Please explain to me why gay marriage is wrong

[Rau]

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 have not made the mental connection between the name one gives to God and morality or the person of Christ and morality. The 10 commandments also don’t name God. I should think I could be a very good person had I grown up in India, worshipping Vishnu and living the same moral principles as taught by the Catholic Church.

Our religious faith attaches a particular teacher to what was taught. But I suspect the “what was taught” is the important thing. Who did the teaching assures us of its truth.

 

[clem456]

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.

Ok here it is:

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.

You explicitly state that morality has nothing to do with Church teaching.

You propose that morality can be founded on the truth discovered in natural law and discovered by anyone (“all religions and atheists”), and in the same breath claim that a community cannot teach it. Or should not, or that the teaching is irrelevant to knowing the truth. Does that make any sense whatsoever? Does everyone discover truth communally by accident?

Can we discover it or not? How do you know you have discovered anything true without reference to some sort of standard outside yourself?

How do I know that marriage is unique without reference to others, observing the world around me, seeing how human beings exist and flourish, and listening to the proclaimed truth?

 

[Thorolfr]

I can not prove that polygamy is immoral without appeal to religion anymore than Islam and Mormons can point to it being moral outside of their religion. It is entirely determined by religion and culture and there is no universal absolute formula for proving what is moral and immoral like there is with math and geometry.

I agree. I don’t think that it can be proven that polygamy is moral or immoral outside of religion and culture.

The Qur’an (4:3) which Muslims believe was revealed to Muhammad from God explicitly allow a man to marry up to four wives as long as he can treat them all fairly and also allows men to have sex with their female slaves (i.e. concubines):

then marry from among women such as are lawful to you - even two, or three, or four: but if you have reason to fear that you might not be able to treat them with equal fairness, then only one - or from among those whom you rightfully possess .

Since Muslims believe this verse was revealed by God, then polygamy and sex with their slaves must be moral for them.

Polygamy was also widely practiced by men in the Old Testament. Abraham married Sarah and then according to Genesis 16:3:

So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her slave-girl, and gave her to her husband Abram as a wife

".

In addition to that, Sarah was Abraham’s half-sister, so incest was also allowed (Genesis 20:11-12):

11 Abraham said, “I did it because I thought, There is no fear of God at all in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife. 12 Besides, she is indeed my sister

, the daughter of my father but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:1-3):

Now King Solomon loved many foreign women, along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, from the nations…He had 700 wives, who were princesses, and 300 concubines.

 

[bisco1]

not just christian’s, today’s jewish people don’t believe in any of those things either.

 

[cena]

I agree. I don’t think that it can be proven that polygamy is moral or immoral outside of religion and culture.

The Qur’an (4:3) which Muslims believe was revealed to Muhammad from God explicitly allow a man to marry to up to four wives as long as he can treat them all fairly and also allows men to have sex with their female slaves (i.e. concubines):

Since Muslims believe this verse was revealed by God, then polygamy and sex with their slaves must be moral for them.

Polygamy was also widely practiced by men in the Old Testament. Abraham married Sarah and then according to Genesis 16:3:

In addition to that, Sarah was Abraham’s half-sister, so incest was also allowed (Genesis 20:11-12):

Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:1-3):

Some muslims used the qu’ran to justify rape. Doesn’t make rape moral.
It doesn’t seem polygamy is part of natural law so.

To some extent incest had to be practiced in the very beginning of time since there were so few humans.

I already used this example, but divorce was widely practiced by men. It didn’t mean God approved of it.

With regards to Solomon, David did bad stuff and no one uses his story to justify murder and adultery.

Those things were considered okay and now they are not. Where is the evidence that homosexual actions are now okay?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I agree. I don’t think that it can be proven that polygamy is moral or immoral outside of religion and culture.

Unless and until you can provide a plausible accounting for what you consider “moral” to be, this will remain simply an empty claim.

By what criteria do you consider anything at all to be “moral” in the first place?

