Even civil laws which regulated other forms of behavior were regarded as moral laws as they came from the King who was divinely appointed by God to impose civil rules on earth. You are making a very modern distinction between laws that did not exist for most of human history and is considered a modern innovation in both religious thinking and civil governance.

 

[tomberg]

I think you missed her point altogether. As soon as you propose values as an objectively determinable set and morality as a specific category of values which are obligatory for all moral beings, then the “good” becomes determinable and the highest good, as well.

If humans are moral beings, we are moral beings because there are certain goods that are not merely preferable, but obligatory. That is the meaning of moral. If you want to argue morality is a meaningless concept, fine, go for it. But if morality is to mean anything at all, it must entail obligation on the part of human beings in terms of bringing about the “good” for themselves and others.

If any religion has properly identified moral goods and even the highest moral goods and can make the case cogently, that case should not be dismissed merely becase it has a source in a religion.

The mere fact that there is disagreement as to the nature of the good does not imply the good is merely arbitrary, neither; which is basically what your argument amounts to.

“Giving things their proper due,” is a principle of ethics and justice which derives from a logical principle of “treat like things alike.” Religions may propose a set of goods which disagree to some extent with other religions, but that does not disqualify religious beliefs a priori from having the correct view of values merely because some disagree. The truth is the truth whether it comes from religious traditions, science or humanism. No source should be disqualified merely because other sources do not concur. The truth needs to be determined on its own merit.

What if a religion has THE correct view of reality? Will you dismiss that view merely because it is from a religion? Apparently, you would.

Please then tell me how the Worship of Vishnu violates natural law and is immoral if the only thing my worship requires is a brief 30 second prayer in the morning to Vishnu. Let’s go on to say that my worship of Vishnu also requires me to live exactly in accordance with all Catholic moral teaching, except of course I must worship Vishnu and not Christ. Now what exactly makes such worship a violation of Natural law and immoral. I think I might actually start a thread on this topic and I find it incredibly interesting topic of discussion.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No, again you are trying to equate one form of behavior with imposing and adding aditional conduct onto that behavior. We are not talking about being selfish. I am asking you why one should not worship another God. We are not discussing gambling, adultery, and you keep trying to conflate the issues by adding new variables and hypothetical conditions. You are being dishonest and not arguing logically. Limit it to why worshiping another God is immoral behavior, in and of itself, without any reference to additional behavior. I can just as easily say that the worshiping of this “other god”, lets say the Hindu God Vishnu,requires me to just spend 30 seconds each morning saying a small prayer for guidance and help during the day, and then demands that I be an incredibly unselfish person, donate my time, talents, and energy to helping others, and requires me to be loving and compassionate. Let’s say that it agrees in all aspects with Catholic teachings, except that it requires me to deny Jesus, but as far as abortion, sex, and all general conduct it is in complete agreement to Catholic moral teachings. Now please tell me why worshipping Vishnu is immoral and violates natural law.

Worshiping a conception of a god is not immoral, per se, but it could be depending upon what that god represents. If the conception of that god, for example, directly promotes intrinsically immoral behaviour, then it would be morally wrong to worship that god. However, if the god more or less represents in inchoate form determinable moral goods such as justice, truth and life itself, then it wouldn’t necessarily be immoral to worship that god provided there was openness on the part of the worshiper not to restrict the nature of that god unnecessarily.

That would be why the qualifier “false” gods exists, with ‘idol’ being a word to designate the idea of non-existent ‘gods’ who have powers or characteristics attributed to them which they do not, in fact, possess.

Are you claiming it would be moral or determinably good to dedicate money, honour, time, worship and resources to something non-existent? In what sense could that be ‘good’ and why would you think it would NOT be obligatory in a clearly moral sense not to?

 

[tomberg]

I think you missed her point altogether. As soon as you propose values as an objectively determinable set and morality as a specific category of values which are obligatory for all moral beings, then the “good” becomes determinable and the highest good, as well.

