Please explain to me why gay marriage is wrong

[PRmerger]

Thank you for your direct and honest answer to my question.To return the curtsey, even though I know that you do not accept it as valid, my approach to morals is based in virtue ethics.

To the degree that your ethos is consonant with Catholic ethos, we give you a

So when you say that rape is always wrong, we say: you are correct.

When you say that it’s fine for 2 men to be “married”, we say: nope.

Whatever paradigm you use to achieve the correct morality, which is Catholic morality, we do not care. As long as it is correct.

 

[BrassAnkles]

You did not answer the question. You simply stated the apostles’ creed which is what you believe and which I accept as a valid belief.

For a Catholic there can be no other valid belief system as it is the Good Word in it’s fullest culmination and as such having other beliefs would require rejection on their part of the Word, which is dangerous to say the least.

However, for someone who has not received the Good Word in it’s fullest culmination, which is through the Catholic Church, they could have a different belief system and still be saved. After all, all belief systems are a product of our conscience, which is God’s will imprinted on us and which animals do not have. And the culmination of all belief systems is the Catholic Church. As is God’s will the Truth must be embraced when one is exposed to it.

 

[frobert]

When you say that it’s fine for 2 men to be “married”, we say: nope.

My view about homosexuality is consistent with my moral beliefs and the moral stance of my church. I don’t have a problem with Catholics saying it is not consistent with Catholicism. Awhile back I think I read that Pope Francis, while speaking to his evangelical christian friends, said something to the effect that while recognizing our differences we can put more effort in helping the marginalized and poor which for me is in the spirit of virtue ethics.

 

[frobert]

For a Catholic there can be no other valid belief system as it is the Good Word in it’s fullest culmination and as such having other beliefs would require rejection on their part of the Word, which is dangerous to say the least.

Excellent! While you believe your belief is true, you accept that it is a religious based.

 

[PRmerger]

My view about homosexuality is consistent with my moral beliefs and the moral stance of my church.

Moral stances can be wrong. Like a person who advocates adultery. He can say that his view on sex is consistent with his moral beliefs and the moral stance of his church…yet you and I agree that his view is…messed up.

Similarly, even if your view about homosexuality is “consistent”…your view is messed up.

 

[PRmerger]

I edited it for other reasons than that.

Other than what?

What reason did I give for your removing the comment about not caring if you’re banned or suspended?

I don’t believe I gave a reason. I did comment that it was a smart thing to do.

 

[frobert]

Moral stances can be wrong. Like a person who advocates adultery. He can say that his view on sex is consistent with his moral beliefs and the moral stance of his church…yet you and I agree that his view is…messed up.

Similarly, even if your view about homosexuality is “consistent”…your view is messed up.

I would not expect you to say anything different because it is consistent with your religious belief.

Of course individuals can be wrong. Our moral views on adultery happen to coincide so we would not agree that adultery is moral and we could both reason it is not moral from our respective belief systems.

The reason I edited my post is that I had a momentary moral lapse regarding my “failure to care” as soon as I realized the wrongness I took appropriate action.

 

[PRmerger]

I would not expect you to say anything different because it is consistent with your religious belief.

Consistency is good, frobert. But it is not the basis for determining whether a moral view is correct or not.

So your saying that your view is consistent with your church and my view is consistent with my Church is irrelevant.

We want to use reason and logic to discern whether a view is correct or not.

The reason I edited my post is that I had a momentary moral lapse regarding my “failure to care” as soon as I realized the wrongness I took appropriate action.

You are not answering my question. I did NOT ask why you edited your post.

You referred to a reason “other than that”. What does “that” refer to?

IOW: please fill in the blank. What should replace “that” in your comment “I edited it for reasons other than…[fill in the blank]”

 

[tomberg]

The response my brother is that this country was founded on Christian principles, not godless ones. We should not give an inch with regard to our Christian heritage.

The godless know this and every time they draw us into a discussion of ethics and convince us we can’t use our Christian heritage and ethics they know they have already started to win. Don’t let them get this far. Jesus Christ commanded us to spread the Gospel not only in our private lives but our public lives. This latter error has become a Protestant mainstay (I love Protestants, just not all of their theology), but is not as such in many majority Catholic countries.