 

[Thorolfr]

To some extent incest had to be practiced in the very beginning of time since there were so few humans.

I already used this example, but divorce was widely practiced by men. It didn’t mean God approved of it.

With regards to Solomon, David did bad stuff and no one uses his story to justify murder and adultery.

Those things were considered okay and now they are not. Where is the evidence that homosexual actions are now okay?

Most historians believe that Abraham lived during the 2nd millennium BCE and there were plenty of people then. It would not have been necessary for anyone to practice incest. According to the US Census Bureau, between 2000 BC and 1000 BC there was between 27 and 50 million people on earth.

census.gov/population/international/data/worldpop/table_history.php

Nowhere in the Old Testament does God say that polygamy is immoral. Not only did Abraham have two wives, but Jacob had two wives (Rachel and Leah), Samuel’s father Elkanah had two wives (Hannah and Peninnah). Gideon, according to Judges 8:29-32, “had seventy sons, his own offspring,for he had many wives. And his concubine who was in Shechem also bore him a son, and he called his name Abimelech”. Considering that these were men with whom God talked, wouldn’t it have been very easy for God to say, for example, “Gideon, you should only have one wife.”

 

[chrisb]

I can agree that Noah, Jonah and Lot and Sodom are all STORIES, I don’t believe they literally happened.

Marriage means different things to different people. Some marry for love, some marry for money, power, citizenship, benefits, you name it. But that fact that remains is that these people can marry, just as any 2 consenting adults should be able to marry.

Thus, in my personal opinion, and thankfully millions of millions like me, gay marriage is not wrong and will soon be legal in all 50 states.

And for all the haters out there: If you don’t like gay marriage, or think it’s wrong, don’t marry a gay person. Thank you very much.

peace and love to all.

As a professed Buddhist… do you know what the teaching of sex and marriage is in the Buddhist Faith?

What did the Buddha actually teach on this matter? Thanks.

 

[tomberg]

Ok here it is:

You explicitly state that morality has nothing to do with Church teaching.

You propose that morality can be founded on the truth discovered in natural law and discovered by anyone (“all religions and atheists”), and in the same breath claim that a community cannot teach it. Or should not, or that the teaching is irrelevant to knowing the truth. Does that make any sense whatsoever? Does everyone discover truth communally by accident?

Can we discover it or not? How do you know you have discovered anything true without reference to some sort of standard outside yourself?

How do I know that marriage is unique without reference to others, observing the world around me, seeing how human beings exist and flourish, and listening to the proclaimed truth?

Sorry I was not more clear. I meant that my decision about abortion was made independently of what the Church teaches. In this instance, my conception and understanding is in accordance with Church teaching. Sorry for the confusion.
Also for the final time, I am in no way saying that any church can not teach whatever it want to regarding morality. I just don’t believe that the Civil Government should be in the business of enforcing that morality under penalty of law.

 

[Birdpreacher]

want to know a secret: Its not wrong and is beautiful in certain cases…just like heteromarriage.

 

[edwest2]

This is almost laughable.

Where is the consent from the unborn children that allows them to be dismembered and disposed?
Where is the consent from children for divorce between their parents?
Where is the consent from children for two adults who do not even know each other - and much less care - to use surrogacy to bring them into being?
Where is the consent from children for gay couples to adopt them, thus depriving them of a mother and a father?

Suddenly, inexplicably, we toss children a bone?

"Oh we’ll protect you from the risk of being sexually used, but you can forget about life, a secure permanent family, loving concern from both your parents and the companionship of real brothers and sisters.

Oh, yes, and we’ll make certain, sort of, that you will not be subjected to any kind of sexual contact without your permission at the same time as beating it into your heads from the time you are six or seven that sexual contact with anyone you want (of appropriate age) is your absolute right and pretty much the only thing that makes your life worth living.