If humans are moral beings, we are moral beings because there are certain goods that are not merely preferable, but obligatory. That is the meaning of moral. If you want to argue morality is a meaningless concept, fine, go for it. But if morality is to mean anything at all, it must entail obligation on the part of human beings in terms of bringing about the “good” for themselves and others.

If any religion has properly identified moral goods and even the highest moral goods and can make the case cogently, that case should not be dismissed merely becase it has a source in a religion.

The mere fact that there is disagreement as to the nature of the good does not imply the good is merely arbitrary, neither; which is basically what your argument amounts to.

“Giving things their proper due,” is a principle of ethics and justice which derives from a logical principle of “treat like things alike.” Religions may propose a set of goods which disagree to some extent with other religions, but that does not disqualify religious beliefs a priori from having the correct view of values merely because some disagree. The truth is the truth whether it comes from religious traditions, science or humanism. No source should be disqualified merely because other sources do not concur. The truth needs to be determined on its own merit.

What if a religion has THE correct view of reality? Will you dismiss that view merely because it is from a religion? Apparently, you would.

What you are missing is that I am not saying that one has to dismiss religious truths if they can be proven outside of a religious context. It is perfectly acceptable for the religion to also promote whatever it wants to promote as being moral or immoral. I just don’t believe that government should be basing any of its laws based upon religious determinations of morality or even theories based upon notions of Natural Law. I have stated repeatedly that the proper role of government regulation is preventing direct harm to others. The civil government should not be in the basis of enforcing what some religions consider to be natural laws, since again every person thinks they or their particular religion is able to determine what is natural law and what is not, yet it seems that very few of them agree on what exactly this natural law is.
Sure all religions say that murder is wrong, and then go on to make a slew of exceptions on when murder is acceptable. Islam is currently guilty of this and Christianity has only moved passed this abysmal practice since the Enlightenment. It used to be perfectly acceptable for Catholics to murder heretics because they did not believe the right things.

 

[k5thbeatle]

While you are right that more children are accepting of homosexual marriage this is only because they are taught from an early age in public schools that it is good and then reinforced through the popular media as they get older. However, many after becoming adults will recognize that what they were told was wrong and baseless in fact. Every bit as baseless as claiming that homosexuality will prevail because it is about love. On the contrary, it will fail as it always has because it is about the opposite of love and as such destroys a society from within by destroying camaraderie among same sex individuals. this has been repeated throughout history and the results are always inevitable and predictable.

Great post!

 

[tomberg]

Worshiping a conception of a god is not immoral, per se, but it could be depending upon what that god represents. If the conception of that god, for example, directly promotes intrinsically immoral behaviour, then it would be morally wrong to worship that god. However, if the god more or less represents in inchoate form determinable moral goods such as justice, truth and life itself, then it wouldn’t necessarily be immoral to worship that god provided there was openness on the part of the worshiper not to restrict the nature of that god unnecessarily.

That would be why the qualifier “false” gods exists, with ‘idol’ being a word to designate the idea of non-existent ‘gods’ who have powers or characteristics attributed to them which they do not, in fact, possess.

Are you claiming it would be moral or determinably good to dedicate money, honour, time, worship and resources to something non-existent? In what sense could that be ‘good’ and why would you think it would NOT be obligatory in a clearly moral sense not to?

So it is not immoral to worship another God besides Jesus as long as that God has similar values to the Christian God? According to Catholic teaching Vishnu obviously does not exist, which would make it false, but if his worship required a dedication to justice and life this would seem to make it to make it not immoral.
I am having a lot of fun with this. Thanks guys.

 

[clem456]

What you are missing is that I am not saying that one has to dismiss religious truths if they can be proven outside of a religious context. It is perfectly acceptable for the religion to also promote whatever it wants to promote as being moral or immoral. I just don’t believe that government should be basing any of its laws based upon religious determinations of morality or even theories based upon notions of Natural Law. **I have stated repeatedly that the proper role of government regulation is preventing direct harm to others. **
…

Based on what?
A government can’t prevent harm to others if unhinged from beliefs. Every government bases it’s policies on something.