No they were not Christian principles, most all of our Constitution, Our Bill of Rights, especially ideas regarding Freedom of Religion and Speech almost derive entirely from Enlightenment ideas and from Free Masonry and ideas of Deism. Yes that it is a belief in a god, but not a Christian God. Now I do believe that these ideas were advanced because of the Lutheran Reformation placing the primacy of importance upon an individual approach to God, but Martin Luther would be absolutely horrified to realize that Representative democracy and Freedom of Speech and Religion arouse almost as a direct result of the reforms he tried to institute in religion.

In fact the Catholic Church was entirely opposed to almost all the ideas arising from the enlightenment concerning government and the “rights of man”, including representative democracy and especially to freedom of religion. The Papacy believed all temporal authority was granted to the Papacy and that they should exercise ultimate authority even over secular rulers, Kings and Queens, who were also divinely appointed by God. The founders of this country despised the Roman Papacy and the Papacy despised the founders of the US. In fact, there was rampant discrimination against Catholics when they first began immigrating to this country by the Protestant majority who absolutely despised anything Roman Catholic.

 

[tomberg]

Moral stances can be wrong. Like a person who advocates adultery. He can say that his view on sex is consistent with his moral beliefs and the moral stance of his church…yet you and I agree that his view is…messed up.

Similarly, even if your view about homosexuality is “consistent”…your view is messed up.

So who exactly determines which morals are right and which morals are wrong? Who decides what is Natural Law and what is not? Is private ownership of property a natural right? Some people argue that yes it is, others argue that no it is not. It is only a recent innovation and for most of human society (Hunter gatherers) no one could own land or property, it was held communally. Who is right? It sure seems like both have pretty good arguments, so who decides what is Natural?

If a Religion believes it is their moral duty to execute heretics and non-believers, how can you determine for certain, it is immoral to do so. The Catholic Church absolutely executed heretics, and it was part of their moral teaching that this was their moral obligation in order to protect the Church. They believed that they were acting morally, and according to Catholic doctrine, the Church can not fall into error in regard to morals and faith. So, was it moral to execute heretics, simply for not believing what the Church regarded as true? The Church clearly believed they were acting morally at the time. However, I think that everyone today would agree that this is incredibly immoral behavior.

 

[frobert]

We want to use reason and logic to discern whether a view is correct or not.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote:

…we could both reason it (adultery) is not moral from our respective belief systems.

I think you would agree that having either a faith belief or ethical belief does not preclude us from using logic and reason. If you do not and you consider virtue ethics illogical or immoral or offensive it is ok by me…

 

[PRmerger]

In fact the Catholic Church was entirely opposed to almost all the ideas arising from the enlightenment concerning government and the “rights of man”, including representative democracy and especially to freedom of religion.

This is just gaga, lala nonsense.

The Church has never been opposed to the “rights of man”, including representative democracy and freedom of religion.

If you are going to be adamantine regarding this nonsense, please provide some sources to back it up. Something from the magisterium, please. Not from a website or blog that asserts this nonsense.

 

[cena]

So who exactly determines which morals are right and which morals are wrong? Who decides what is Natural Law and what is not? Is private ownership of property a natural right? Some people argue that yes it is, others argue that no it is not. It is only a recent innovation and for most of human society (Hunter gatherers) no one could own land or property, it was held communally. Who is right? It sure seems like both have pretty good arguments, so who decides what is Natural?

If a Religion believes it is their moral duty to execute heretics and non-believers, how can you determine for certain, it is immoral to do so. The Catholic Church absolutely executed heretics, and it was part of their moral teaching that this was their moral obligation in order to protect the Church. They believed that they were acting morally, and according to Catholic doctrine, the Church can not fall into error in regard to morals and faith. So, was it moral to execute heretics, simply for not believing what the Church regarded as true? The Church clearly believed they were acting morally at the time. However, I think that everyone today would agree that this is incredibly immoral behavior.

To be declared a heretic they would have to be obstinate in their error after being corrected. They were probably trying to spread their error like Arius did after being corrected. Also, you have to Christian to be a heretic.

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote:

I think you would agree that having either a faith belief or ethical belief does not preclude us from using logic and reason. If you do not and you consider virtue ethics illogical or immoral or offensive it is ok by me…

As I already stated: where your ethics are consonant with Truth, I give it a

How you achieve it–virtue ethics, utilitarianism, the Bible–is of no great import to me.