Welcome to the new sexually oriented world order. This is all there is that makes life meaningful. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise because they are bigoted, narrow minded, backward thinking fools."

Very well said. Sex and money are the two big reasons to live. Everything else is just stuff I want.

We’ve been and are being told and shown on TV and in the movies, the wrong way to live in most cases.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Birdpreacher]

Very well said. Sex and money are the two big reasons to live. Everything else is just stuff I want.

We’ve been and are being told and shown on TV and in the movies, the wrong way to live in most cases.

Peace,
Ed

As opposed to loving a giant man in the sky who loves us so much that unless we love him back he will torture us forever in hell.

Sex and money > Stockholm syndrome sold in religion.

(for me tho helping people without fear of divine punishment or promise of reward > Sex an money)

 

[edwest2]

As opposed to loving a giant man in the sky who loves us so much that unless we love him back he will torture us forever in hell.

Sex and money > Stockholm syndrome sold in religion.

(for me tho helping people without fear of divine punishment or promise of reward > Sex an money)

You can believe God did not make us or cares about us or simply wants to punish us. You have free well. Just remember, we will all face Him after we die. All I can do is tell people the truth.

Ed

 

[chrisb]

As opposed to loving a giant man in the sky who loves us so much that unless we love him back he will torture us forever in hell.

Sex and money > Stockholm syndrome sold in religion.

(for me tho helping people without fear of divine punishment or promise of reward > Sex an money)

You seem to posit a straw-man with your statement that the Catholic Faith teaches that God is (A: a giant man in the sky) such anthropomorphism is NOT in our teaching and (B: unless we love him back he will torture us forever in hell.) a critical point you overlook in your claim is that God is not present in hell and thus can’t be the one who tortures.

Whither Hell is the ultimate absence of God and thus an absence of life itself or the abandonment of the soul from God’s presence and thus torture for His creatures who find existence within Him is a more fruitful debate than this one. On the face of it your argument holds little merit.

 

[Birdpreacher]

You seem to posit a straw-man with your statement that the Catholic Faith teaches that God is (A: a giant man in the sky) such anthropomorphism is NOT in our teaching and (B: unless we love him back he will torture us forever in hell.) a critical point you overlook in your claim is that God is not present in hell and thus can’t be the one who tortures.

A. Are we (Men) Not made in God’s Image? So how else is GOd supposed to look? I use man- the term- in this way, but for clarity’s sake we can use the term. Being who looks like a man yet is not a man. Honestly the terminology is of little importance for me.

B. You can be not present for an act yet still be responsible for the act. Hitler was not present at Auschwitz for each and every murder yet we hold him responsible for creating a system that slaughtered millions of people. Similarly, the Christian depiction of a God is one who constructs a system where those who will not love him/follow his peculiar commandments end up tortured for eternity.

 

[Rau]

?..
Nowhere in the Old Testament does God say that polygamy is immoral. Not only did Abraham have two wives, but Jacob had two wives (Rachel and Leah), Samuel’s father Elkanah had two wives (Hannah and Peninnah). Gideon, according to Judges 8:29-32, “had seventy sons, his own offspring,for he had many wives. And his concubine who was in Shechem also bore him a son, and he called his name Abimelech”. Considering that these were men with whom God talked, wouldn’t it have been very easy for God to say, for example, “Gideon, you should only have one wife.”

I don’t believe much can be concluded about morality by noting what went on in Old Testament times. God was in the process of drawing a people together and teaching them how to live better. He did not drop the totality of that on them at once, but progressively. That the people were not living perfect lives would seem obvious, from the fact that God found a need to draw them to him, reaching a crescendo in the life, death and resurrection of Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

I will be happy to do so once you answer my question about how idolatry violates natural law, without direct reference to Judeo-Christian law.

Actually, tomberg, I asked my questions first.

The way it works is that the person who asks the question first deserves a response first.