Your idea of religion or faith is completely unhinged from reality. You are talking about a relativist paradise where anything goes and belief and action are unconnected, which of course cannot be true.

Action and belief are connected.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Please then tell me how the Worship of Vishnu violates natural law and is immoral if the only thing my worship requires is a brief 30 second prayer in the morning to Vishnu. Let’s go on to say that my worship of Vishnu also requires me to live exactly in accordance with all Catholic moral teaching, except of course I must worship Vishnu and not Christ. Now what exactly makes such worship a violation of Natural law and immoral. I think I might actually start a thread on this topic and I find it incredibly interesting topic of discussion.

Morality is always defined with reference to end goods. There is no way around that. Some end goods are absolutely necessary for humans to live and flourish as biological human beings. Those goods are what determine natural law principles.

It may not violate the natural moral law to worship Vishnu, but what it may do is prevent you from accessing a far greater good.

The natural moral law pertains only to natural goods such as life, health, truth, life needs, virtues and abilities, etc. Those goods are temporary because they depend upon the contingencies of temporal existence.

If goods of a higher quality - eternal life, for example - are possible for human beings to attain and worshiping Vishnu prevents you from attaining those higher goods, then although the natural law may not have been violated, eternal and far more substantive principles may be violated since you have prevented yourself and possibly others from attaining those far more important and lasting goods.

This is why truth and goodness are key. They aim us in the right direction, so to speak, such that we can attain those higher goods by being open to them. Grace perfects nature. By fully realizing and following natural law principles we are properly aimed towards eternal life. However, promoting evils as goods deprives us of both natural goods and eternal goods.

 

[tomberg]

Is it a personal religious belief that an infant needs the care of others to survive?
Is that piece of natural law an invention of religion?

I will make the following admission. I do believe in Natural law, but I believe the only Natural Law that we have been able to ascertain is the Golden Rule. “Do unto others” this is a Natural law that is found in almost every world religion, every major system of philosophy for example in both Buddhism and Confucian thought, and even secular humanist can agree upon this. This is the only Natural Law which has been discovered by almost every tradition, whether it be monotheistic, polytheistic, or atheistic. That is why I think the Libertarian conception of limiting law to restricting harm upon others are the only valid exercise of civil government.

 

[tomberg]

Morality is always defined with reference to end goods. There is no way around that. Some end goods are absolutely necessary for humans to live and flourish as biological human beings. Those goods are what determine natural law principles.

It may not violate the natural moral law to worship Vishnu, but what it may do is prevent you from accessing a far greater good.

The natural moral law pertains only to natural goods such as life, health, truth, life needs, virtues and abilities, etc. Those goods are temporary because they depend upon the contingencies of temporal existence.

If goods of a higher quality - eternal life, for example - are possible for human beings to attain and worshiping Vishnu prevents you from attaining those higher goods, then although the natural law may not have been violated, eternal and far more substantive principles may be violated since you have prevented yourself and possibly others from attaining those far more important and lasting goods.

This is why truth and goodness are key. They aim us in the right direction, so to speak, such that we can attain those higher goods by being open to them. Grace perfects nature. By fully realizing and following natural law principles we are properly aimed towards eternal life. However, promoting evils as goods deprives us of both natural goods and eternal goods.

I find absolutely nothing in those post with which I can disagree, you and I are in perfect agreement and I find this post to be excellent overall.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So it is not immoral to worship another God besides Jesus as long as that God has similar values to the Christian God? According to Catholic teaching Vishnu obviously does not exist, which would make it false, but if his worship required a dedication to justice and life this would seem to make it to make it not immoral.
I am having a lot of fun with this. Thanks guys.

