Well, it is not really for me to say, unless one is a homosexual, and has been put into such a situation of falling in love with another of the same sex, then really, we have no right or authority to pass judgement or opinion on homosexual relationships. I could not determine whether “gay love” as some may say, is a counterfeit love.
This accurately states the position of relativism – morality determined by one’s own subjective experience.
That depends, there is no practical reason that prevents one incorporating relativism with conventional morality. We do learn from our experiences, and if we chose simply to ignore them on the grounds that they are not fully compatible with our conventional and established moral beliefs, then we may very well hinder our own development.
Do you believe in absolutes? That some things are intrinsically evil, or intrinsically good, in and of themselves? Does natural law speak of what is always right and wrong? Is God an absolute Being?
We don’t need to pass judgement or opinion on homosexual relationships, because God already did. Read the bible?
Yup, and it is notable that God did not discuss homosexual unions. Ultimately this bears no relevance, as the topic is about sources that are not theological.
Absolutes as in “you’re either with me or against me” in that case no, I would probably say that in the majority of cases I do not believe in absolutes, however there shall be some instances where I do.
No, I said the Canadian government changed the legal definition. They do not have the power to change the meaning of the word itself, only the technical application of it within Canadian law. Thus my subsequent reference to “legal manoevers.”but you just said that the Canadians changed the definition.
No, my objection is to attempts to legitimize and normalize homosexual relationships and put them on the same social and moral footing as heterosexual relationships.
Now plug God into your equation and see if “you’re either with me or against me”.
I believe that God is me, there would be no me without God, he is living through me, I am a small part of God, we all are, we are all his children.
Yup, God did not leave this topic up for discussion as you correctly infer. He did however, strongly condemn such illicit unions based on homogenital acts.
Scripture referring to homosexuality is something that I always find interesting, God seemed to take such an anti homosexuality stance in the Old Testament (this is clearly undeniable) yet when we look at the New Testament, God in the form of Jesus does not discuss the matter at all, for the supposed saviour of our terrible immoral ways, I would have expected Jesus to take a far more active stance against homosexuality, bearing in mind that it is possibly considered now to be one of the most immoral things on earth, or “the most heinous crime”. This always strikes me as fascinating, the lack of discussion of homosexuality in the NT (except for Paul).
God is immutable and absolute. He is not dependent upon us poor and pathetic creatures for His unchanging identity. The only thing that changes over time is either man arrives at a clearer understanding and relationship with God or not. The Church is there to faciliate this (proclaim and teach the truth that leads to salvation) and recognizes that not all are with God – how can you “be with” a god" that is a fabrication of one’s own misconstrued/ill conceived beliefs/view?
But what if this clearer understanding of what God is, and therefore a better relationship with God involves us realising that our current interpretation of God and the message he gave us is not correct?
So as not to stray too far off topic, I will not quote the paragraphs, but see the CCC #552, 891 and 61 regarding the deposit of faith that Christ has entrusted with the Church to preserve, teach and protect against.
Will do, but dont expect a quick reply, my catechism is really hard to navigate through, but I suppose that is what you get when you go cheap
Not a myth, and it hasn’t been fully fixed… The government changed the “standard deductions” but still has disparate tax rates. The" marriage penalty" is alive and well. The only difference is where it kicks in. Fact is a single person making $60K+ pays less Federal Income tax than a married person filing separately. And the more they make, the less the single person pays raltive to the married filing sep.
I concur. And I can’t think of a reason not to apply these “stabilizing factors” to homosexuals.
Hhhmmm …let me assist you: scborromeo.org/ccc.htmWill do, but dont expect a quick reply, my catechism is really hard to navigate through, but I suppose that is what you get when you go cheap
Yeah I knew what you were trying to imply by putting legal in quotes
Not to quibble but they probably just call it plain old “marriage” and do not differentiate between gay and straight varieties.