 

[cena]

Most historians believe that Abraham lived during the 2nd millennium BCE and there were plenty of people then. It would not have been necessary for anyone to practice incest. According to the US Census Bureau, between 2000 BC and 1000 BC there was between 27 and 50 million people on earth.

census.gov/population/international/data/worldpop/table_history.php

Nowhere in the Old Testament does God say that polygamy is immoral. Not only did Abraham have two wives, but Jacob had two wives (Rachel and Leah), Samuel’s father Elkanah had two wives (Hannah and Peninnah). Gideon, according to Judges 8:29-32, “had seventy sons, his own offspring,for he had many wives. And his concubine who was in Shechem also bore him a son, and he called his name Abimelech”. Considering that these were men with whom God talked, wouldn’t it have been very easy for God to say, for example, “Gideon, you should only have one wife.”

If getting a divorce and remarrying is not real marriage, it’s adultery and wrong (because you have to say with the the first wife and the second one isn’t a real wife) then why would polygamy be okay?

I am confused as to what this has to do with homosexual actions. Unlike polygamy (which is obviously wrong) it is condemned and even after the dietary laws were changed it was still condemned by St. Paul.

Leviticus 18
6 - No man shall approach to her that is near of kin to him, to uncover her nakedness. I am the Lord.
7 - Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother: she is thy mother, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
8 - Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s wife: for it is the nakedness of thy father.
9 - Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy sister by father or by mother, whether born at home or abroad.
10 - Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or thy daughter’s daughter: because it is thy own nakedness.
11 - 11Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, whom she bore to thy father, and who is thy sister.
12 - Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s sister: because she is the flesh of thy father.
13 - Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister: because she is thy mother’s flesh.
14 - Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother: neither shalt thou approach to his wife, who is joined to thee by affinity.
15 - Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: because she is thy son’s wife, neither shalt thou discover her shame.
16 - Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: because it is the nakedness of thy brother.
17 - Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy wife and her daughter. Thou shalt not take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter, to discover her shame: because they are her flesh, and such copulation is incest.
18 - Thou shalt not take thy wife’s sister for a harlot, to rival her, neither shalt thou discover her nakedness, while she is yet living.

God speaking to Moses condemning incest.

 

[PRmerger]

Which religion is that?

Also,** tomberg**, this question was also not answered. Could you please answer what religion you were referring to?

That was post #531.

You posed your question in post #539.

That means that common courtesy dictates that you answer 531 before I answer 539.

(Incidentally, this is a moot point, because I have already answered 539. Twice. You will note I NEVER mentioned God, or religion in my apologia against idolatry. Not even once.)

 

[chrisb]

A. Are we (Men) Not made in God’s Image? So how else is GOd supposed to look? I use man- the term- in this way, but for clarity’s sake we can use the term. Being who looks like a man yet is not a man. Honestly the terminology is of little importance for me.

So you take being made in God’s Image as literal an affirmation to God’s materiality? From what we know of God why would you assume this?

B. You can be not present for an act yet still be responsible for the act. Hitler was not present at Auschwitz for each and every murder yet we hold him responsible for creating a system that slaughtered millions of people. Similarly, the Christian depiction of a God is one who constructs a system where those who will not love him/follow his peculiar commandments end up tortured for eternity.

Correlation doesn’t not imply causation. You are conflating indirect and direct causation.

‘If’ God gave man free-will to rise above his animal impulses and achieve union with the divine Godhead and life itself through that union into immortality and life eternal, who are you to condemn it? Because this divine way is ignored or passed over by many for more temporary pursuits should not condemn the giver of such a gift. As one who progresses agnosticism and I’m guessing a denial of anything more than the material realm. How can you see this as anything but a gift for those who transcend the limits of their mortality?

God simply opens himself up to His creation and thus opening up creation to union with what is life itself. We find immortality through participation with what is immortal and nothing else. We bind ourselves through our own acts to what is life-giving or to what is ultimately life-taking.

You have a very childish understanding of the Christian Faith. I can understand why you are agnostic and so antagonistic.