I am perfectly willing to admit that Gandhi, for example, was much more moral in the sense of living up to principles of natural moral law than many nominal Catholics in modern western democracies.

It is not clear to me why anyone would contend otherwise. Are you claiming he wasn’t?

In fact, I can freely admit that Catholics, including myself, who have access to an abundance of supernatural graces but who have unwisely, but freely, eschewed those, will have a great deal more to account for at the final reckoning than Gandhi who was clearly an empty vessel ready to receive in abundance those graces declined by many of us as Catholics.

This is news to you?

 

[tomberg]

Based on what?
A government can’t prevent harm to others if unhinged from beliefs. Every government bases it’s policies on something.

Your idea of religion or faith is completely unhinged from reality. You are talking about a relativist paradise where anything goes and belief and action are unconnected, which of course cannot be true.

Action and belief are connected.

I am not asserting that a government should divorce all action from beliefs. I am just stating that those beliefs should not come exclusively from any one religious belief system. I think that the only Natural law that we have discovered is “Do unto others”, and that is what the Libertarian harm principle is founded upon. All religions and even atheist can believe that this is a valid basis of belief for the establishment of civil laws. I also believe that Abortion is a violation of this principle, so that is why I think abortion violates Natural law, it has nothing to do with Church teaching.

 

[tomberg]

I am perfectly willing to admit that Gandhi, for example, was much more moral in the sense of living up to principles of natural moral law than many nominal Catholics in modern western democracies.

It is not clear to me why anyone would contend otherwise. Are you claiming he wasn’t?

In fact, I can freely admit that Catholics, including myself, who have access to an abundance of supernatural graces but who have unwisely, but freely, eschewed those, will have a great deal more to account for at the final reckoning than Gandhi who was clearly an empty vessel ready to receive in abundance those graces declined by many of us as Catholics.

This is news to you?

Not at all, but many Catholics would disagree with you, especially the Society of St. Pius X crowd who want to hold fast to belief that “There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church” and that any non-Catholics are condemned to hell for all eternity. I actually subscribe to Rahner’s idea of the “anonymous christians.”, and that salvation is open to any who practice Christian values, whether they call themselves Christians or not.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I will make the following admission. I do believe in Natural law, but I believe the only Natural Law that we have been able to ascertain is the Golden Rule. “Do unto others” this is a Natural law that is found in almost every world religion, every major system of philosophy for example in both Buddhism and Confucian thought, and even secular humanist can agree upon this. This is the only Natural Law which has been discovered by almost every tradition, whether it be monotheistic, polytheistic, or atheistic. That is why I think the Libertarian conception of limiting law to restricting harm upon others are the only valid exercise of civil government.

I have argued on other threads that the Golden Rule is not a foundational principle of ethics, but rather functions more as a rule of thumb. The “do unto others” part depends enitrely upon a proper understanding of “as yourself.”

AND that depends entirely upon a proper understanding of what it means to be a “self.”

If, as a secular humanist you believe yourself to be nothing but a bag of chemicals, that has serious implications for the application of “do unto others.”

If, as a properly catechized Catholic, you understand your “self” to be a potentially eternally existing child of God destined to share in the divinity of God himself, THAT understanding brings to what it means to “do unto others” an entirely new or altered set of requirements.

The problem with defining morality upon an empty formal proposition such as the Golden Rule is that almost anything can be offered as what it means to be a “self.” A masochist has just as legitimate a view as Gandhi in the modern syncretistic take on the Golden Rule.

AND the problem with defining morality or the law on restrictions regarding direct harm is that such a view has absolutely nothing to offer with regard to what the good actually is. An understanding of harm with no reference to the good or end good is simply an empty proposition that merely assumes everyone agrees as to what the direct “harm” actually removes without ever defining the end appropriately or completely. What results is a watered down view that “harm” is equivalent to ONLY inflicting serious physical trauma and nothing more.

What makes us think that physical harm could possibly be the absolutely worst thing one human being could do to another without assuming some kind of atheistic materialism in the process?