That you can see that rape is always wrong is a good thing.

 

[tomberg]

To be declared a heretic they would have to be obstinate in their error after being corrected. They were probably trying to spread their error like Arius did after being corrected. Also, you have to Christian to be a heretic.

The Cathars were declared heretics and they were not part of the Catholic Church. Yet they were slaughtered all the same. I will ask you a final time, do you think it is morally acceptable to execute someone (give them the death penalty as you call it) based upon a belief?

Also the Catholic Church executed (gave the death penalty) to plenty of pagans simply for believing in different Gods and refusing to change those beliefs. Does the Church have the moral authority to execute people simply for failing to convert to Catholicism? This sounds a lot like fundamentalist Islam to me.

 

[PRmerger]

The Cathars were declared heretics and they were not part of the Catholic Church. Yet they were slaughtered all the same. I will ask you a final time, do you think it is morally acceptable to execute someone (give them the death penalty as you call it) based upon a belief?

Source, please.

Also the Catholic Church executed (gave the death penalty) to plenty of pagans simply for believing in different Gods and refusing to change those beliefs. Does the Church have the moral authority to execute people simply for failing to convert to Catholicism? This sounds a lot like fundamentalist Islam to me.

Source please. Names of some pagans would be good, as well as who (what pope) executed them.

 

[edwest2]

Excellent! While you believe your belief is true, you accept that it is a religious based.

That’s not accurate. We believe in right reason as well. Some of us understand why the American Psychiatric Association did what it did in 1973. It did not involve science and it ignored years of research. This is a social engineering experiment.

Ed

 

[tomberg]

This is just gaga, lala nonsense.

The Church has never been opposed to the “rights of man”, including representative democracy and freedom of religion.

If you are going to be adamantine regarding this nonsense, please provide some sources to back it up. Something from the magisterium, please. Not from a website or blog that asserts this nonsense.

Please show me where I am wrong. The Catholic Church was absolutely opposed to Freedom of Religion and Freedom of speech, and also to Representative democracy. It was not until Leo XIII that things began to change within the Church as they saw that Democracy was clearly ascendant and that Communism was much more of a threat to the Church than Representative democracy was. However, the Church has not hesitated to side with fascist and dictators in order to oppose validity elected Socialist governments.

 

[tomberg]

Source, please.

Source please. Names of some pagans would be good, as well as who (what pope) executed them.

So you are on record as never ever reading anything about the French Cathars? Or about the forced conversions all through out pagan Europe? I think you are being intentionally obtuse at this point.
How about I just give you a single one. Giordorno Bruno. ordered executed and burned at the stake. Inquisition cardinals who judged Giordano Bruno were: Cardinal Bellarmino (Bellarmine), Cardinal Madruzzo (Madruzzi), Cardinal Camillo Borghese (later Pope Paul V), Domenico Cardinal Pinelli, Pompeio Cardinal Arrigoni, Cardinal Sfondrati, Pedro Cardinal De Deza Manuel, Cardinal Santorio (Archbishop of Santa Severina, Cardinal-Bishop of Palestrina). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

 

[Thorolfr]

Source, please. [The Cathars were declared heretics and they were not part of the Catholic Church. Yet they were slaughtered all the same.]

The crusader army came under the command, both spiritually and militarily, of the papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, Abbot of Cîteaux. In the first significant engagement of the war, the town of Béziers was besieged on 22 July 1209. The Catholic inhabitants of the city were granted the freedom to leave unharmed, but many refused and opted to stay and fight alongside the Cathars.

The Cathars spent much of 1209 fending off the crusaders. The Béziers army attempted a sortie but was quickly defeated, then pursued by the crusaders back through the gates and into the city. Arnaud-Amaury, the Cistercian abbot-commander, is supposed to have been asked how to tell Cathars from Catholics. His reply, recalled by Caesar of Heisterbach, a fellow Cistercian, thirty years later was “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.”—“Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own.”[57][58] The doors of the church of St Mary Magdalene were broken down and the refugees dragged out and slaughtered. Reportedly, 7,000 people died there. Elsewhere in the town many more thousands were mutilated and killed. Prisoners were blinded, dragged behind horses, and used for target practice.[59] What remained of the city was razed by fire. Arnaud-Amaury wrote to Pope Innocent III, "Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism

"“Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex.” That sounds moral