 

[cena]

Not at all, but many Catholics would disagree with you, especially the Society of St. Pius X crowd who want to hold fast to belief that “There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church” and that any non-Catholics are condemned to hell for all eternity. I actually subscribe to Rahner’s idea of the “anonymous christians.”, and that salvation is open to any who practice Christian values, whether they call themselves Christians or not.

People with invincible ignorance can be saved. Invincible ignorance means they didn’t know something was wrong and they had no way of finding out.
However, if you don’t have a religion or disregard it then they might think its pointless to follow their conscience.

 

[tomberg]

I have argued on other threads that the Golden Rule is not a foundational principle of ethics, but rather functions more as a rule of thumb. The “do unto others” part depends enitrely upon a proper understanding of “as yourself.”

AND that depends entirely upon a proper understanding of what it means to be a “self.”

If, as a secular humanist you believe yourself to be nothing but a bag of chemicals, that has serious implications for the application of “do unto others.”

If, as a properly catechized Catholic, you understand your “self” to be a potentially eternally existing child of God destined to share in the divinity of God himself, THAT understanding brings to what it means to “do unto others” an entirely new or altered set of requirements.

The problem with defining morality upon an empty formal proposition such as the Golden Rule is that almost anything can be offered as what it means to be a “self.” A masochist has just as legitimate a view as Gandhi in the modern syncretistic take on the Golden Rule.

AND the problem with defining morality or the law on restrictions regarding direct harm is that such a view has absolutely nothing to offer with regard to what the good actually is. An understanding of harm with no reference to the good or end good is simply an empty proposition that merely assumes everyone agrees as to what the direct “harm” actually removes without ever defining the end appropriately or completely. What results is a watered down view that “harm” is equivalent to ONLY inflicting serious physical trauma and nothing more.

What makes us think that physical harm could possibly be the absolutely worst thing one human being could do to another without assuming some kind of atheistic materialism in the process?

Well we are just going to have to agree to disagree without being disagreeable because my wife is yelling at me to get off CAF and go out and run some errands with her. I have also determined that it is an absolute moral truth to give your wife what she wants when she ask for it if I ever intend to get any peace and quiet. Alright guys, it has been fun. Chat with you gentleman later.

 

[clem456]

…
I also believe that Abortion is a violation of this principle, so that is why I think abortion violates Natural law, it has nothing to do with Church teaching.

It’s good that you believe this.
Is there a prophetic aspect to your faith in this regard? By prophetic I mean a call to affirm and proclaim this belief to others. Or are you to personalize it without regard to others.

In short, do you have the call to proclaim your belief in the sanctity of life?

If you believe that life is sacred, your answer to this question must be “yes”. Otherwise others may not come to believe that life is sacred, and if you are the only one who believes life is sacred, how can it be in fact sacred? Your belief is empty if it is not connected to the good held in common with others. A community can observe the revealed natural law and promote it. A community must do this or we have 4 billion dictators vying for power.

So, you cannot say that morality has nothing to do with Church teaching. The promotion and proclamation of the good assumes a community of believers that does so.

 

[tomberg]

It’s good that you believe this.
Is there a prophetic aspect to your faith in this regard? By prophetic I mean a call to affirm and proclaim this belief to others. Or are you to personalize it without regard to others.

In short, do you have the call to proclaim your belief in the sanctity of life?

If you believe that life is sacred, your answer to this question must be “yes”. Otherwise others may not come to believe that life is sacred, and if you are the only one who believes life is sacred, how can it be in fact sacred? Your belief is empty if it is not connected to the good held in common with others. A community can observe the revealed natural law and promote it. A community must do this or we have 4 billion dictators vying for power.

So, you cannot say that morality has nothing to do with Church teaching. The promotion and proclamation of the good assumes a community of believers that does so.

Yes I share this belief with others. Again I never said that morality has nothing to do with church teaching. Please reread my post again.